I'm with MWPOYTNER and ask, why should such badly misguided activism and misinformation be funded by any taxpayer?

But particularly when their lock it away policies have resulted in the worse bush fires and environmental destruction in living memory, and the emergence on feral species once kept in check by native species! WE SHOULD PAY FOR THAT?

An outcome routinely ignored by the never ever wrong environmental activists!

Ten thousand horses, wandering at will, could have hardly done anywhere near as much damage, as those multiple million hectare wildfires!

Besides, rare native species could be better protected by fencing them inside small enclosures, and surrounded by permanently reduced fuel loads, given they are just as susceptible to extinction by fire, as increasingly rare native Tasmanian conifers!

And we would have had the added benefit of fuel reduction and some natural trails to use as fire breaks, should the need ever arise.

As was the case when foresting wasn't a dirty word and our forests were sustainably/professionally managed woodlots!

Other so called environmental groups manage on fleecing the moribund by the month, why thing can't they?

I mean, a tree remains a carbon sink whether horizontal or vertical!

And young vigorous regrowth absorbs more new carbon than any old growth forest!

Indigenous poeples have been selecting harvesting their old growth forests for millennium, and with only benefit to the local flora and fauna! Ditto dam building beavers! Why don't we?
Rhrosty.

There's money in eco-charities, which I'm sure attracts many.

When on the committee developing the water management plan for the Mary river, I made an interesting discovery. In that wide bay area there were 6 environmental groups. I found this interesting, so did a little investigation.

One had 10 members, but the other 5 all had six members. These were all the same 6 people in each group. All had grandiose names, such as the "Wide Bay & Burnet Environmental Association. Even more interesting, every one of the 6 people was president of one of the organisations, each was secretary of one, & each was treasurer of one.

It appeared as if the 6 associations existed to give each the kudos of a title of president, & entitlement to funds to run the association as secretary.

As secretary of an irrigation advisory committee, I was entitled to a few hundred dollars for my home office, correspondence & phone expenses. I never did read all the bumph, but I think I could have even claimed a computer & other such gear, if I'd had a mind too. I was told I should get funding for a desk, filing cabinet an office chair, & a brief case. For a few years I actually got a public servant demanding I submit my reimbursement claim. They finally gave up. I wonder what they did with the allocation.

I had to wonder how much it cost to have so many meaningless environmental organisations, with similar allocations. I also wondered just how much credibility these micky mouse groups were given.

Perhaps not all environmental organisations are quite as incestuous, but most arte