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.

oohhhh now, now. We musn't deprive the debased, graceless Perseus' export cattle from their grazing lands, must we?

As much as I enjoy the pot-shots (so to speak!) between Dave's supporters and his detracters, I'd like to talk about the issues that I see in this article.

There isn't much doubt in my mind that current nature vegetation legislation in every state has serious flaws. These flaws are a result of legislation being drawn up in response to an unsustainable activity (ie landclearing) instead of an attempt to manage the environment sustainably.

This is an understandable if you recognise that environmentalism often grew out of opposition to bad practises - green groups used any political strength they had to stop such practises - and politicians learnt the lesson well: to 'appeal' to green groups, ban it.

But we greenies need to release that community attitudes towards the environment have come a long way from the "if it moves - shoot it; if it doesn't cut it down" mentality that helped shape this country. People, especially farmers and other land users, recognise the importance of environmentally sustainable practises if they want to pass on their farm to their children.

Ideally, all environmental legislation would have put in place science-based assistance measures to help better managing privately owned land, and then imposed limits against excessive or poor use of that land, while still protecting significant areas. This would allow the negiotation to increase tree cover in long farmed areas, prevent the spread of 'woody weeds', and reduce the negative environmental impact of current and future use of farming lands which were all mentioned in this article.

But legislation like this can't just come from new envirnomental groups such as the AEF - they need the support of the established conservation groups as well.

The weed species discussed is probably the mimosa bush (acacia farnesiana), which is classified as native, but is actually american in original (its classified as native as it was here prior to white settlement). Sheep used to keep this shrub in check, and cattle to some extent do, but not certainly the grazing pressure from cattle is not as high as sheep. As stocking rates reduce, this weed explodes out of control. Go for a drive between Moree and Collarenebri (150km) - it literally chokes the sides of the road in many stretches.

Just because it it native, doesnt mean that it is good.

Thirra, what do you class as the west of NSW? Orange? Mudgee? Dubbo? Menindee? Just want to clarify what area you speak of, as city-dwellers (not sure if you are or not), generally think of anything further out than Penrith as being western NSW. If you indeed refer to the true West (at least west of the Newell Hwy), then if you have done your travelling in the last 5 years what you have seen is probably the result of drought, rather than degradation.

Ben G, glad to see a greenie that recognises that its in farmers best interests to manage sustainably. Their future profitability depends on it. With attitudes like yours and Ludwigs in the green movement we can all be hopeful for achieving a balance between production and conservation. Not like the twit that tried to tell me several years ago that farmers on the Hay Plains were bad for cutting down all the trees!

Thirra, when you have spent an entire El Nino cycle managing an integrated forest and grazing property come and have a chat about sustainable land management. Your post makes it very clear that you are only 5% of the way up the learning curve so a meaningful discussion with you and your kind is pointless.

The first obligation of those who know nothing of the topic is to keep quiet, listen long and hard, and allow those who do know the issue get on with the job. By that test, hardly a single resident of urban Australia has any right to even contribute to debate, let alone dictate conditions.

The average farmer would never dream of telling a medical practitioner, Sydney cab driver or highrise construction engineer how to do his job. But it seems every departmental lance corporal, every clerk, network administrator and receptionist thinks all they need to be an expert in land management is to read the Sydney Morning Herald.

You can design our resource management system on urban design parameters if you let us design your industrial relations system on livestock management principles.

Unfortunately it is not livestock farming that drives these land clearing zealots to want to buck State Government natural vegetation rules. They want to clear so-called woody weeds in order to be able to go cropping and they are constantly demanding a more relaxed cropping schedule ( arrable versus fallow ) in the Western Division (westward beyond the Newell Highway) where many would argue that European style agriculture is increasingly risky in the face of climate change.

Further to my above post about ignorant people mouthing off about things they know nothing of, see Jup's little head trip about clearing, of regrowth, supposedly for cropping, west of the Newell.

Look at a map you moron, find the Newell Highway and then look up the rainfall data at;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/annual_rnfall.cgi

And then consider that this is the mean over the past 30 years, not the past 10 years rainfall. And then have a quiet think about what proportion of clearing would be for cropping west of the Newell highway. That is where most of the clearing takes place in NSW, to maintain pre-existing grassland that is now overrun by trees.

Assorted drop kicks can rail at the Australian Environment Foundation all they want but the maps and the rainfall data are not supplied by the AEF so spare us all the urban fantasy masquerading as informed comment. It is really, really tedious.

