Has anyone witnessed the devestation done to the banks of the murray river after a mob of cattle have been there to drink?

There is nothing special about the banks of the Murray River. Anywhere in the world that cattle or other cloven hoofed animals mass to drink the soil will be damaged, but if you look closely at herd behaviour, you will note that they return to the most easily accessed water every day, not constantly erode more of the bank. This is one reason why farmers pump water to troughs to water their animals.

The river banks should not be used as a boundary for domestic livestock. Proper fencing should be used, and sheep and cattle watered in apropriate manners. Not all farmers provide watering facilities for their animals when there is a river handy. Grazing of stock on properties bounded with a river frontage must be addressed by law.

Actually Jason you may find much of your concern addressed by the drought. Significant numbers of properties fronting rivers have had problems with wandering stock passing between neighbours, as where once was a natural barrier (water) recently there has been nothing (or little enough not to impede stock).

I have not, but I'd wager it's all part of the corruption necessary to retain the votes of the fools who exploit and live off it for all this time. You'll find every one of them are unapologetic and dismissive, much like the governments in eastern europe who ruined the Aral sea, or the Chinese government on it's own rivers.

Properties with grazing permits along the vic side of the Murray River, must be withdrawn. Fencing installed along their titled boundary. The whole area will have to be unweeded and re planted. After years of grazing nothing has been done by graziers to replace damage done to public land.

Jason, perhaps you should get a few facts right before you open your mouth.

My river boundry is the middle of the river, as surveyed well over 100 years ago. I have a right to graze my stock to that boundry. THERE IS NO PUBLIC LAND ON MY PART OF THE RIVER.

There is no requirement for mr to fence the river off. I have, because I don't want my stock on a high, steep, & dangerous bank. As I have a water harvesting licence, & I pump water to a couple of small, [quarter acre] dams, [ponds really, they don't catch much from rainfall], to water my stock, in most circumstances.

However, this is where some of the type of restrictions you wish to impose, start to cause problems. These small dams run dry.
Once the river gets below a certain level, I am no longer permitted to pump a few thousand gallons into these dams. I am not even supposed to pump water into a couple of small tanks to supply water troughs. I am only allowed to fill water troughs. I would have to fill these troughs, twice a day, evert day.

As an old bloke, with a history of heart attacks, my doctor tells me I should not go down the river bank to start a pump, even once a month. The 20 meters climb back up the very steep & slippery bank, is bad for me. I now have a problem. Do I kill my self, by pumping twice a day? Do I brake the law, & pump into a couple of tanks every few days? Do I go further, & pump a months supply into my dams?

Just what do you recommend?
Continued.

Jason, the last time I was in hospital, after a heart a attack, a neighbour opened my river gates for me, so my stock could get a drink. I left them open, until, after rain, the river was high enough for me harvest again. I did not loose any stock.

Perhaps you think I should have killed myself. Perhaps you should first try to get a more sensible set of regulations, so I can pump a few days supply. Perhaps you would like to come & pump water for me.

I look forward to your pearls of wisdom.

While your at it, you could suggest an answer for my mate, who has 63 kilometres of river winding through his place. Will you pay for, & build the 126Km of fence, & spend all day, every day, driving aloung this fence, pumping water for his stock. Perhaps you would prefer to pay 300% more for your food, to allow him to pay for this extra cost?

How is that fair Hasbeen when industries like QAF pump 5,000,000 litres per day out of the same river? http://www.qafmeats.com.au/about.htm

Just to support an intensive farming operation??

To talk of a spasific problem you have is unfotunate. The cost of saving rivers from degradation will be high for a handfull of individuals. Change will come about as a matter of necessity. Livestock and rivers are a bad mix. May i suggest a windmill to lift the water.

I'm a little bit in the dark here, Jason60.

I don't live in Victoria, so I am not familiar with the landholding situation with respect to river banks. Are you saying that a strip of land along the entire length of the Murray's southern bank always has been public land? Or, are you saying that in your opinion there OUGHT to be such a strip? Which is it?

If it is the case that a public reserve has always existed in this respect, then one answer I could suggest would be a class-action claim on the part of all riparian landholders for title to this strip on the basis of the Law of Adverse Possession. If what you claim to have seen is true, it would appear to be prima facie evidence for total neglect by the resposible authority of this land. Title should pass to the respective landholders, and the sooner the better. Cost to be awarded against the Crown for creating the necessity to mount the case in the first instance.

Land in private ownership is almost invariably looked after better than that in public ownership, and in this sort of situation for exactly the sort of reasons Hasbeen has described. IF there is a real problem in the landholders sole and absolute determination, that is.

On the other hand, if such a strip is proposed to be created by way of resumption, those same landholders would be well advised to retain the best land valuation counsel they can get to ensure the Victorian taxpayers pay the full cost to the landholders of the lost amenity of the river bank and their erstwhile riparian status. With any luck it should run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, or maybe more.

OT, I've always thought trespass upon rural land ought be an offence punishable by mandatory sentencing to hard labour. Doing fencing and riverbank weeding, for example.

"What the eye don't see, the heart don't grieve over."

What do you reckon, Hasbeen and Country Gal? You're both very polite.

Yes there is a 60m strip of public land that runs the entire length of the Murray River, on the victorian side. Much of which is rented to graziers or croppers. The rents are a nominal figure on a yearly basis and ongoing. The purpose of these permits, was for nearby landholders to look after the public land. But you will find much of the land is used for shade and access to water for livestock. Never have i seen landholders water being used on this land, thus it turns into a dust bowl.

Hasbeen
so let me get this straight, because you are old/ infirm and no longer able to run your farm properly (and I sympathise with that) the environment and river health, not to mention the water quality for people using the river downstream, must suffer.
Surely you are not serious?

Paul nicholls

The stupidity of you people knows no bounds.

No one suffers if my stock use the river, or if they don't. Obviously, none of you have any experience of a river. In fact, none of the damn academics, who try to force their opinions on country people, have any either.

If you look to the Murray mouth you see lots of sand. You see it again in Fraser, & Morton & Stradbroke islands. Thats because rivers erode their banks, & the sand washes down stream.

They were doing it before any cloven hoof animals came to Oz. They even did it before man came to Oz, [naughty things].

Its not an effect of stock that causes most damage to river banks, it's bl@@dy TREES. Yes trees.

Every flood, & they occured before man came to Oz too, a number of trees are undercut by the water. Their existence causes swirls, & back eddies in the flow, that rip the bank out. Each flood takes some of these trees, & with them massive amounts of river bank.

I know because I've studdied the river, not a computer. I've also replaced the fences, that went with the trees.

If you want to stop bank erosion, my neighbour has the answer. Bulldoze the trees, & batter the bank to about 25 degrees. Then plant it to long growing grass. The water runs over this smoothly, with no erosion. In fact, he gains some soil from the deposition of silt, from this smooth [& therefore slower], flow.

Being a fool, I like the trees on my bank, even though I know they are bad for erosion.

It would be great if you city twits tried to learn a bit, before shooting off with this green garbage. If you want to force us to have wild life corridors along our river banks, at least have the guts to say so, rather than hide behind bull sh!t science. Gutless twits don't impress me too much.

Incidently, I've planted more trees, than you've had hot dinners, but in suitable places.

Hasbeen

Gee , you are an angry little man aren't you.

For your info, I too am a country boy, and an irrigator with a river frontage. Your views do a disservice to the vast majority of landcare farmers and those that care for the environment. Your ideas relating to trees and erosion are simply bizzare. Talk to some landcare farmers mate and get some proper info before you go making rash judgements about contributors to this forum

Now have lie down and count to 10.

Paul N