Aussies warned over 'prohibited' household threat choking rivers: '$2,000 fines'
Residents are being warned a "prohibited plant" has been found choking an important ecological waterway in northern NSW, and have been reminded of the risk of dumping unwanted household plants.
Officials from Rous County Council, which manages the water supply and weed biosecurity of the Northern Rivers region, fear a recent infestation found near Banora Point was caused by the improper disposal of frogbit, a floating aquatic plant spread by the natural flow of water.
While the weed can be bought in some Aussie states, including in Queensland just a few kilometres away, it is illegal to buy, sell, trade or move it into NSW, with on-the-spot fines as high as $2,000 for doing so.
"We understand that NSW residents may have purchased frogbit not realising it is classified as prohibited matter," a Rous County spokesperson told Yahoo News.
"If NSW residents are in possession of frogbit, we encourage them to notify the Rous Weed Biosecurity Team, who will dispose of it properly for you."
Native to Central and South America, frogbit is a fast-growing, floating aquatic plant. Its leaves float on the surface of the water, forming thick mats across freshwater systems. In doing so, the plant can obstruct sunlight and water, and severely impact native aquatic life and block waterways, stormwater drains and irrigation channels.
Illegal dumping of aquarium or pond plants is the main cause of its spread in ecosystems across the country.
"Preliminary investigations suggest the recent infestation may have resulted from the improper disposal of unwanted frogbit into the waterway," the spokesperson explained.
While the source of the outbreak remains a mystery, it serves as an "important reminder" not to dispose of household plants in waterways, including creeks, dams, wetlands or stormwater drains.
"As soon as Rous was alerted to the infestation, our Weed Biosecurity Officers took immediate action to contain it," the authority said.
"While it may still be sold legally in some other states, it must not be brought across the border into NSW. Selling frogbit online or in person in NSW is an offence and may lead to penalties."
Under the Biosecurity Act 2015, deliberate disposal of a prohibited matter may incur an on-the-spot fine of $2000.
🌵 Biosecurity threat 'hiding in plain sight' prompts reminder to Aussies
🌱 Quiet shift taking place in Aussie gardens creates 'really exciting' trend
🧑🌾 Property owners sound alarm over deadly threat invading landscape
In Queensland and Victoria the plant is not prohibited like it is in New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia, the ACT, NT and Tasmania. However, the Queensland government advises all residents have a "general biosecurity obligation" to take reasonable and practical steps to minimise the risks.
The Invasive Species Council has previously called on authorities around the country to ban weeds like frogbit, as well as English Ivy and gazanias.
Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@yahoonews.com.
You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
'We got our stolen car back ourselves because police are too stretched to help'
A couple who "stole back" their car after it was taken by thieves have said they have "huge sympathy" for overstretched police. Mia Forbes Pirie, 48, and her husband Mark Simpson, 62, had their Jaguar stolen from outside their home in Brook Green, west London. An AirTag locator placed in their car last pinged on their road early last Wednesday morning, but after they noticed it was gone it later updated to a location about three miles away in Chiswick. Their Jaguar E-Pace was fitted with a ghost immobiliser - which requires a pin code - meaning they believe their vehicle was moved using a flat bed truck. They called police, who said they would send a patrol car to the location in Chiswick, but the couple didn't know how long that would take so decided to go themselves as it was only a nine-minute drive. They found the car on a back street, and the thieves had ripped out its interior and carpets in an effort to access its wiring so they could drive it. Pirie, a mediator, and Simpson, a barrister, had installed the extra security on their car after having a previous vehicle stolen. Pirie posted an image of the recovered vehicle on LinkedIn and said: "I have to confess... it was kind of fun stealing back our own car." She told Yahoo News on Monday she was "excited" to find the car as she had worried the AirTag on a keyring had been found by the thieves and discarded. Asked about retrieving the vehicle themselves, she said: "People seem to think it's fun or brave. I don't really think it's brave." She said the Metropolitan Police did not refuse to help but "were just a bit slow and we didn't know how long it would take". Asked about the response from the force, she said: "Given how stretched they are. I think it was okay. They were nice and polite. Obviously, in an ideal world they would have acted quicker. "But we both have huge sympathy with how stretched the police are on such low resources. We realise that they have to focus their limited resources on more serious crimes. "Obviously, there are really difficult decisions they have to make as to how they use the limited resources they have. I think on the whole they do a good job with very restricted resources." Pirie said the force told her they will send officers to their home on Tuesday to investigate further. Yahoo News has approached the Metropolitan Police for comment. The RAC advises that owners should always double check their car is actually locked even after using the key fob. This is because some thieves