Hey Yabby

Excerpts from the Centre for Rural Social Research exposes you as a boastful ethics-free, ignorant alien to these lands:

"WA's settled pastoralism with foreign domestic livestock converted the annual growth of edible plants that evolved during thousands of years into meat and wool for cash.

"Conflict exists between those members of society not wanting its flow resources to be managed as stock resources and the many personal and corporate legal entities who seem to act as if their legal ownership of naturally renewable resources is a right to plunder them for as long as is financially profitable.

"Livestock-based economy and the ecological system, though highly productive in the short term, has been unsustainable. In one century many millions of sheep and cattle have been grazed.

"Each animal, driven by hunger, with its natural mower to cut and mechanism to grind the natural vegetation, and a series of fermentation vats mounted on a four-footed hard cloven-hooved transport system, transformed native plants into marketable raw materials.

"The natural ecology was massively disturbed. Gathering the edible plant material, often to the extinction of individual species, simultaneously with new hard-hoof cultivation, inevitably opened the soils to the wind and water agents of erosion that are ever-present in most land systems.

"The natural ecological system that presently is exploited as 'rangeland' amounts to about 38 per cent of WA. As may be expected, one result is that government now spends more money on services to the pastoral industry than it collects as rent (Jennings).

"The bureaucracies (chiefly Agriculture WA) seem unable to ask other questions and therefore have no mechanism to generate solutions that don't focus on traditional extension.

"Government reports appear to have done little more than promote government administration (see, for example, Task Force 1996) and further bureaucratic paper-work: more surveys, assessments, audits and reports; more committees and task forces; and political travel junkets.

"Why, it may be asked, have the requisite standards and monitoring of trends not already been established? Is it because political power of farm and station property ownership overwhelms bureaucratic rationality?"

So what's your next howler Yabby?

Nicky,

Your observations are spot on. The original red herring, of course, was Yabby's proclamation that only the views of 'wealth creaters' such as himself were worthy of serious consideration.

When I challenged that he attempted to bait me for my views on the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

When I challenged him to tell me why I was wrong, he then did a 180 degree turn and told me, "Frankly its not worth my time, to even bother".

When I pointed out that he raised the issue in the first place, he asked me why I hadn't moved to Cuba yet.

Of course, all along, he ducks and weaves in order to avoid confronting the central facts at hand, namely that he is practising ecological vandalism, apparently approves of barbaric cruelty to animals and welcomes the rape of the planet through the increasing exports of our climate-changing minerals.

And Yabby, as I have noted before, is extremely slippery and dishonest in the way he justifies this. One minute he tells us that the mining boom is good in its own right, but when that is challenged, he turns around and tells us we have no choice. In his words,

"... In that case we would borrow even more from the Chinese
and Japanese, then we already do now, to pay our bills. ...
You would soon be working for Chinese bosses
on their terms, not your terms. ..."

Assuming that, for argument's sake that this is true, who would Yabby have us believe it was who brought about this situation, if not John Howard, Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, all three of whom he idolises?

Clearly the circumstances that Yabby claims exist, would suit him perfectly, being the selfish, greedy and uncaring person he is, with no concern for his children or the future of this planet.

For my part, if the situation is as bad as Yabby depicts, then I think it is well past time that we held to account our political leaders, past and present, who got us into this mess.

“The agricultural region of WA has lost more species of plants and animals than any other comparable region in the world.

“For society to be content with ecologically unsustainable management of these resources is for it to condone a threat to its own survival.

"Society's responsibility and duty to require its own and private management of agricultural land and natural renewable resources to be ecologically and sustainably productive has precedence over every individual person's and corporation's agricultural and pastoral land ownership rights.

"WA's current and potential soil salinity crisis warrants government seriously to consider new land ownership rights.

(Currently WA is losing the equivalent of 19 football fields a day to salinity (WAEPA 2007.)

“Although government has not caused the ecological damage that private owners and lessees tolerate or have done to the property they manage, society shares responsibility for it because it tolerated such damage.

"This is not to imply that government should manage society's farms and stations. Rather, it suggests government should set and enforce standards and conditions of use of rangeland vegetation and arable agricultural soils to ensure their ecologically sustainable productivity.

