Cattle back in the VicHigh Country

At the end of the day the National Parks are belong to the people of this country and not to be used by private organizations or individuals for their own financial benefit.

These farmers which want to use the public assets for their own business have the same right that the rest of the population to use Commonwealth assets for their own financial gain. NIL

If they do not have enough land for their cattle they have the choice to purchase more land, have less cattle or give away the game.

I just wonder if I can have the workshops of any government division to run a business:angel:

Western Land leases which comprise of a large proportion of NSW are exactly the model you describe above.

Regards,
Tote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucaro

At the end of the day the National Parks are belong to the people of this country and not to be used by private organizations or individuals for their own financial benefit.

These farmers which want to use the public assets for their own business have the same right that the rest of the population to use Commonwealth assets for their own financial gain. NIL
<snip>

---

To extrapolate on your argument that the public has no right to attract financial gain from national parks, then it would be illegal for passenger cruise ships to navigate through the Whitsunday Islands, for many hotel complexes on tropical islands all within national marine parks. Charter fishing in similar marine parks, tag along and 4wd bus tours through any national park, the resorts at tropical and desert national parks. Ski venues in the alpine national parks. Professionally guided bushwalking tours, mountaineering or speleological tours, I can go on and on. Any one of those arguments makes a nonsense of your theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Am I missing something here? :confused:

I thought in scientific research you have a hypothesis you need to prove. Then you design your experiment to prove the hypothesis.

It's a very poor scientist who designs an experiment that doesn't prove his hypothesis.

So in the end your research comes out with the answer that you wanted in the first place. Once it's been published in a peer reviewed journal and cited by two other scientists in subsequent articles published in other peer reviewed journals, then it becomes a fact!

The most important thing you need to do is decide what you want to find before you start the research.

Isn't that the way it works?

BTW: I studied with many people doing ecology and zoology who were already members of the green movement and in spite of the education some of these people were receiving the outcome was already known and unchangeable.

Some of the most zealous amongst them were un-moved in their opinions by the starving millions throughout the world, but horrified by the thought of the damage a bushwalker may do to micro-environments in wilderness areas should the bushwalker thoughtlessly discard an apple core!

Some of these same people are now leaders of the animal welfare and green movements.

---

Following on from the above comments it is well known that politicians will not call an enquiry unless that it will deliver their preferred outcomes. To conduct them, they can start by appointing people who are likely from their known political views and/or what they are being paid who will do this almost regardless of how strong overall evidence is against it. The effective process is sometimes to start assuming the conclusions they want and work backwards to try and justify them. Includes by selectively embracing or ignoring various bits of evidence.

Sometimes professional and trades people have to draw the line somewhere between doing what clients want and compromising their professional integrity. Sometimes unfortunately pressure on them includes considering future possible jobs from the same client. Also circumstances can vary. eg I have done some rough , cheap or quick mechanical repairs on vehicles and machines when it was important to keep them going in the short term. However in other circumstances have flatly refused requests to do similar things in non urgent situations because knowing they will not last and then probably I would be blamed.

Regarding the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council enquiry recommending large areas of river redgum forest being made National Parks which the Labor former Govt implemented despite very strong opposition from locals in areas involved: Of submissions received, the majority opposed them with many detailed good reasons. Obviously many of those in favour were from city people basically repeating spin peddled by green groups.

Note re cattle grazing, the present Govt has for some reason at least temporarily reneged on the promise to return it to the Barmah Forest. Grazing is more important here than in most other forests as redgums are very sensitive to fire and the necessary work involved to minimise this makes cool burns very costly and impracical for reducing fire risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucaro

At the end of the day the National Parks are belong to the people of this country and not to be used by private organizations or individuals for their own financial benefit.

These farmers which want to use the public assets for their own business have the same right that the rest of the population to use Commonwealth assets for their own financial gain. NIL

If they do not have enough land for their cattle they have the choice to purchase more land, have less cattle or give away the game.

I just wonder if I can have the workshops of any government division to run a business:angel:

---

Various other businesses of other types also use public assets under arrangements with Governments. Those with philosophical objections to properly managed cattle grazing of public land regularly peddle lies that it is just for the benefit of a few greedy graziers who are getting cheap agistment.

The actual fees paid may be low compared with agistment on farms. However, there are many other expenses, especially transportation and mustering. Usually as part of the deal caretaker work including fixing fences and tracks and weed and vermin control is involved. Production from the forest is effectively ensuring funding for it continues. However care of many National Parks depends solely on what the Government decides to give. For recent Labor governments, trying to make themselves look good to some city voters by declaring more Parks rather than looking after existing ones seems the main priority.

Another consideration regarding grazing stock in areas where it is not easy to regularly inspect or muster them that there are usually more losses from deaths and sometimes disappearances than from farms. Remember that with cattle currently worth several dollars each this can be considerable.

Much of the grazing in Alpine and river redgum forests is over the summer when there is normally green feed there for much longer than on nearby dryland farms. Then over winter cattle are mainly taken from forests as they can be better cared for on the farms. Are operations that compliment each other. Suggesting that farmers simply buy more land just demonstrates ignorance of the overall situation.

However, the most important reason why properly controlled grazing is important in many forests is as one of the means to reduce fire risk and for this reason it is overall strongly supported by locals in areas concerned. What right should those objecting, mainly a few noisy city people and their politicians have to stop others from trying to protect themselves and the forests? Especially as most of them, including Federal Minister Tony Burke remain ignorant by actively trying to avoid consulting with people affected. Conversely however, undoubtedly they would be outraged if in the city the Government tried to impose stupid unwanted policies there to appease a vocal minority from outlying rural areas who rarely visited the city and showed considerable lack of understanding of issues involved. .

Could everyone please read the ENTIRE thread from page 1 to current. In some posts we are revisiting areas of the discussion already covered, in particular the argument on reducing fire effect.


Thankyou
Chris