use signal jammers to intercept the signal between the fob and the car, leaving it unlocked, meaning a quick check of the doors is useful. A key fob box in the home, in which the keys are placed, will also deter a "relay attack", where criminals use a device to transfer a signal to a second box placed alongside the car, tricking the vehicle into perceiving the key to be there and unlocking it. But the signal cannot pass through metal, so placing the keys inside a fob box or a signal blocking wallet will stop the thieves. The RAC says motorists should park in well-lit areas that are covered by CCTV and should not display any belongings in the vehicle. It says most modern vehicles come with an immobiliser but that these should be fitted to older cars. Almost four out of five car thefts are unsolved, according to Home Office data published by the Liberal Democrats at the beginning of this year. It found that 24,837 car thefts in the three months up to June 2024 did not result in criminals being brought to justice. The area with the worst record was London, with the Metropolitan Police saying that 90% of all reported car thefts went unsolved, followed by South Yorkshire with 85%. Across England and Wales, only 2.8% of car theft cases result in someone being charged or summonsed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Note on roadside tree highlights 'brazen' act plaguing Aussie suburbs
A handwritten note attached to a tree on the side of a suburban road has exposed a strange and frustrating crime wave sweeping the country. Perth resident Jasmine told Yahoo News that her block of townhouses in the city's northwest has experienced multiple incidents of plant thefts over the past few years. The block of five homes resorted to attaching the letter pleading with thieves after a garden bed of expensive native plants on the verge was ripped out. "Last year, we noticed the plants were going missing and being damaged," she told Yahoo News. Eventually, there was only one kagraoo paw plant left, and everything else had been taken. On a local community group, multiple residents reported their plants being dug up and taken from their front gardens, with Jasmine describing the act as "so brazen". "It's been going on for years," she said, describing the situation as a "scandal". Recently, the group of residents decided to pay out of their own pockets to replant the verge with more native plants. "Less than 24 hours after planting them, they'd been hit again," she said. It prompted a desperate move from one of Jasmine's neighbours to affix a note to a nearby tree pleading with the callous thieves. "Please don't steal our plants," the note reads. It's not the first time that a resident has been left respondent by the shocking act. Yahoo News has reported on multiple cases of plant thefts across the country in what appears to be a growing trend. Andy Luke, from the Adelaide suburb of Eden Hills recently hit out at the "despicable" act after his property was targeted twice in the last three weeks — with the brazen act caught on home security camera. He suspects that the plants are being resold. "I think someone is either taking them and selling them, or they're dodgy landscapers and someone had an order for English hedges and they decided to come and take them," he said. Last August, a student in Sydney's west was left "devastated" when she found dug-out holes where she once lovingly planted $300 worth of plants outside her home. Remarkably, another Adelaide resident was able to track down the thief who took their plants by hiding Apple Airtags in the soil of the plants. 🪴 Homeowners warned after 'despicable' late-night garden act in quiet suburb 🕵️♀️ Thief who stole Aussie's pot plants found with surprise device 😤 Homeowner's drastic move after 'low-life' act in Aussie suburb Because plant theft is recorded simply as a theft for WA Police, officers are unable to ascertain exactly how many cases there were relating to plants stolen from homes. However, a spokesperson for the force told Yahoo that anyone who sees anything suspicious should report the theft. "We suggest anyone who sees any suspicious activity, persons or vehicles in their area, to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or online. We also suggest that people report the theft to police via 131 444 or online via the WA Police Force website." Meanwhile, a spokesperson from the City of Stirling, where the most recent thefts took place, told Yahoo News council was aware of similar incidents several years ago but has not been made aware of recent cases. "While theft of property should first and foremost be directed to WA Police, residents may request that the City undertake a security patrol to investigate suspicious activity or behaviours," the spokesperson told Yahoo News. Council said it plants around 7,000 new trees each year on street verges, in reserves and in natural areas throughout the council area. "Pruning, damaging, poisoning or removing a City street tree without prior approval is considered vandalism and penalties apply. "Tree vandalism is incredibly frustrating for the City and residents who put a lot of value on trees and the native wildlife they support. "Apart from the impacts tree vandalism has on the natural environment and the amenity of local areas, it is also a significant financial burden. A lot of time and money goes into the success of trees, from sourcing them to caring for them throughout their lifetime." Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@ You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Can you really separate the art from the artist? Science says you can't, but a new poll suggests the answer is complicated.
