I tend to agree with cornflower, who assumes that farmers are anti-tree?

Farmers will, be naturally inclined, by practice and necessity, to have the health of their business (aka their farm) as a paramount concern. It represents a sizable investment which they would not wish to squander or risk, any more than a truckie would use cheap, substandard wheel nuts on his $250,000 truck.

I always believe those who own and work the land know better about that land

than some amateur, yet loud, environmental activist or professionally paid bureaucrat with a bee in his bonnet about wood lice, living in the burbs, demanding that every tree (living or dead) be sanctified.

I recall the site of dead trees along the side of the western highway between Rockbank and Ballarat,, left to rot under the directive of some socialist government dingbat with a fetish for providing dwellings for insects. That was until black Saturday, after which the fire risk was deemed sufficient to free the farmers to clear up the fire hazards, previously inflicted upon them by the DSE (Dept of Scorched Earth).

I further recall a farmer who was fined $50,000 by a penalty which breached the local rabid council and their “green zealots” laws, for cutting a fire break on his own land and ended up with the only house left standing in his area, after the same black Saturday fires.

I fear we have too many busy-bodies usurping their acquired authority.

Footnote

In a democracy, you cannot “make” anybody Love anything,

To do that you need “dictatorial” powers.

I find the price of turning a blind eye to dictatorial abuse, regardless the manner in which it is dressed or the supposed sincerity of the abusive proponents, just too high to pay or even bargain with.

Better the chaos of individudal good intentions than the uniform jackboot of the EPA

Make Farmers Tree lovers? Arjay, Now that puts a new spin on the meaning of arborist! Isn't there a public decency law against that?

Seriously, this man has taken an extremist approach to an assumptive 'right'.

In the process it could be argued that his whole perspective is both myopic and unrealistic.

I feel for his concern and his angst but either dying or reducing his life expectancy for this cause(?) seems like a waste.

A bit like a nameless monk in Burma self immolating what will it gain really? He'll be dead or sick!

In truth none of us are totally free to do what we want there are always rules. Sometimes those rules disadvantage some.
This idea that a farmer or anyone now has the right to do anything with their property is pure emotional rubbish.

He did and still does have options, if he took those options he would still have a meaningful life .... his mindset is the problem and as such that is his problem. My lifestyle, my heritage...emotional claptrap!

Then again he has the right to die if that is what he wants to do.
50 days without food hey? Amazing powers of resilience or is he selectively eating? (a stunt?)

Let's move on.

Col and examinator,I'm passing no laws.I say the present Govt gestapo policies will make farmers hostile towards trees.The best people to look after the environment are the ones who work with it,not bureaucrats.

Christopher Monckton wants the develop a world wide party of freedom.We need a strong 3rd force here that actually listens to the people.The Libs superficially are all for small Govt but do the opposite when in power.Labor will grow anything connected to a bureaucrat.

We actually live in an oligarchy and the choices are very limited.That is the main reason Spencer was up his pole protesting.