Interesting to see the references to a certain farmer at Moree. So many also call for farmers to be more business-like and self-sufficient. Well, on the scale that this particular farmer operates, he calculated in a business-like way that the production he would make from the cleared lands would far outstrip the cost of the fines he would get from clearing it (note that on the scale that most farmers operate, this would not hold true - this bloke is a very big operator). So he went ahead and cleared the land. It makes him more viable, why not?!

Problem is, that as a whole we want farmers to make enough money to look after themselves financially, we dont want to pay any more for our milk, bread, fruit, vegies and meat, AND we want them to sacrifice profit for the benefit of the environment as a whole. Farmers cannot be all things to everyone. As a nation we need to decide what is most important (environment, farmers that get no tax-breaks, cheap food etc), and then be prepared to pay the price as a whole.

Oliver,

I don't think farmers want to be treated as special but there are very real reasons to do so.
-Ag exports constitute some 20% of total export value(higher before resource boom)
- Ag related industry drives 10% of GDP although farm gate value is 3% of GDP
- Our farmers are not subsidised, nor protected by tariffs. Our level playing field isn't level.
- We can't afford to lose the experience gained by our current farmers over long periods of time. If too many exit the industry the vacuum cannot be filled properly when the drought ends.
- climate change, if thats what we're facing, should not be borne by farmers alone, but the population as a whole.
- farmers have a triple whammy at present as a result of the high AUD due to resource prices and interest rates, a combination of resource based inflation and consumer credit/mortgage bubble. None of it attributable to farming, nor benefit gained by farmers.

Which you are 'we' Country Gal'?

Doesn't look like you are in WA where Big Biz through deregulation, would have had all the dairy farmers broke, except the milk Cockies being able to sell out owing to high land prices because they are so close to the cities.

Wheat cockies are battling also, owing to grain prices not much higher than back in the 1970's.

Then we have American plus European growers being spoon-fed with subsidies while the Aussie cockie is told the economy can't afford it.

Well, if the economy cannot afford it now, when will it ever?

With our quarry and our pitstocks booming to Chinese and Indian demand, WA has become like a 19th century colony again, now magnified, with us the home country, the nation's businesses growing fat on the same old colonial principle, money being spent mostly on infrastructure which is not expected to last, but only mostly to do with the quarry and pit mentality, much of the news mostly about sport and the multiplication of billions made by mining entre-rep's per gratis again of China and India.

The only chance for the cockies now is to take a chance and risk money on pit plus quarry stock shares, the young ones a bit tentative, because old great granpa had always been told that risking money on the share-market was like backing a horse with either a gammy leg or a crooked jockey - and anyway it was still a shonky way of making money. Never ever made you really proud like having to wait for a whole season praying for rain, and cursing that ancient Bugger up there, when rain peters out, and giving thanks a little when it does rain, but not enough - bit like Fiddler on the Roof.

What a bloody life?

Cheers.

Don this article is not a good expression of the issue. Lots of problems here:

“the biggest producer of greenhouse gases is government.”

That’s a pretty strange way of putting it. The components of this are attributable to our whole society, including farmers.

“With the end of these fire regimes, trees and shrubs have sprung up to dominate.”

Yes. In some areas grassland has turned to woodland or scrub. But let’s not overstate it. Large areas were originally wooded to some extent.

“This has led to poor forests - low levels of biodiversity combined with overcrowding of trees leading to unhealthy growth and soil erosion.”

The country is in a state of flux, heading towards a new equilibrium. What you see as poor woodland or scrub are actually immature plant communities. I’d like some evidence indicating that new woodland or scrub lowers biodiversity. It probably does in some instances, but I wonder if it does on average? And I seriously question the ‘soil erosion’ assertion and suggest that this is probably a result of grazing rather than more woody plants.

“The farmers asked if could they clear these lands and return them, via a crop or two, to native grasslands much like those before white settlement.”

It might be appropriate to clear some former grasslands if the intent is to return them to some semblance of what they were. But of course this doesn’t apply to original woodlands or scrublands, even really open ones. These could be thinned but not cleared.

Via a crop or two? What? And then when the soil is depleted, let them be overtaken by native grasses only, with a vigilant removal of weeds…and minimal grazing pressure…..and the right fire management to keep them open? Hmmmm.

continued

Let’s face it, the motivation is not really to return these ecosystems to a natural state nor anything like it. The motivation is increased productivity. Now I’m not saying that’s bad. In fact it is good, if it is done in balance with natural systems….

15% left uncleared. Now that’s not reasonable. I would suggest something closer to 50%. A 50/50 deal for productivity and ecological processes seems pretty reasonable to me.

“Would you give 15 per cent of your land or business to the government?”

It is still theirs and much of it is still productive to some extent. Even if they were to clear former grassland, I would suggest that 50% of it should remain ungrazed or uncropped. Oh alright if you want to barter, I’ll begrudgingly accept 25%...but certainly not 15%.

“They believe the system they propose would be environmentally much better than now and it would enable them to earn a living.”

There is merit in this. If 50% (or perhaps 75%) of woodland that has thickened or grassland that has been encroached on by woody plants can be cleared, then both biodiversity and productivity can be improved. But not if it is totally or predominantly converted into cropland of monotypic introduced pasture or if natural pasture is subjected to a heavy grazing regime.

“Many of you who are reading this are the enemy.”

Now that’s a good way to win friends and support for your cause: deliberately offend a good part of your readership! (:>|

“If we want to save, say princess parrots, we need to save the entire biodiversity of their habitat.”

YES. But I don’t have too much confidence that many farmers are interested in this sort of thing. Let’s face, it is all about productivity….and any gains for biodiversity or for threatened species will incidental.

Why should we feel sorry for farmers?
Through their support for conservative political parties, who are the major greenhouse deniers and their constant neverending derision for conservationists, they are one of the major causes of greenhouse gas emissions being what they are today.
If they and their political cohorts had of listened 30 years ago instead of hooting with laughter, we would not be in this predicament today.
Letting conservatives try to fix greenhouse is like giving a horse a shovel and saying "clean up your own sh!t" it just won't happen .
John Howard is suddenly green, BULLSH!T, he is just using greenhose as an excuse to bring in nuclear and to try to mininmise the cost to his mates in business.
Using trees as carbon soaks is only tempary, when the trees die they release the carbon back into the air, Howard continually claims we have reduced our emissions , this is a lie , they have increased, we just have more trees i.e. more carbon soaks but that is not a sustainable solution we must drastically reduce emissions.
I am not familiar with the woody weeds Don Burke is on about, however if they are some crappy shrub with a short life span I can't see that they are much real value.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying don't plant trees, but make sure they are the right trees and when they die they are a bennefit and not another problem.
Funny thing is I live on a ex travelling stock reserve, there are a lot of trees well over 150 years old, so it is pretty much original.
Open grassland it is not and never has been I have at least 200 trees on 10 hectares, this is near Albury NSW.
We hear a lot of crap from Howard on the cost of reducing greenhouse yet yet my fuel bill per quarter is $1500
5 years ago it was $900, my elecricity bill is $235 a quarter so if it doubled it would still be a piddling increase compared to my fuel increase.