@ W Smith so you do agree with me you just want to continue the emotional appear, and to add that anybody who doesn't agree with you is evil.
Now while you're going on about private property rights being the centre of most constitutions. Can you show the rest of us where in our constitution is these rights are talked about.

I'd like to know what is meant by the rather strange phrase "sanctity of property". It's something I don't think I'd ever heard until the Spencer sideshow.

Since when has property been sacred or holy?

Why don't you try answering Justin's question: how could a government power to manage the environment be limited, even conceptually?

Some of you here seem to be saying that every landholder has his own little fiefdom and they can do anything they want. Each individual plot of land should be its own little country only subject to its owners will and not the wider society or government. Each property owner a king or dictator over his holding. A billion petty tyrants lording over their estates.

Can you not see how ridiculous you look?

mikk
Unfortunately your intellectual dishonesty doesn't make up for your stupidity. What's the answer to the question?

What is all this twaddle about "native vegetation"? In most of this we are talking about regrowth.

Regrowth is not native vegitation. In every instance I have seen it is a very restricted vegetation, of just a few species, most often with very few of the species native to the area.

Not only does it make the land useless for food production, it usually makes it all most worthless to native wild life as well. It generally becomes a vast thicket, offering nothing to man or beast.

Only a city based fool, [definition of a greenie perhaps], who has no idea of what native vegetation is or was like, could see any value in allowing this cr4p to spread across the landscape.