The discussion seems to be getting off track. If the people in the cities expect people, ie farmers,to offset their right to pollute the world as fast as they can then surely they must pay for that expectation. Is there a vegetation map for the Ipswich Bypass? Because I could never get my hands on one! Different rules perhaps?
Mike

Want some fun?
Want to see evedence not all we say here is true?
Go, please do, to this mornings Friday edition of the Australian.
Read about Peter Spencer, from information his own brother gave.
We come from all walks of life in OLO highly educated or very poor, we must then re read this thread.
See again the claims that have been made here.
And understandif we get it wrong, we all do, some more than others.
It is a learning experiance to understand and admit it.
I? well reading the thread again, am enjoying it .

True! it was well worth it.
PTB did you lie?
You said you knew the bloke for 4 years, then surely you knew his real problems?
Every day I learn, sometimes its re learn.
This morning I re earned opinions are free, much or very little thought can go into them.
Much or no understanding too.
Yet we all put more value on our own than others.
Few are wise enough to take the mistakes, cuddle them, own them, and grow by them.

Thanks Belly. The more I learn about this guy the less sympathy I have for him. He's also the environmental vandal who was behind 'National Chop Down a Tree Day' in 2007.

What a goose. As are the credulous idiots who've been sucked in by him in order to push their own barrows.

I have not seen the newspaper article, but does it change the basic
argument.
The government wanted to stop clearing of land to comply with an
international treaty.
Is that correct ?
Then it must have a cost on the landholder.
Is that correct ?
If so then the cost of such treaties must be born across the community.

Is that reasonable ?

It does not matter whether he owes money or whatever other
circumstances apply, that seems to be the start and finish of the matter.
Are there other farmers in the same boat ?
If yes then why should they all not get compensation ?

No Bazz. Land clearing laws were enacted by the States in order to halt the rampant destruction of the environment by farmers. Some years later the Howard government included remnant vegetation and regrowth in its disingenuous claim to be meeting the Kyoto targets it refused to ratify.

Nobody stole anything from anybody. I'd be willing to consider compensating farmers from consolidated revenue when they compensate taxpayers for the costs of environmental destruction, not to mention the millions of dollars we shell out each year to prop up unsustainable 'farmers' with 'Exceptional Circumstances' payments etc.

This whole thing's a beat-up by a bunch of lunatic fringe environmental rapists who've clearly chosen the wrong poster boy for their loopy cause.