Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 2, 2012 at 8:32am

Comments from when the discussion was first published.

 

 Reply by Phil Sheridan on July 29, 2009 at 9:16am

Dale
As I have stated publicly, these takings of property are not about science, they are about politics. They are about taking the property of individual citizens and trading them for continued political power. It is a simple process; declare something is in danger and needs to be saved for future generations; offer up a "landmark innovative solution" to appease a pressure group and you've got either their primary vote or preferences and continued political power.

Think Vegetation Managment Act and Wild Rivers Act.

As I pointed out in my address to the PRA meeting in Rockhampton, the Coast and Channel Country are next. See the attached podcast. You will note that the "Pew Nature Conservancy" is active in the Wild Rivers camapign in the channels, as is Barry Traill, who appears to be a paid activist for this cause. The Pew Trust is a nature conservation trust based in the US and funded from the remnants of an old US oil company.

If the Wild Rivers Act is applied in the same manner in the channels as it has been in the Cape then landholders really need to look at the viability of production in that area.

Also attached is a rather large document written by Traill and Booth. Readers should be aware of this manifesto and it's implications for landholders in rural Australia.

Attachments:

• Pew Trusts outback wilderness study.pdf, 2.2 MB   Delete
• WR_Podcast_24Jul_email.mp3, 1.2 MB   Delete

G'day Phil Sheridan,
The group you mentioned in your post as "Pew Nature Conservancy", is also listed as "Pew Charitable Trusts" and their Environment arm as "Pew Environment Group". Working with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Australia.
You can read about them on the website of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts - Peter Garrett's portfolio, all very cosy and nice with the Australian Coat of Arms on the web page here.
TNC has been described as a "realestater", and it appears as though they have got their hooks well and truly into Australia under the guise of conservation.
Linked with Bush Heritage, Greening Australia and the Wilderness society.

This one I have warned of before, because of some horror stories coming out of the US - projects such as The Wildlands Project and Y2Y - Yellowstone to Yukon - wildlife corridors, where wildlife takes precedence over agriculture and man.
In Australia:
The Gondwana Link Project in southern WA

There is also a Grampians to Atherton eastern link - wildlife corridors proposed (which I cannot find the links at present)
And of course - Goldman Sachs pops up.
I'm not knocking the conservation work, just putting up a "Watch it flag"

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jeff T Hutcho on August 3, 2009 at 1:20am

Yes that Pew Trusts pdf document confirms what I posted.

What really gets under my skin is these are NGO's - Non Governmental Organisations - non elected "officials" that are controlling peoples lives, and are in bed with elected governments.

End of Rave,
JT

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on August 3, 2009 at 6:41am

 

After skimming through the link Phil provided it appears their are some big dollars in behind PEW. Also checked out the Wilderness Society site & it is a very slick publicity & fundraising vechile. There are some loaded wording to be found too, such as 'removal of damaging non native animals'.

Jeff, I think we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater & not to lump all green groups in with the radicals. There is a big diference in approach to TWS & WWF as NGO's embedded within the corridors of power dictating their agenda upon all Australians to green groups who are out in the field working along side farnmers. Do you have any evidence to place Greening Australia beside TWS & WWF. We must be very careful not to harden our mindset so we reject the endevour to balance enviromental outcomes along side economical sustainable production. But at the same time we must toughen up our determinatin to fight those with radical agenda's.

Permalink Reply by Jeff T Hutcho on August 3, 2009 at 10:43am

Hi Dale,
Yes , I do agree with your statement "We must be very careful not to harden our mindset so we reject the endeavour to balance environmental outcomes along side economical sustainable production."
As I put at the end of my post I'm not knocking the conservation work, just putting up a "Watch it flag"

Here's a list of links which show common projects and linkages:
Greening Australia
Dr Michael Looker
Gondwana Link - bottom RHS panel
The Thomas Foundation - philanthropists

Permalink Reply by Jeff T Hutcho on August 3, 2009 at 11:49pm

 

Hi Dale,

Add this to your dossier on Pew
Theodore Roosevelt 1V, Pew Climate.
Wonder what he's into after Lehman Brothers?

 

 

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on August 4, 2009 at 9:03pm

In the discussion posting above I included a quote from Dr Katharina Fabrucious saying that the science isn't inticating that farm runoff is affecting the reef. Phil rightly points out that the Governments policies aren't driven by science rather the perceived need to maintain political power.

This is a quote from another marine sciencist, Jon Brodi that you can read in full at this news article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/08/2591827.htm
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research spokesman Jon Brodi says the new regulations are unlikely to achieve anything."That's certainly not achievable at all under any circumstance," he said.
"That's a very poor target because it basically sets us up for failure"

Brodi is saying that the regulatory targets the Govt, is bringing in are impossible to meet, it "sets us up for failure". Am I a little too cynical in thinking that that perhaps the goal isn't to save the reef but to set up a sernerio of failure that can be again be blamed upon the farming community? Thereby justifying even more draconian action.

 

 

Permalink Reply by John C Fairfax on September 9, 2009 at 3:28pm

Dale,
You are not being too cynical. Maybe it's a scenario to blame CO2.

