Riiight. From the same "Australian Environment Foundation" that has Jennifer Marohasy as a director. In other words, an industry front group. Anything coming out of this pro-development, global-warming-denying organisation is automatically suspect. Readers, take anything you read from this man Max Rheese with a very large grain of salt.

That's only one strike against them; if they deny 'Global Warming' then they're only half bad.

Note the completely closed mind of the moron with the Cheech and Chong pseudonym. But how very appropriate, some guy living some parody of a drug culture comic has a brain that he chooses to wire shut on the basis of an ideological position. To vegetables like that it doesn't really matter if the degradation hits 20 million hectares or even 30 million because they will never go there and would never recognise the problem even if they saw it.

The problem for people in the bush is that about half the metropolitan electorates have these kind of droogs making up 10% of the vote. And as long as rural people continue to allow their destiny to be decided by urban electors then they will need to get used to these bonged out boofheads trashing a bit more of your kids inheritance every time they need some cheap thrills.

The only way to fix this problem is with a new state boundary in the Blue Mountains.

OK Daves_not_here_man, you've got our attention with the booing and hissing from the sidelines. But you haven't contributed to solving the problem of land and vegetation degradation. Maybe as you get older you'll discover the value of thinking about views which oppose yours.Your logical method seems to be to tip the can on those who you consider 'wrong.' You could also demonstrate some skills in spelling. Maybe you weren't listening at school to the English lesson which told everyone else that when you leave letters out you need an apostrophe. So when you want to abbreviate "Dave is" your readers would understand you better if you used an apostrophe as in "Dave's".

It is significant that the responses to "Dave" have been of the abusive,play the man not the ball sort.
I've done some travelling in the west of NSW.The degradation of land used for grazing is appalling.Quite a lot of that land is beyond repair,at least on a feasible human scale.
The invasive species would probably be acacia which is capable of revegetating degraded areas.It is most unlikely that it is invading naturally occuring grassland in good condition.
Acacia is a legume.Not only will it improve the soil it will help keep it in situ - ie,not washed or blown away.Eventually,if the land is left unstocked or only lightly stocked in good seasons there will be some re-establishment of grasses and herbs.In arid climates it will take a long time.
I agree that farmers should not be left to carry the whole burden of land rehabilitation.They should have ample government(ie.taxpayer) assistance and in some cases should be paid to leave their land.
The use of fire is debateable as it is elsewhere in Australia.In some cases it is necessary.In others it results in major damage to the ecosystem,especially if used too frequently.
Let's have a bit of sensible debate on these important issues,not hyperbole and abuse.

“Riiight. From the same "Australian Environment Foundation" that has Jennifer Marohasy as a director. In other words, an industry front group. Anything coming out of this pro-development, global-warming-denying organisation is automatically suspect.”

Yes Absent Dave, I gained the same impression of Ms Marohasy and her institution quite some time ago, and these grave doubts have been expressed by many on this forum. Treat it with a very big grain of salt!
.

Note the completely closed mind of the moron with the, um completely closed mind, who chooses time after time to be as rude as he possibly can be on this forum.

Thirra writes;

“It is significant that the responses to "Dave" have been of the abusive play the man not the ball sort.”
.

I think many people on this forum have come to know this type of response as the Perseus sort!

In Queensland, tree-clearing legislation allows for the treatment of encroachment, thickening and woody weeds. If there is evidence from old aerial photos or ground photos that can be accurately located or from other reliable sources, that woody vegetation has thickened up or invaded grassland, then it can be dealt with. If the changes in vegetation cover occurred before the aerial photo era, then there is not much that can be done, and neither should it if it occurred that long ago.

But basically we should be accepting the changes. We’ve changed too many fundamental ecological factors such as fire regimes, grazing pressures, alien species (weeds) and dissection and isolation of remnant vegetation areas.

Let the bush find its new equilibrium, and let’s adjust human utilization accordingly.

The big thing that has been missing in Qld and I guess NSW is this human adjustment. That is; compensation for lost or foregone productivity and facilitation to leave the land or amalgamate properties.