Ahhh, the debate continues...
Very dangerous I believe to exclude from the arguement people who have a view from the "outside".
Our problems will not be fixed by the same thinking that created the problems in the first place.
I once had a short lived email debate with the head of the AEF regarding the woody weed issue in western NSW after he first became publicly involved. In the early stages I was chuffed that he would respond to a lowly nobody, especially as he disagreed with my basic philosophy. However, after I sent him photo's of country that had grass out competing the scrub to its detriment simply by improved grazing management we somehow lost contact.
Very selective that AEF science based evidence.
Their agenda in my view is to push the cropping line west and promote 'no-till or minimum till'& GM technology as the magical panacea. Just happens to be heavily chemical reliant of course.
And about as long term sustainable as unabated use of fossil fuels.
The answers to the cause of all our issues are to find ways of working in with mother nature and not against her.
She has a much bigger cheque book than us.
Perseus, one cycle of an 'el nino' with blinkers on is equivalent to about 4% I'd say.... no matter how loud you yell.

I’d put it in somewhat stronger terms Bushrat. The approach that Perseus takes is just disgusting. Who is he to say who can and cannot comment on this or any subject? He so strongly alienates everyone that doesn’t totally agree with him. And he skittles his own credibility with his extraordinarily polarized expression.

Perhaps we should all be demanding that he prove his expertise and be seen as more than just an offensive blusterer, by directing us to background information on the vegetation management legislation in NSW and other relevant material. And I don’t just mean to the one-sided AEF / Marohasy-style diatribe.

.
Country Gal, the “weed” species are a variety of native trees and shrubs, including mimosa bush and several other Acacia species, as well as various Eucalyptus species, false sandalwood (Eremophila mitchellii), etc. In fact you could argue that just about any woody native species that has increased in abundance, or in frequency per hectare of uncleared or unthinned country, falls into this category.

It really is stretching the definition of a weed to include these species. We should just be thinking of them as native species, that have been favoured by changed fire and grazing regimes, but which have lost out overall due to massive clearing and dissection of bush areas.

Ludwig, just because a plant (or animal for that matter) is native to some parts of Australia, doesnt mean that it is native to all parts of Australia, or that it can never threaten farming production or indeed other native species.

"Mimosa bush has useful qualities as a food source at different times of the year. However, it is a very invasive and drought-resistant plant and if left unchecked will severely reduces a property’s stock-carrying capacity" - from Northwest Weeds website. http://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au/mimosa_bush.htm Have a look at the photos on this website to see just how choked the land can get with this "native".

I still stand by my previous comments about those who are not farmers being prepared to listen more and talk less. Putting a ban on non-farmers discussing the issues is stupid and doesnt get anyone anywhere, but a born and bred city person has as much right to assume that they know how farming works, as I do about how to build a house. I know what goes into it, and a lot of issues that need to be considered, but not how to put it all together to make it work. Whilst farmers often have little formal education, particularly past highschool, remember that most have effectively been apprentices since the time they could walk. As such, they probably get more rigourous training than most professions.

Bushrat, no-till is the only way to farm in some areas, usually due to a combination of annual rainfall, and the soil type and structure. Those advising farm groups are now coming to realise that soil structure and type is paramount in deciding farming technique. Conventional farming works best in some areas, as the soil benefits from being disturbed, but doesnt lose too much moisture in the process, in other areas minimum till works best, and in others still no-till is the way to go. Farming will always use chemical or diesel to prepare the ground - if you are a climate change believer, I would suggest that supporting no-till despite its chemical use, would suit your generally philosophy.

Notwithstanding Perseus' latest intemperate spray, I tend to agree with Bushrat, Ludwig, thirra and Dave here. Although I'm not a farmer, I live west of the Divide and my business is directly affected by the fortunes of agriculturalists.

For some time, I've thought that both the AEF and its pro-land clearing campaign are thinly disguised fronts for pushing unsustainable agricultural practices into ever more marginal country. While Country Gal presents a more reasonable agriculturalists' perspective than her fellow travellers, ultimately her position on the so-called 'woody weeds' is unsustainable.

It's time that the agricultural sector realised that there are extensive areas of Australia that can probably never be sustainably farmed, no matter how much bush is slashed or how many chemicals are dumped into the ground.