Sean 'Diddy' Combs was once one of the biggest names in American pop culture. For a time, his presence was almost inescapable. Not only did he have several hits of his own, under his former stage name Puff Daddy, but his record label, Bad Boy Entertainment, produced some of the iconic hip-hop albums of the 1990s and 2000s. He also founded a TV network, launched a successful clothing company, became the face of a popular liquor brand and threw parties that some of the world's biggest celebrities rearranged their calendars to attend. Today, though, his public persona has been overwhelmed by allegations of how he has conducted his private life. Combs is currently standing trial in Manhattan on five criminal counts, including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. Federal prosecutors have accused him of carrying out an extended campaign of abuse against women that included coercing them to participate in marathon sex parties, while using threats of violence and the power of his business empire to cover up his misdeeds. If convicted, he could end up spending the rest of his life in prison. Combs is far from the first celebrity to face allegations of horrific personal conduct. Whenever such claims arise, they force us to reconsider a beloved artist's work in light of their alleged behavior. Just how much do charges of misconduct affect how people view an artist's creative output? Can we really 'separate the art from the artist,' or does one's personal behavior inevitably tarnish their creative legacy? These questions have existed for a long time. Some of history's greatest artists have been accused of doing truly awful things. But the debate has become more pointed in recent years, in the wake of the #MeToo movement and the backlash against cancel culture. Combs's case shows how complicated these situations can be. When the allegations against him first came to light, streaming numbers for his music plummeted, but they actually increased in the wake of his arrest. A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll offers a glimpse into how Americans make sense of celebrities' behavior and how it influences their entertainment decisions. Rather than providing a definitive picture, the survey of 1,560 adults shows just how complicated these considerations can be and how divided we are in how we respond when the artists we love are accused of conduct we abhor. In the survey, which was conducted May 22-27, an overwhelming majority of people said that an artist's personal behavior can influence their choice of whether to watch their movies, listen to their music or otherwise engage with their art. That doesn't mean that they write off the work of any celebrity who faces allegations of misconduct, though. For most people, the specific circumstances are what matter. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said their choices depend on the artist and what they're accused of. Only 21% said that they will automatically abandon artists who do things they don't approve of 'because you can't separate the artist from the art.' Just 12% believe an artist's personal behavior doesn't matter at all 'because the art and the artist are separate things.' While it's clear that an artist's actions inform how most people view their work, that doesn't necessarily mean they will avoid it entirely if they disapprove of their behavior. Less than half of respondents (47%) said they have personally stopped consuming at least one artist's work because of things they have done. Nearly the same number (45%) said they have not. The nature of allegations matters as well. Sexual assault involving children was unsurprisingly the top reason respondents listed for why they stopped consuming an artist's work. Extreme political views, sexual assault involving adults, racism and domestic violence also ranked high on the list of 'cancelable' offenses. While all of these various factors appear to matter to some degree, it's not clear which one carries the most weight when it comes to specific artists. For example, sexual assault against children is viewed as the most egregious offense, but just 11% of people in the survey said they had stopped listening to music from Michael Jackson — who was accused of molesting multiple children during his lifetime. Three times as many people (33%) said they had stopped consuming R. Kelly's work in light of a string of sexual abuse claims involving minors that he has faced. Recency, familiarity, age and politics play a role here too. When given a list of celebrities who have faced high-profile allegations of wrongdoing, more respondents said they had stopped consuming Combs's art than any of the other options, possibly because reminders of those accusations are all over the news right now. Generational differences showed up in the results as well. Americans over 65 were more forgiving across every type of allegation — with the exception of drug use or excessive drinking, which they viewed as disqualifying at a higher rate than any other age group. Older people were also more likely to say they had stopped consuming work from Bill Cosby, who was a massive star in their generation before being accused of sexual assault by dozens of women. Despite Gen Z's purported reputation for hypersensitivity, younger people were either equally likely or less likely than millennials or Gen X-ers to say that they would stop consuming an artist's work across all different types of allegations — including anti-LGBTQ statements and sexism. At first glance, politics doesn't seem to be that big of a factor, but its influence really starts to show when you zoom in a bit. Democrats, Republicans and independents were equally likely to say they had abandoned an artist because of their behavior. Which artists and the kind of behavior varies dramatically, though. Just 5% of Republicans said that anti-LGBTQ statements had caused them to stop consuming an artist's work, compared with 34% of