Just Grounds Community

Real People - facing the forgotten issues with friendship and a little fun.

Prosecuted for managing an invasive woody weed

This last week a landowner, Trent Hindman, from Wyandra in Qld was fined $110,000 plus court costs not for broadacre clearing but for selectively removing an invasive woody weed called turkey bush. Trent’s aim was to by mechanical means return the land to its natural state of semi-open grassland. Left alone the land would have remained a near complete loss of to any productive values and in a sub-standard state if measured in terms of fauna & flora bio-diversity.

To gain a good background of the situation that Trent finds himself in, please take the time to follow this link to an article at the online site Beef Central –Cattleman to appeal $110,000 clearing fine [click here]

Below is a media release from Property Rights Australia and following that a youtube made by Trent Hindman that helps you understand the prior state of the landscape and reasons why Trent believed he needed to manage the land via mechanical intervention.

Media Release

9^th December 2011

Chairman of Property Rights Australia, Joanne Rea has claimed that the recent fine of $110,000 plus costs imposed on South West landowner Trent Hindman for renovating country degraded by Turkey Bush (Eremophila Gilesii) so that the native grasses could be allowed to regrow shows the unacceptable activism of some government officers.

Remarks in court by Andrew Franks of the Queensland herbarium that if native grasses were allowed to grow, livestock would be run on the country and livestock cause erosion, are extraordinary.

Under the law as it stands not only are livestock not illegal, but the growing of livestock is the very purpose for which leasehold land rental is paid to the State Government in Queensland by leaseholders including Mr. Hindman.

Much was also made of the fact that Mr. Hindman admitted that he had attempted to plant Buffel grass, a non-native grass which is excellent for preventing erosion but proved unsuitable for his area. Buffel grass is also not illegal in Queensland but leaseholders are being discriminated against for having this productive grass in their paddocks. This discrimination is unacceptable. To paraphrase one of the Justices in a previous Vegetation Management case “DERM (with apologies to the original author) may have said this but the parliament did not.”

According to Mr. Franks the clearing of native vegetation tends towards “landscape fragmentation, habitat loss, weed invasion, soil loss, loss of nutrient cycling increased greenhouse gases and a range of other effects.”

Property Rights Australia Chairman, Joanne Rea said that it is very important to understand that this very general list of Mr Franks was in fact evident before clearing because of land degradation caused by the invasive nature of Turkey Bush and many of these effects would have been vastly improved by Mr. Hindman’s treatment as can be seen from the pre-treatment photograph.

Mr. Hindman bought the property intending to return it as closely as possible to its pre-settlement state of semi-open grassland with predominately scattered box trees. As seen in this second photograph the area taken at the time of clearing and before the native grasses regenerated, the area in question was not broad-acre cleared but rather cleared very selectively to return it to a more natural state.

Joanne Rea said that it is of great concern to Property Rights Australia that DERM has taken the path of prosecution for clearing invasive species against the landowner Trent Hindman and that it has allowed some officers decision making to be influenced by unprofessional activism.

It must be remembered that the green Turkey Bush at Mr. Hindman’s property today was not part of the original landscape and has totally degraded the productive capacity of the affected land.

Property Rights Australia advocates that this degraded land be returned to its original pre-European floristic vegetation mix and tree density,if the landowner so desires .

UPDATE #1

NATIVE VEGETATION FIELD DAY: Trent Hindman will host a native vegetation field day at Alpha Station, 12km east of Wyandra on the Elimina Road, on March 14, from 10am-12pmfollowed by lunch. The field day will include a before and after paddock walk showing an area of turkey bush infestation followed by open grassy woodland. A stick raking demonstration will also be included on a thinning-permit area. A meeting of the Mulga Fighting Fund will follow in the Wyandra Hotel at 7pm.

Tags: DERM, PRA, bush, clearing, fines, property, rights, turkey, weed, woody

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on December 10, 2011 at 10:41am

Greenie extremist tree-huggers, weed-worshippers, gaia goddess cult-members and their friends in our government are getting totally out of control.