In blaming farmers, how in the first place could science differentiate between N&P nutrients from cane fertilizer and N&P nutrients from human sewage, the latter collected and concentrated in piping from cities and towns and dumped into rivers and ocean coast current flowing into GBR waters?

The attached file document here showing fresher water associated with an algae bloom on the SE edge of the Swains Reef was submitted to the Queensland Government in 2003. So it was surely known then and previously by science that mid and north Qld farm runoff could not reach that SE corner of the Swains due to prevailing winds and seas.

And how it it possible for science and government to differentiate between carbonic acid and other acids in the reported increased acid level in the ocean that is being attributed to CO2?

Further, how can impact of human sewage nutrient pollution not be included in the science and how can omission of it be justified?

Attachments:

• EALC - (9) - Algae tongue.jpg, 109 KB  
• Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on September 9, 2009 at 8:32pm

John, you raise some good points. I have got more up to date information that follows on from this discussion in a blog on the main page, follow this link.
The impact of sewage a very important issue that I would like to discuss in the blog. If you don't mind could you copy & paste yor comment to the Your Beef on Reef Regulationsblog.

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Christopher Leeds on September 9, 2009 at 4:18pm

You are right on the mail Phil Wild Rivers is coming to the Lake Eyre Basin and all the rivers(and gullies) associated with I got this send to me by the Qld Government, oops I mean AgForce!, who are having a promotion session on the subject. Note the DERM are unsure and do not know too much detail at this stage "Funny about that huh". the people in the declaration area certainly will know every little detail when it is declared or pay a hefty fine while they are learning. It is pretty clear by this AgForce is about to give this their usual rubber stamp of approval for the Government policy.

October 22- AgForce South West regional meeting to be held in Windorah at the Windorah Shire Hall at 11am. Guest speakers are AgForce CEO Robert Walker, AgForce Sheep and Wool president Brent Finlay, AgForward project manager Sue Dillon, AgForce South West cattle representative Steve Taylor and Austsafe representative Wayne Hulin. A Wild Rivers Information session will be held from 2pm with DERM representative Scott Buchanan, Wild Rivers team leader. This session will be open to all. Function drinks will be held on the Cooper Creek after meeting sponsored by Austsafe Super. Dinner will be held at the Windorah Hotel. Issues to be discussed will include Wild Rivers, Leasehold, QR, Kangaroos, Native Title and Commodity issues. For accommodation or travel arrangements please contact the AgForce South West office on 4654 3675 or cartwrightm@agforceqld.org.au



Lake Eyre Basin Meeting in Windorah
A Wild Rivers Declaration has been proposed over the Lake Eyre Basin, covering the Georgina, Diamantina, Thompson and Barcoo Rivers. It is anticipated that this declaration will be finalised within the term of this Government. Each river in Queensland so far declared as a Wild River has its own unique Declaration. Moreover representatives from DERM, do not know at this stage how a declaration to cover the Lake Eyre Basin would be formulated.
All producers who can make the meeting in Windorah on the 22nd October, 2009 at the Windorah Hall at 2pm will be requested to put forward their ideas as to how a declaration over the Lake Eyre Basin can be formulated to best fit our environmental, social and economic development.
Please RSVP by the 19th October to the AgForce South West office on 4654 3675 or email cartwrightm@agforceqld.org.au

Permalink Reply by John Mikkelsen on January 2, 2012 at 9:44am

Anyone following or occasionally visiting the long running Gladstone harbour forum article, Authorities say Gladstone Harbour water is ok but nobody's told the..., would know it is the height of hypocrisy for the State (and Federal) Government to proclaim they are concerned about the welface of the Reef when they are sanctioning the dumping of millions of tonnes of acid suplhate and other toxic dredge spoil from the harbour into waters which flow directly into GBR waters, and now the Gladstone Ports Corporation wants to remove the entire harbour from the GBR World Heritage Area. It's a major scandal as reported in the Weekend Australian and linked to towards the end of the above discussion thread.

 

http://justgroundsonline.com/xn/detail/3535428:Comment:332077

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on January 2, 2012 at 10:28am

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy and others have now spent in excees of 10 years trying to convince government that there is no scientific evidence that farming and grazing are harming the Reef.

Once again it is a case of "follow the money".

WWF reaped big dollars in the US for their Save The Reef campaign.

Researchers on the Reef are also getting big research dollars from numerous sources including the federal government's Reef Rescue Program.

Kate Jones has more talent at twisting evidence to suit her own purposes than almost any other politician.

The Wild Rivers declarations for the Georgina, Diamentina Rivers and Coopers Creek in the Lake Eyre Basin are now in place with resultant restrictions.

Proponents claim that "nothing will change" for farming and grazing.

That is entirely the point:farming and grazing needs to constantly update in order to cope with declining terms of trade. These areas will have to farm in a manner that is more reminiscent of "Little House on the Prairie" than modern agriculture.

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on January 2, 2012 at 12:29pm

I posted this some time ago on  the John M topic on Gladstone harbour waters, I hope you may conclude that it adds to the debate: http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/authorities-say-gladstone...

R