Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on February 17, 2012 at 8:41pm

I urge everyone on here who has ever so much as enjoyed the smell of a steak on the barbie and who may never have commented on anyting and may never comment ever again to at least comment on this.

It is important.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ruth Bonnett on February 18, 2012 at 5:30am

Hello Joanne,

Thank you for raising this important issue.  I will be campaigning on environmental issues, and the impact of the urban vote on the bush.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Howard on February 18, 2012 at 5:52am

In that (it seems to me)  these individuals meet the requirements to fit the classification of:

Class 2 declared pest animals

• are established in Queensland
• seriously threaten Queensland's primary industries, natural environment, native wildlife, and human and animal welfare
• must be controlled by landowners on their property
• must not be introduced, kept, fed or released without a permit; penalties of up to $40,000 apply
• include 12 animals ( http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/4790_8293.htm ).

It would appear that what ever course we take, we are about to be over run by these ferals, with the blessing of Government, Media, Hypocritical multi-nationals and the likes of McDonalds and our own alleged producer organisations.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josephine Heading on February 18, 2012 at 6:47am

Very well written Joanne...  Good for you.  As per usual - 'follow the money trail'

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Macrae Yeates on February 18, 2012 at 8:15am

We have just returned from the butcher with bacon, chops and I don't know what else. It is my will that the farmers and graziers continue to provide our meat and wool and grain. WWF take your hooks out of the rural sector.

Cheers,

Ian

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on February 18, 2012 at 8:21am

Thank You Ruth and Josephine.

Tony I can't quite decide which animal we have here but at the moment I'm tending towatds plague locust.

Ian, I hope you thoroughly enjoy your chops and bacon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on February 18, 2012 at 8:30am

As sediment from rivers enters the sea on the Queensland coast it then moves north and is deposited just past the first obstruction or headland and therefore on the southern end of some beaches. (Notice the sand flies) Some small reefs close to shore can be affected by sediment but negligible amounts of sediment get to the Great Barrier Reef. To say the GBR is under threat is a furphy as stated above:-

"An early task force reviewing damage to the Great Barrier Reef wanted to say that the reef was in good shape. However they bowed to the protests of the WWF representative and highlighted the small areas that appeared slightly damaged. WWF have claimed ever since that farming and grazing are damaging the reef in spite of lack of research and knowledge that urban centres are actually causing more alleged pollution."

As also stated any pollution or chemical residue runoff is greater from cities like Rockhampton than any inland farming activity. Farmers control the amount of fertilizers they apply so that it is all taken up by the plants and to save costs. How then does the average city dwelling householder measure his lawn fertilizer applications? By the handful?

Prior to the settlement and development to grass pastures of the Brigalow areas in Central Queensland there was more sediment runoff from the stands of native Brigalow trees (less ground cover) than there is now days from pasture. Go figure WWF 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:01am

Also ridiculous is the Reef Protection Plan that requires graziers as far inland and away from the coast (by river) at Alpha and Jericho to subscribe to some strict controls and submit a plan for approval. This area comprises natural, native forest country with native grasses and some development of smaller Brigalow stands to improved grasses. There is no agriculture/farming for crops in this area, so no farming chemicals at all, and the only soil disturbance may be for regrowth control. Also overlooked is the effectiveness of the "big silt trap" on the Burdekin River.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on February 18, 2012 at 9:09am

I can see why the CCA and MLA may have justified their involvement on the basis of that "if you can't beat them - join them". We all know that arguments on the basis of facts and science are not going to change the minds of the "green movement" as we are dealing with a belief, religion or cult, that has nothing to do with facts but feeds on perceptions alone. By being involved in a joint process, CCA and MLA may believe that the industry is seen to be "responsible" about their intentions and co-operative so that some of the heat may go away. The risk of course is that, like so many other joint projects and even Landcare, that was producer initiated, the whole process becomes hi jacked by the "Cult". Maybe if we can convince the "cult" that doomsday is nigh they may all drink from the one chalice and we can move forward and produce food for a starving world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Howard on February 18, 2012 at 9:19am

It does't really matter which we equate them to, the obligation on the landowner to control them is in legislation.The manner of the control technique is all that is in question for me. It would appear that reasoned debate and scientific fact are not effective controls.

For some reason I am feeling less than charatible towards those who would destroy our industry, lifestyle and income, of late.
 
Joanne Rea said:

Thank You Ruth and Josephine.

Tony I can't quite decide which animal we have here but at the moment I'm tending towatds plague locust.

Ian, I hope you thoroughly enjoy your chops and bacon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on February 18, 2012 at 9:33am

The Environmental Risk Management Plans you refer to Greg are unnecessary and unnecessarily slander the reputations of livestock owners and farmers.

Why do we fall for this again and again.

Livestock owners as far West as Alpha/Jericho were told at the beginning of the ERMP process that they were losing 30t of soil per hectare per year. The rainfall to acheive this was huge and this is a semi arid area. The calculations were later corrected but the damage was done.

It seems to be a recurring tactic to come up with huge, unrealistic figures, give it publicity and then retract.

Of course the retraction barely raises a whimper.

Here are some links from Dr. Jennifer Marohasy and Dr. Walter Stark who are both credible non-alarmist commentators on the reef. It is not in bad shape but "good shape"
 does not elicit government funding nor donations.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Review55-1De...

 

http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/547/wwf-says-'jump!'-governments...

 

http://www.goldendolphin.com/

 

Greg Blackmore said:

Also ridiculous is the Reef Protection Plan that requires graziers as far inland and away from the coast (by river) at Alpha and Jericho to subscribe to some strict controls and submit a plan for approval. This area comprises natural, native forest country with native grasses and some development of smaller Brigalow stands to improved grasses. There is no agriculture/farming for crops in this area, so no farming chemicals at all, and the only soil disturbance may be for regrowth control. Also overlooked is the effectiveness of the "big silt trap" on the Burdekin River.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on February 18, 2012 at 9:59am

Greg

I am not the least bit understanding of the betrayal by CCA and MLA. If they were truly representing their shareholders and not stakeholders there are steps they should have been taking and spending some of their $170m budget on.

They should have been aware of the pain inflicted on our industry by WWF, much of it based on believable
 lies.

We are not a third world country.

The programme for Ausgraze is not even fully developed so it will be a moving feast. In other words something we cannot critique.

MLA is supposed to work according to stock exchance rules with primary concern for its shareholders.

None of the other companies in which I own shares in treats me like this.

If MLA whose charter we are told is "research and marketing" was doing its job it would have made somethimg of the errors in "Livestock's Long Shadow"

It would have pointed out the many aspects which do not apply to Australia.

It could even have said we deserved credit for avoided deforestation and pastureland.

It could have told the multinational companies who are succumbing to the blackmail of the green groups that Queensland producers have been persued and demonised by WWF.

And there is so much more.

Greg Blackmore said:

I can see why the CCA and MLA may have justified their involvement on the basis of that "if you can't beat them - join them". We all know that arguments on the basis of facts and science are not going to change the minds of the "green movement" as we are dealing with a belief, religion or cult, that has nothing to do with facts but feeds on perceptions alone. By being involved in a joint process, CCA and MLA may believe that the industry is seen to be "responsible" about their intentions and co-operative so that some of the heat may go away. The risk of course is that, like so many other joint projects and even Landcare, that was producer initiated, the whole process becomes hi jacked by the "Cult". Maybe if we can convince the "cult" that doomsday is nigh they may all drink from the one chalice and we can move forward and produce food for a starving world.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 34
• Next ›
• Page