Permalink Reply by John Mikkelsen on December 10, 2011 at 10:53am

Sounds like a huge and needless travesty of justice which reinforces what I've said in another discussion about DERM and its motives.

Permalink Reply by Tony Howard on December 10, 2011 at 11:15am

Dale I posted this response in another discussion, after reading the link you put up to Beef Centrals article, but it is more appropriate to have it here in the PRA site discussion. What a reprehensible group of star gazers occupy the offices of DERM.

What an interesting and sad read that is Dale. The more I have to do with these government departments and the more intolerant of useless non- productive bludgers I become.

This statement is most distressing, and elicits great concern at the attitude and priorities espoused by these parasites : "In response to that point Mr Franks told the court that DERM was about protecting the environment whilst DEEDI was about production. He also told the Court that the land was better off being left in a woody shrub dominated and degraded state as the reintroduction of native grasses would encourage grazing, which caused soil erosion."

To make matters worse, the public servant sitting on the bench accepts this as reasonable. Heaven forbid that someone should want to be productive, and of course these intellictuals know that farmers are so stupid that they will let their pastures erode.GOD HELP US.

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on December 10, 2011 at 11:17am

The remarks by Andrew Franks "that if native grasses were allowed to grow, livestock would be run on the country" are incredible given the purpose of the lease. What is more incredible is that the Judges decision appears to be based on a lack of understanding and therefore taken alone on the face value of the apparently uneducated remarks of the Government (Herbarium) representative. The judge obviously took the view that assumes the government is always right. So why then did the Herbarium representative make no reference the governments corporate library of the large body of work done by previous Primary Industries Scientists on woody weed invasion. Could it be that this library has been shredded?

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on December 10, 2011 at 11:34am

When the official trancript is available online, PRA will either provide a link or attach the document to this discussion.

The judge didn't understand the issue of what was presented in court and there is plenty of room to move on in the appeal.

What is interesting is that DEEDI actually provided the court with its belief that what Trent did was an example of best practice management while at the same time DERM, or a least some officers of DERM, were going for the throat.

PRA will be sending out a media release possibly next week about the research done by those you work in DEEDI or the previous DPI about the management of turkey bush.

Greg you asked a good question; obviously Mr Franks ignored the previous research and allowed himself to be a vechile of activism beyond the letter of the law.

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on December 10, 2011 at 11:49am

Dale, This article (link below) on your PRA website by Dr Bill Burrows provides some of the information that was in the Corporate Library of the State Government.

Link to Some of the Library of Knowledge

It is a widely held belief that some of Bill Burrow's work was shredded by the Beattie Government during their progression of the Vegetation Management Act to achieve political outcomes for the State and Federal Governments in relation to the Kyoto protocol.

If this is so then Bill's statement in the above article is very telling given that the Government may no longer have access to the best science as their corporate library is conveniently lost, diminished or shredded.

"The government maintains that its VMA is based on the best science. One may well ask – who told them that? And has anyone queried the basis of this oft quoted government assertion?"

Permalink Reply by Tony Howard on December 10, 2011 at 12:05pm

Even more mystifying to me Greg, is the aversion these characters have developed towards Buffel. From 1972 to 78, I was employed as a Technical Assistant with the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, CSIRO, at the Cooper Lab , based at Gatton College. At that same laboritory was a group of researchers comprising a Senior Research Officer, a Research Officer, a Technical Officer and a Technical Assistant who made up " The Woodland Ecology Unit". Their principal job was to research and establish Buffel grass in the semi arid interior grazing country. They were a very successful little group in terms of research and development of the species and its establishment. Those were the days when CSIRO staff actually went out into the bush, worked there and discussed their findings with the end users.Seems strange that, after so much research, by so many dedicated scientific staff, to produce a product that worked so well, it should be designated as not desirable by starry eyed idealists...to the best of my limited knowledge no native species of grass eaters has ever suffered by ingesting some of a Buffel stand.