"Farming being unsuitable for parts of Australia" is an over generalised comment that dumps all kinds of agriculture together without recognising the benifits of certain systems that can be used to regenerate landscapes.
"Grazing livestock", whatever they may be, are a critical component in the ability to revegetate semi-arid brittle environments.... if managed correctly.
There is fantastic work going on in this regard that show production and conservation do not have to be mutually exclusive. Plenty to be gained by all concerned if we can only get past this "us and them mentality".
Don't just look at a picture of a "weed" choking out an area without also trying to understand why it is happening. Address the cause along with any crisis management needed and the results will be longer lasting, and a whole lot cheaper as well.
I agree that cropping systems should be flexible and suit the area.
However, I would not like to be tied into a regime of total reliance on chemical and diesel with the certainty that input costs have only got one direction to go.
There are alternatives 'Country Gal'.
Industrialised agriculture has run its race and caused immeasurable damage along the way. The 'global warming debate' has at least heightened awareness of the importance of the environment to all people, and as such will serve a positive purpose.
Personally, I think the desertification and degradation of the world's agricultural land is a more pressing issue than the current level of atmospheric co2.
I've read that if we improved the ground cover level by 1% on Australia's rangelands alone it would mean the extra sequestration of around 22 Billion tonnes of co2.
That is a mind bogglingly achievable target that is hindered only by ignorance and misguided agendas.

CJ Morgan, from my standpoint, you have more right to discuss farmers and their practices when your business depends on them and their financial wellbeing - it gives you a vested interest in being reasonable! :)

There are vast tracts of Australia that are not suited to any form of farming. Other large areas are suited only to light grazing. Property sizes and land values generally reflect this, and also reflect the likelihood of drought/flood. Basically there is no point in paying more for something than it can return to you. Where I come from, land is worth $130/ac (and overpriced at that), and you need at least 5 acres per sheep, and 10,000-15000 acres to live off. Most farms in the area are more like 30,000 - 100,000 acres. Contrast this to the Liverpool plains, which can run stock and produce up to two crops a year (thanks to summer rainfall and irrigation). Land values here are more like $2000/ac, and an average family holding more like 2000ac. So there are market mechanisms which demonstrate the productive capacity of land.

One of the problems at the moment is that this market indicator is being thrown out of whack by the tree-changers. I actually believe that tree-changers will be generally of benefit to regional Australia by starting to buck the trend of population exit from rural areas. However, the big bucks that they have behind them from equity in housing in the cities, coupled with cash from high-paying jobs, means that they can afford to pay more for the land than what it is worth in terms of capacity. Whilst the tree-changers might only come just west of the mountains, there is a flow-on effect as those that have sold out, move further west, to buy larger spreads, and to areas that are not as secure in a production sense. Its often a quick way to see a good farmer go broke - move him to an area that he is unfamiliar with. Different rainfall patterns, different soils, different pests, different weather conditions.

There is only one landscape in Australia that can be trully said to have demonstrated such a level of environmental degradation that it can no longer be allowed to continue. The city.

Country Gal, I’m not disagreeing with you about the nature of mimosa bush. I am very familiar with it indeed. It occurs in areas that it never used to, having found cattle grazing regimes highly favourable, especially on heavy soils. So to that extent it is a native weed.

But the various other species involved in thickening and encroachment on grassland should not be thought of as weeds.

.
Well Perseus, that’s a bit of a non-response. It says that you are out there reading this but that you really don’t have anything further to offer. It seems as though your abject nastiness towards others on this thread really is just all bluster with no foundation!

The Greens Party are not only hypocrites, they are a danger to Australian society as their policies lead to nothing but destruction of Australian society.

They talk about protecting the environment then call for unlimited immigration from around the world. Such policy can only harm Australia's environment. Since we're short of water, are they going to drink their own urine?

Thanks to weak politicians who listen to urban warriors who believe they know everything from listening to green propaganda, then demonise farmers who know more about the environment than most people. With protecting importing grass as native grasses, this is the stupidity of the Greens and those who bow to them.

If you want to destroy this nation and her people, vote for the Greens.

Spider: "They talk about protecting the environment then call for unlimited immigration from around the world."

Please provide evidence for this idiotic claim, e.g. a link to an official Australian Greens website that advocates "unlimited immigration from around the world". My understanding is that the Greens don't actually have a clear population policy (IMHO much to their discredit).

"Since we're short of water, are they going to drink their own urine?"

Well actually yes - once it's been purified via the well-documented processes actually planned for water recycling. I understand that the Greens are the most supportive of all political parties of the introduction of water recycling. Surely such an astute political commentator as Spider is aware of this?

