Gillian, a good article.

As you say, massive ecological change was initiated very early on over large areas of NSW and Qld, caused by overgrazing, suppression of fire, and later rabbits. The balance between grass and woody species changed greatly.

But given that these changes became obvious in some areas before 1900, it is rather odd that the same causal factors were allowed to continue to prevail. The only one that was really dealt with was rabbits, but not until a long time later (in the 1950s).

One of the main ways of dealing with the loss of pasture due to thickening and encroachment was to clear large areas. So to a large extent the problem of thickening was side-stepped and allowed to continue, instead of being dealt with by implementing the necessary improvements in fire and grazing regimes. (I’m talking here from a Queensland perspective).

Massive areas were cleared far beyond the point of a reasonable balance between pasture/crop and natural areas. Vast tracts were essentially entirely cleared except for road verges and stock routes. Remaining bush areas were isolated.

Obviously this had to stop before there was nothing at all left in the wider regions. Unfortunately but unavoidably, those who cleared early got away with it and those who left to it too late got caught up with the increased restrictions. The new restrictions had to apply equally across the board.

continued

But, I agree that there could be merit in striving to work out a new balance for farmers and ecosystems on the Cobar Peneplain and similar regions.

But it would presumably have to go hand in hand with increased efforts to deal with the thickening issue head-on. Cleared areas would stifle the movement of fauna out of bushland areas that are burnt, and increased burning will have to be a large of the plan. Whole patches of bush between cleared areas would presumably be burnt, with the cleared areas acting as fire breaks. So the extent of clearing would have to be sufficient to allow viability for farmers but not too great as to effectively isolate patches of bushland.

There may be merit in simply allowing a new ecological balance to be reached by not burning, rather than maintaining an anthropogenic ecosystem through fire management. I guess this would depend on just what ecological changes might be deemed to be occurring or have occurred and how they would affect certain species. It could also depend on economic factors such as the maintenance of pasture in the woodland areas or the prevention of thickened areas that provide hiding spots for cattle during mustering.

Also for the best balance, reasonably wide corridors and maybe whole large blocks in some places that are now cleared country would be allowed to return to woodland.

It is difficult. But that’s what we get when we play around with ecological factors and primary resources on a large scale before we know what we are really dealing with, as we have done in a multitude of ways on this continent over the large two centuries.

Both governments and the greens have dug their own hole on this issue by opting for maximum control with only selective exemptions. They have defined "clearing" as the topping, lopping or otherwise destroying of a single tree and then scratch their stupid heads in surprise that they have managed to seriously disrupt just about every ecologically beneficial activity as well.

I was about to outline a far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues but then deleted it. Quite frankly, the current system, and more importantly, the clowns who have hitched their careers to draconian measures, the confiscation of property and the trashing of individual rights, not only need to fail but also need to be seen to have failed. And dismally.

Like the "Sorcerers Apprentice", these people have set in train a cycle of injustice, incompetence, negligence and, most damaging of all, landowner indifference that will exaggerate every climatic impact over the next few decades. But it will no longer be possible to blame and demonise the farmers for the resulting ecological disaster because the government has already made it very clear that they are in control.

Neither greens nor government have listened to the people who have most exposure to the situation, prefering, instead, to show us how clever and manipulative they can be in imposing their will on the community. So be it.

It is time we let this bilge water find its own ecological level.

Come on then Perseus, we all wait with baited breath to read your “far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues”.

In fact, I find it very hard to believe that you really have any such thing until you put it up here for discussion.

You say; “… these people have set in train a cycle of injustice, incompetence, negligence and, most damaging of all, landowner indifference…”

Well, for goodness sake, if it is really that bad, then there is hardly going to be overwhelming landholder indifference, is there?

From a Queensland perspective, the vegetation management laws are a bit unfair to those who hadn’t cleared very much land or who just happened to have ‘endangered’ vegetation instead of ‘not of concern’ vegetation, or happened to have erodible soils or a preponderance of sloping land compared to ‘safe to clear’ flat country with well-drained soils, and so on.

But the big test was the degree of acceptance by landholders and environmentally-minded people alike.

So all-told, it has been pretty good….and of course no matter how bad some people think it might be, they’ve got to admit that it is a thousand times better than the terrible rates of clearing that preceded it, and all the problems with regrowth, weed-invasion and soil-loss, and ecological destruction, that resulted from it.

Your great fault, which is evident in just about every post you write on this forum, is that you think the absolute worst of everyone with whom you disagree. You know full well that the issues here are complex and any solution is going to fall well short of being fully fair and ideal.

“The clowns…not only need to fail but also need to be seen to have failed. And dismally.”

I could interpret this as; ‘you need the clowns to be seen to fail!’ in order for your arguments to prevail!

But the system is not being seen to fail, is it. Sure, some problems have come to light and need reworking. But overall, the land and vegetation management regulations aren’t too bad.

How surprising. Ludwig, who owns no land and who owns no trees and who is not personally responsible for any habitat or streams, thinks the vegetation management legislation "isn't too bad".

The landowner indifference I was refering to, Ludwig, was the entirely new, and government initiated indifference to adverse impacts on trees on their farms. It may take a while to sink in yet, but farmers are getting used to the idea that, "if Beattie thinks he owns my forest then he can come and put the fire out".

You see, it is quite easy to safeguard the essential infrastructure while letting nature run its course on the rest of the place. And it real easy to just head off to the beach on a high fire risk day, the greens and the bureaucrats do it all the time.

But I am sure your bureaucratic mates are thinking up excuses already. Must be global warming, eh?

Well obviously Pers, me ol’ mate, you have no idea of what I own or am responsible for!

And as for the “far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues”….vee are still vaiting!