Greg Blackmore said:

The remarks by Andrew Franks "that if native grasses were allowed to grow, livestock would be run on the country" are incredible given the purpose of the lease..

So why then did the Herbarium representative make no reference the governments corporate library of the large body of work done by previous Primary Industries Scientists on woody weed invasion. Could it be that this library has been shredded?

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on December 10, 2011 at 12:24pm

How times have changed Tony, The Brigalow scheme in the 60's proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt that grass is better than trees (and woody weeds) in preventing erosion (except that trees are also needed on stream banks). The sediment runoff into the Fitzroy River system was greater under native Brigalow than under the productive grasses such as Buffel that were subsequently established. In NSW the misguided SEP46 prevented the clearing of regrowth Cypress Pine with severe erosion consequences. As Dale stated in relation to the Hindman case: "obviously Mr Franks ignored the previous research and allowed himself to be a vechile of activism beyond the letter of the law". Integrity is therefore lost in pursuit of a belief (religion) at any cost and contrary to good science and the judge, in his naivety, becomes party to it so that neither are then credible.

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on December 10, 2011 at 1:07pm

From Dr Bill Burrows report to PRA above: - "In 2003 the Director General’s office in my former Department asked me to contribute to a team assessing the cost of tree thickening to landholders in Queensland’s grazed woodlands. We were specifically told not to look at the foregone benefits of clearing – which are well documented in both production and economic terms in any case. Our report showed the Net Present Value of unaddressed tree/shrub thickening alone, was a conservative $293 Million to affected landholders, and about $900 Million to the community at large. However, soon after this report was passed on to NR&M and Premier’s Departments, I was instructed to remove all evidence of the report from my files, and from the hard drive on my computer! [And I was not working for the Health Department!] Obviously our findings did not please someone high up in government – although our methodology was never challenged."

Greg Blackmore said:

Dale, This article (link below) on your PRA website by Dr Bill Burrows provides some of the information that was in the Corporate Library of the State Government.

Link to Some of the Library of Knowledge

It is a widely held belief that some of Bill Burrow's work was shredded by the Beattie Government during their progression of the Vegetation Management Act to achieve political outcomes for the State and Federal Governments in relation to the Kyoto protocol.

If this is so then Bill's statement in the above article is very telling given that the Government may no longer have access to the best science as their corporate library is conveniently lost, diminished or shredded.

"The government maintains that its VMA is based on the best science. One may well ask – who told them that? And has anyone queried the basis of this oft quoted government assertion?"

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on December 10, 2011 at 4:06pm

For information a link to Dr Bill Burrows work on the ecology and control of Green Turkey Bush in S W Queensland, completed in December 1971

GREEN TURKEY BUSH - W H BURROWS

More on this and other topics at South West NRM Ltd

http://www.southwestnrm.org.au/

Permalink Reply by Tony Howard on December 10, 2011 at 5:20pm

Sorry to be obtuse Greg, but what is NR&M referred to in Dr Burrows report ?

Greg Blackmore said:

From Dr Bill Burrows report to PRA above: - "In 2003 the Director General’s office in my former Department asked me to contribute to a team assessing the cost of tree thickening to landholders in Queensland’s grazed woodlands..............However, soon after this report was passed on to NR&M and Premier’s Departments,

Permalink Reply by Greg Blackmore on December 10, 2011 at 5:26pm

Natural Resources & Mines, Queensland as it was in 2003. Then they later added Water and now it is DERM, which probably means "no skin in the game"

Tony Howard said:

Sorry to be obtuse Greg, but what is NR&M referred to in Dr Burrows report ?

Greg Blackmore said:

From Dr Bill Burrows report to PRA above: - "In 2003 the Director General’s office in my former Department asked me to contribute to a team assessing the cost of tree thickening to landholders in Queensland’s grazed woodlands..............However, soon after this report was passed on to NR&M and Premier’s Departments,