“WA has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands. Whereas the land-use managers - whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold - are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so.

"The common public good seems to have been neglected by government in favour of private landed property ownership. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least.” (CRSR)

Meanwhile, the feeble-minded Yabby struts his stuff, clutching brown paper bags to gift to the cretins who frequent the corridors of parliament, pondering on the delicious prospect of increasing livestock numbers to flog off to new customers in the lands of the barbarians.

His boastful, diabolical delusions echo through this parched land as he joyfully herds his hapless victims for export.

And the profits Yabby? “Ah....yes.....molto grande! Grazie....suckers!”

OMG, dickie has found a new website! Wow!

Social policy heh dickie. Pity that that don't seem to know the
first thing about agriculture or about Western Australia.

Have you ever bothered to ask Calm etc, why species are threatened
in WA? They will soon tell you that foxes and rabbits are their
biggest headache and it was not WA farmers who released foxes
and rabbits into the environment.

Do you know under which terms that CP blocks were released in
WA? If farmers did not clear the lot, they lost their farms!
I've told you before Govt is responsible for much of the salinity
in WA and Govt is free to fix it, by opening drains back to the
ocean. All very simple really.

Remove livestock from the environment and we know what happens.
Grasses grow, the fuel load increases, next time things are
tinder dry and lightning strikes, the whole lot goes up in flames.

All those greenies around Canberra learnt the hard way, when
parts of their city started burning down. That is exactly why
Calm do regular burns to WA country that is not being grazed.

Up North there are huge fires every year, everything burns
including the wildlife.

The real problem that we have here once again, is that we have
a bunch of feelgood amateurs, well out of their depth when it
comes to understanding WA agriculture, as they know bugger all
about the topic.

The cutting edge of WA agriculture has developed sustainable
systems, where organic matter levels are increasing, erosion
has been solved, soil carbon levels as well as yields are
all increasing together. Slowly they are copying us in the
Eastern States. But frankly to explain it all to a bunch
of feelgood amateurs, is little more then wasting my time.

I somehow find it hard to believe that someone who celebrates the accelerating liquidation of Australia's natural capital, the rape of the planet's ecology, and who hates so many of his fellow citizens who have never lifted a finger against him, would be capable of properly caring for his own land.

A good many of what are claimed to be green agricultural practices are, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Perhaps, in Yabby's case they are, but I will believe it when I see it with my own eyes.

Interesting that Yabby has made no comment on David Montgomery's thesis.

And we are all quite well aware of the bushfire hazard that is posed by the uncontrolled build-up of vegetation, thank you, very much, Yabby.

You know, Daggett and Dickie, we should all be ashamed of ourselves. Clearly Yabby is the ONLY person in the country who understands sustainability, ecology and environmental responsibility (let's forget the total amorality of what he thinks and does for now), and here we are maligning him for enlightening us all.

Scientists, academics and economists have nothing on the hate-filled crayfish. I am somewhat at a loss to understand where rape and consensual sex are relevant to this debate, but perhaps Yabby has some hitherto unexplored rationale for this particular "red herring", in his dreams, perhaps?

"People go hungry because much of arable land is used to grow feed grain for animals rather than people. In the US, 157 million tons of cereals, legumes and vegetable protein – all suitable for human consumption – is fed to livestock to produce just 28 million tons of animal protein in the form of meat....

"The irony is that millions of consumers in the first world are dying from diseases of affluence such as heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and cancer, brought on by eating animal products, while the world’s poor are dying from diseases of poverty"

Read the full article at:

http://www.liveexportshame.com/news2/index.php?topic=4943.msg5981;topicseen#msg5981

Australia's current account deficit would not be as grim as it is today without the contribution of his idols (as Daggett has pointed out). The rest of us whose tax dollars prop up livestock farmers and the live export trade are expected to accept the narrow, near sighted perceptions of these people who will make their money ruining Australia and care nothing for the consequences for all of us.

But Yabby has such a short-sighted perception of the narrow picture - profit today at any cost, however amoral or brutal. That is his miserable view of the world and everyone in it except live exporters and WA "livestock" farmers.

Nicky