"The Greens Party are not only hypocrites, they are a danger to Australian society as their policies lead to nothing but destruction of Australian society."

Nice hysterical claim, with absolutely no subsequent evidence to support it. I'm actually rather pleased when Greens opponents of the intellectual calibre of Spider emerge from under their rocks.

In the clear light of reason the electorate can be quite discerning. I think that most reasonable people see the AEF for what it is, and are therefore most unlikely to support their disingenuous bleatings.

Good post C J.

The most discreditable aspect of the Greens is indeed their lack of a meaningful population policy on which they have been willing to act, and hence the lack of a meaningful sustainability strategy.

Their policies are currently under review, shortly to be released. Lets hope there is a crystal clear population policy that is fully in line with sustainability principles, and which will amount to more than just a bunch of words as it does with the Australian Conservation Foundation.

CJ Morgan; The Greens always call for an open floodgate to take in third world refugees. They never hide it. Just because they don't put it up doesn't mean they aren't for it. Typical stance taken by Greens is to cry foul and refer only to their internet.

I have seen the Greens living their power while running the Student Guild of the QUT(Brisbane) with Drew Hutton chairing their meetings. Nice to see that only students who could prove financial membership with the Greens were allowed student union representation. All under the helm of Juanita Wheeler who was also a Greens candidate at the most recent Qld state election.

With the Greens having such an open door policy to all drugs including ICE, only mass devastation of society will eventuate. One must wonder how policies suit those running the party such as policy discrinating in against heterosexuals so that homosexuals can receive what no other can get, ie; taxfunded IVF for homosexuals.

Hey, then there's their policy of ridding Australia of primary and secondary industries leaving Australia poorer than the Filopines. We'll swimming across to the sea to New Zealand as refugees.

Greens policies are more harmful to the environment, simple as that. You can see how cuddly they are to Aboriginals until Aboriginal culture clashes with their ideology of madness.

At least Spider's consistent: another wildly inaccurate rant, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Spider: "The Greens always call for an open floodgate to take in third world refugees. They never hide it. Just because they don't put it up doesn't mean they aren't for it."

Um... if they "don't put it up" as you say, how do you know about it? Nearest I can find is a media release from Lee Rhiannon opposing loopy old Fred Nile's dog-whistling call to ban immigration of Muslims. Nothing at all about "open floodgates".

Spider: "With the Greens having such an open door policy to all drugs including ICE, only mass devastation of society will eventuate."

This bears no resemblance at all to the NSW Greens' actual drug policy, which states:

"The Greens do not support drug use and our policy does not condone people using the new drug known as 'ice'. The Greens policy supports criminal penalties for the big dealers and suppliers of drugs.

The major parties' policies have failed to prevent the growth in 'ice' use, dependency and addiction. There are now more than 37,000 regular methamphetamine users and 28,000 dependent methamphetamine users in NSW* and the number is growing rapidly. Prohibition has failed to protect the lives of young people."

http://nsw.greens.org.au/campaigns/the-facts-on-the-greens-drugs-policy

One wonders if Spider has even looked at the Greens' actual policy on this and other issues. As for Spider's probably defamatory claims about the QUT Student Guild, they might be actionable if the person who made them had any credibility whatsoever. Clearly, given her/his wilful disregard for the truth when making wild claims about the Greens, Spider has absolutely none of that.

CJ, my remarks about the Student Guild when controlled by the Greens are factual. I've never seen so many elected members resign from disgust at the way the executive run the show.

Students just ignored the silliness of the guild when run by Young Labor but were publicly angry at the Greens.

As I said, I don't care what their website cares, I follow what they say and what Greens propaganda comes to my letterbox. The Greens are just another party full of closet communists who have no ideals on preserving the freedoms they chant about.

I love how the Greens classify any criticism as angry ranting by people of no standing. Nice try. If the Greens really were serious, they would be pushing for Debnam to be elected and support Howard as they have and want to do more for the environment than the ALP has ever had.

Not that there's much point in responding to the idiotic Spider's posts, but one last time:

If you can support your claims with evidence, please do. If not, any reasonable observer would have to conclude that you're just another anti-Green nutter who just spouts indefensible bulldust.

In other words - put up or shut up.

CJ Morgan, your angry responses and diversions is typical of the ALP and the Watermelons. Oops, I meant to say, The Greens.

Yet another well-argued contribution from Spider, supported by her/his usual mountain of verifiable evidence!

I'm sure that calling the Greens 'Watermelons' is defamatory.