Burke orders cattle out.Can someone tell me what right he has to do that.Doesn't the constitution cover State rights?
Printable View
Burke orders cattle out.Can someone tell me what right he has to do that.Doesn't the constitution cover State rights?
Check the media release from the Mountain Cattlemens Association of Victoria soon after Tony Burke's posturing announcement. It was posted on www.cowpad.info a couple of days ago. Those following the Alpine Grazing issue who have not already done so should also read the earlier article "Minister for Hypocrisy."
Regarding his ordering cattle to be removed by 8th April, is is pointed out that many of them will have been taken home by then anyway due to seasonal conditions this year. Undoubtely Mr Burke would prefer the Greens, to who he has been pandering to believe it is because of strong action by jimself.
Note that people who live near the Alpine National Parks and their elected representatives are overall strongly in favour of cattle grazing to help reduce the fire hazard to their communities and the risk of major destruction of the environment in the Park by very hot wildfire. Leading the push to ban cattle grazing is recently elected Greens MP Adam Bandt, who is paid to represent an area around the Melbourne Central Business District in Federal Parliament.
He should mind his own bloody business. How would he or other politicians representing city seats like it if the Government imposed policies regarding public resources in their electorates that they and their constituents strongly opposed? Especially is the reason was because they were pandering mainly to a few zealots from outlying rural areas who rarely visited the city and actively tried to avoid discussing the issues with locals adversely affected by their misguided policies.
Undoubtedly city people and politicians would regard such a scenario as outrageous and totally unacceptable. Yet many of them obviously think they have a right to overrule the preferences of country communities.
FFS - it has been conclusively proven that grazing does not reduce fire risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by mox
If you want to argue they should be in there for traditional reasons then fair enough, but enough of the BS.
Nothing like sarcasm to liven up an argument is there.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
The claim parroted by isuzurover that 'it has been proven conclusively that grazing does not reduce fire risk" is one example of the way green groups peddle half truths and some blatant lies to try and justify their pet notions. Claims that scientific studies show that some plants may grow to become more become more flammable after grazing are probably correct. However, overall grazing can significantly reduce the fire hazard. It is obviously far more effective in some patches then others though.
Regarding the main supposed "scientific study" the former Victorian Government held up to try and justify their banning cattle grazing from the Alpine National Park, two similar areas were compared. One had not been grazed and the other was in a grazing lease. Conclusion was there was no significant difference in the fire hazard between them. Not surprising. The lease holders had not put cattle in there that year. This is either gross incompetence by the researcher not checking as obviously how many cattle were involved and when they were put in and removed would be an important comsideration. Or deliberate SCIENTIFIC FRAUD!
Many organisations, especially government ones are obliged at times to provide supposedly independent evidence to support policy decided on. Unfortunately it seems too common that they choose people with the similar philosophical preferences to themselves to do the work and /or the researchers are strongly obliged to provide the answers those paying them want. Therefore the effective approach is to start with desired conclusions and work backwards to try and justify them. Is not surprising that many academics, whose political preferences largely tend to support Labor and Greens would produce reports condemning Alpine cattle grazing if given a job studying it.
Also as happens at times in many trades and professions, sometimes it is necessary to decide where to draw the line between doing what the customer wants and compromising professional integrity. Obviously most Land Rover enthusiasts would realise how this can occur regarding mechanical repairs. Sometimes a quick/cheap/ rough job may be done when it is important to keep a vehicle /machine going for a limited period. However a self respecting mechanic would often flatly refuse to do a similar job in a non urgent situation, knowing it is unlikely to last and then he may be blamed for the failure. Likewise, some scientists will do shoddy work that on scrutiny is clearly unprofessional if expedient.
It seems that regarding at least most of the supposed scientific studies concluding that cattle grazing is overall detrimental, critics familiar with details can point out out major faults with evidence and methodology.
Consider ways cattle do reduce fire hazards: Depending on several factors they eat varying amounts of grass and other plant material. Also from walking around knock some down. There is a rule of thumb that often flames in grass fires are something like five times the height of the grass. When it is thin or matted on the ground and inch high, flames may be five inches high. The fire burns slowly and not very hot. However, when some plants in a patch of grass are five feet high, often fire will start with a quick whoosh of flames twenty five feet high, which can be very destructive and spread further rapidly. If cattle have walked through an area, knocked down a bit of grass and eaten a bit, it can make a vast reduction to the overall damage a fire does and problems putting it out. Also when fires are just creeping along, eg at night and /or on flanks of major fires, often they will stop at a cattle track.
Mountain cattlemen and other have photos taken after fires of places where they were stopped in grazed areas after coming out of areas that were not where they had caused much more environmental devastation. These deserve much more publicity.
In recent years it has become a common problem world wide with zealots, who actively try to avoid discussing issues with local people affected going overboard with beat ups about alleged environmental problems. They attract support from well meaning people - largely from affluent city area a long way away who then lobby governments for action without being properly informed of the whole story.
Do readers here think views of the likes of isuzurover, who lives in Perth area should override those of locals in Victorian Alpine areas? Including Mountain cattlemen, who I do know a few of.
The EPBC Act gives the feds the right to protect listed protected, threatened ane endangered species. Feds have signed international agreements to do this....... it gives Australia leverage in other areas internationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco44
Personally, I'm involved in a couple of areas that are relevant here.
First is working for a couple of private companies that get gigs from water authorities and CMA's to assess freshwater fish populations and instream and streamside vegetation.
The amount of damage cattle do to the vegetation and water quality is very noticeable where streams are not fenced off. Weeds are also an issue.
As a representative of a commercial rock lobster fishery I was involved in the feds South East Marine parks working group. Of interest to AULRO members might be the fact that some forms of fishing are allowed in some areas of these marine parks because the catch is sustainable and most importantly : the form of fishing does not damage the identified features of that bio- region.
cheers, DL
Yes. I trust scientists more than cattlemen for looking at the big picture. Locals views are important but only by looking at all aspects of the situation can you make informed decisions. Vested interests clearly colour one's view.Quote:
Originally Posted by mox
This sounds like a squawk...Quote:
Originally Posted by mox
I wouldn't trust anyone to give an unbiassed view as everyone - scientists, cattlemen, pollies, 4WD'ers, etc etc. - is biassed in one way or another and that will come through in their reporting.Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
My biassed view of the situation, having read a lot of differing views from both sides and having visited the subject area over the past 20 years or so, is that the area was in better condition after the cattle had been there for more than 150 years than after the cattle had been eliminated and the area 'managed' by NP's for 5 years.
Fair enough, however underfunding of the NP service is a crime too, which doesn't mean cattle are better for the environment than proper management. What is more important, make the natural parks reservoirs for threatened species, or turn them into giant cowboy theme parks? I don't have the answer but I distrust arguments loaded with emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtreme
If NP Service don't have the funds to manage effectively then why not hand the area back to those who have a proven (150 year) record? It may not be as good as what NP Service would like but it would be better than what NP Service have shown to be capable of under the present funding situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
I don't recall the area being turned into "giant cowboy theme parks" during the 150 years that the cattlemen were sustainably managing it and haven't heard of any suggestions re "theme parks" in the future. :confused:
So where did that come from? Something to do with the 'emotions' maybe? :o