And when the whole suite of civil and property rights are restored, and the vegetation management laws that strip those rights are repealed, and when the Qld government and all the departmental minions can clearly demonstrate both the capacity and intent to apply measures that actually fit the circumstances on the ground, I will share my intellectual capital.

I am not holding my breath. One does not build partnerships with shonks and spivs.

Now Perseus, you have never held back on offering a great deal of detail, including copious figures, when it comes to your other beloved subject; water tanks. So why is it different for land and vegetation management? Because you don’t have any answers.

Let’s face the truth….if you had a far more workable and effective solution, you would have no hesitation in putting it forward.

You say; when civil and property rights are restored and vegetation management laws that strip those rights are repealed, then you will contribute something meaningful to the debate!

How silly!

It would be disastrous if the vegetation management laws were just abolished or if property rights were ‘restored’ so far as to give landowners anything like the free reign they had up until recently with regard to tree-clearing and other management issues.

You can argue for a better balance. But to argue for a complete reversal is just ridiculous.

I am very interested to hear ideas that might help us achieve a better and fairer balance between productivity and quality of life on the land, and environmental integrity. But alas, you don’t seem have a brass razoo to offer.

Ludwig, you may be keen to hear of any option that could put an acceptable spin on a fundamentally flawed model because your motivation is not on best ecological outcomes but, rather, to merely maintain control.

I have no interest in prolonging the suffering of landholders under a corrupt regime that holds individuals and their rights in contempt. And as long as you and your kind think those rights are "silly" then you are dead right, I have no solutions and none will be forthcomming.

You have made your bed, now lay in it.

And such a comfortable bed it is Pers. I sleep so much better than I did prior to the introduction of tree-clearing regulations in September 2000, knowing that the balance between productivity/quality of life and environment is a hundred times better than it was back then.

Perseus why do you insist on destroying your credibility?

First it was;

“I was about to outline a far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues…”

…which has shown to be a total furphy (I won’t use the word ‘lie’).

Then it was a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of the concept of balance by calling for the laws to be abolished (“repealed”), and for open slather to prevail.

And now you assert that my motives are cock-eyed, when you know full well that they are sustainability-oriented, for both farmers and native wildlife.

Crikey, you’ve done this sort of assertion-of-things-that-you-know-aren’t-true about others many times on this forum. I’ve taken you up on a couple of them and pursued them until it was obvious to all that you had just invented crap (read ‘defamation’). This could only have been highly embarrassing for you…. and yet you keep on doing it!!

Not only do you insist on destroying your credibility, you do it so often, and so blatantly!

First part
Solutions is what is needed, not vitriol if only for the latter is so boring to read. Now doubt there are people here well trained in debate of the political kind, get a life.

I have seen the country around the area of the debate, spent three years there and talked to many lessee's, for it is mostly Western Land leases, the responsible owner of the land. Lease holders have rarely been there for two generations and bought leases of some of the most degraded land that could be found anywhere in the world. It must rate as the toughest land in Australia to live and make a living.

The above is the view of someone who has lived in most parts of Australia and been doing it for seventy four years. That said, if bird species are threatened it is not a habitat problem, it's feral cats, ground birds and grass nesting birds being the most vulnerable along with all the lizards, not just the small species but also the monitors when juveniles. It didn't happen overnight but started two hundred years ago when the overgrazing began and native grasses were lost, depleted. The get rich and piss off mentality of the big land holders of yesteryear, in their ignorance, were responsible as was the NSW govt's of the time.

Laying blame is not a solution to regeneration. The solution is possible now when wool is not the valued commodity it once was, To say the land is maginal is the understatement of the century, You don't need to have any qualification to farm this land, just money, Some of the lessee make valiant efforts to regenerate, it may be pathetic but they try. "Woody weed" I understand, being a first attempt by nature to regenerate, I think should be left to do just that, making it perhaps a fire hazard and a harbor for the most destructive animal on this continent, the feral cat.
fluff4

part two
What to do? Examples to follow would be areas that have cost money and energy, mostly voluntary, as in the denuded conservation areas of South Australia, Tinpot, Chowilla and Banrock, and the custom house
Chowilla is of particular interest, after a great deal of experiment, success in restoring land. After years of sheep degradation, sheep were held for customs evaluation success is evident. Simple contour ripping and reduction of sheep numbers enabled this remarkable change. Expertise is available thru the Uni. South Australia.
fluff