Commenting on the stories: Park lands soccer club won’t get a fenced pitch after council rejects bid and Premier weighs in on Comets’ park lands fence fiasco

Does Councillor Snape understand the concept of a fence that is not locked and is accessible to all when a game is not in progress? No matter if the land is public or private, if a game is in progress, you can’t get on to the pitch.

Seems that commonsense is not a prerequisite to be elected to council. – Niki Charalambous

This is a crazy decision from Adelaide City Council.

This reminded me of what went on when Sturt Football Club wanted to build a fence around Unley Oval. There was 10 years of hand-wringing from the council. If the fence went up the sky would fall in, life as we know it would be over, people would be too stupid to walk through open gates (which only close during games).

Eventually, the fence was installed. The sky didn’t fall in. Life went on. Residents demonstrated they are quite capable of walking through an open gate. The football club is thriving, young people are playing sport and the residents have use of the public space. It’s win-win all round. – Anna O’Connor

Commenting on the story: Staff raise alarm over South Australian university merger workload

The “unsustainable workload” should come as no surprise when curricula have to be completely re-written, while at the same time academic staff must also continue to teach existing courses to already-enrolled students.

Will recognition be given to the staff who undertake this? No-one knows, but what is clear that academic staff time spent on this additional activity will not be available for other scholarly activities, including conducting research, writing papers and research grants, etc.

This redirection of staff time is certainly not going to support the ranking of the merged university on international scales, which is almost entirely based on the activity of academic staff, and undergraduate and postgraduate performance (rather than on the diktats of University Councils). – Timothy Miles

Commenting on the Book review: To the River

I’m a bit surprised author Vikki Wakefield uses an example of “environmental damage and selfish behaviour of tourists” with an example of “carp rotting on the riverbanks” of the Murray.

The environmental damage has been done by earlier generations who unwisely introduced this noxious species to our waterways, and the more of these fish that are caught and removed the better, but the problem is massive.

Is the author aware that if you are angling for native species like redfin or perch and you catch European carp, it is illegal to return them to the water? What are the alternatives for fisherfolk? If there are no public waste containers nearby – where they would decompose and cause other health issues – is it not the best solution to leave them in an environment where nutrients will return to the soil?

Damned if you do or you don’t, but it’s unfair to cite ‘selfish tourists’ as the problem when they are helping to reduce numbers of this invasive pest species. I’d recommend a bit more research before pointing the finger.

That being said, the story sounds like a fascinating scenario and I wish the author success, we need more homegrown tales like this. – Kieran Weir