Democrats. GOP voters were also less likely to cite racism, sexism, domestic violence and sexual assault involving adults as reasons to give up an artist. The same is true when it comes to most individual artists, with particularly large gaps for celebrities who have expressly aligned themselves with President Trump. For example, seven times as many Democrats (30%) as Republicans (4%) said that they have stopped watching films starring Mel Gibson, who has faced various accusations of making antisemitic and racist comments statements over the years and whom Trump named as a 'special ambassador' to Hollywood in the early days of his second term. Researchers have been studying whether humans can separate art from artists for decades. For the most part, they have found that we can't. Studies consistently show that our moral judgments on individuals influence how we view things that are associated with them. Part of that is the result of high-level thinking, where we carefully weigh our appreciation of the art against our distaste for the artist's actions. But the process also happens at a more visceral, unconscious level. In one famous experiment from the 1990s, most test subjects refused to put on a sweater after being told to imagine that it belonged to Adolf Hitler, under the illogical belief that they would somehow be contaminated by his evil if they did. 'If a person does something that I find to be really repugnant, morally speaking, then I will have an unconscious sense that close, intimate contact with things they've created may affect or corrupt me in some vague, hard to specify manner,' James Harold, a professor of philosophy at Mount Holyoke College and the author of the book Dangerous Art, told Yahoo News. Thanks to technological advances, we can now see this process at work on a biological level. Researchers in Germany recently found that people instinctively viewed classical paintings as lower in quality when they were told about bad things the artists had done in their lives. 'These artworks are processed differently at the neural level. ... This shift in brain activity happens very quickly, during the early stages of perception and emotional processing,' Hannah Kaube, a doctoral candidate at the Humboldt University of Berlin who helped lead the study, told Yahoo News. 'This suggests that the effect is not just conscious, but occurs spontaneously and automatically.' Brain scans showed that the unflattering information caused an instant emotional change in the subjects, reflecting that they now viewed the work more negatively. Interestingly, though, those same scans found that work by 'bad' artists was also more arousing. Brain activity that's typically associated with more thoughtful, deliberate thinking was not triggered by the information. 'People may not even realize their feelings about the artwork are being shaped by what they know about the artist — but their brain shows that it is,' Kaube said. So if nearly all of us carry our judgments of an artist's behavior with us when we consume their art, why are some people able to still enjoy it while others feel obligated to give it up? 'The concept of 'separating art from the artist' can be considered along two interconnected dimensions: whether people should separate the two (an ethical question), and whether they actually do (a psychological one),' said Kaube, who only focuses on the second dimension in her research. Some of the explanations are straightforward. It's a lot easier to shun an artist if you're not a fan of their work in the first place or if you're of an age where they weren't really a big star to your generation. It's probably not a big ask for the average 20-year-old to stop watching Woody Allen movies over his adopted daughter's claim that he sexually abused her, for example. There's also the fact that a lot of people simply don't believe that the allegations against a celebrity are true or don't think that what they're accused of is that big of a deal. Some celebrities have very successfully turned public opinion in their favor after being targeted with allegations of misconduct. Our reactions are also a reflection of how we see ourselves, Harold argues. 'Much of the separating the art from the artist is expressive behavior,' he said. 'It has to do with a person's self-conception, who they think they are. ... We associate art as expressing something about the humanity of the person who made it, and so then you don't want to be affiliated with that human being.' External factors can also play a big role. Shared fandom can be a potent source of community in the digital age. So when allegations come out, fan groups often process the news collectively, which can influence any individual member's decisions. 'Refusing to engage with the work of somebody who you recently learned has done something bad can be a way of expressing your concern for other members of the group,' Harold said. Those dynamics can work in the other direction too, pushing members to keep engaging with a maligned artist in order to avoid losing a community they care about. Institutions can also influence our responses. When a museum, studio or entertainment venue announces that they will no longer work with a certain artist, that sends a broad message that their actions are disqualifying. If that doesn't happen, it can create the implication that the artist's behavior might not be so bad. One of the nation's most powerful institutions, the legal system, still hasn't registered its final judgment on Combs, which could prove to be the most important factor in how the public ultimately views his music. The accusations have already affected his standing. Nearly half of the respondents in our poll (47%) said the allegations had changed the way they view him as an artist. In the end, though, it's reasonable to expect that a guilty verdict would cause even more people to question whether his songs really deserve a spot on their playlists.
