Thread: Cattle back in the VicHigh Country

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I live in brisbane. I have spent a reasonable amount of time driving/hiking in the high country. None of that is relevant however.

Most of your posts in this thread are emotive rants against scientists and government authorities. I am yet to see where you have refuted any of the scientific studies.

Xtreme - evolution takes longer than 150 years...

The former Government in Victoria used reports by selected scientists to try and justify its idealogical policy of no cattle in National Parks. Also pandering to radical green zealots to attract the perceived "green vote' in city electorates was also an important consideration.

Regarding government authorities and their employees, they have to work under policies directed by the Government. Employees are paid to implement policies directed by government and it is frowned on or more if they publicly disagree with them. However, sometimes a respected senior officer of a government organisation with problems resigns then causes his former masters lots of embarrassment with informed criticism.

Regarding forest /park management. where local views conflict with policies imposed by government, employees sympathetic to locals often bend rules and directives as much as they can get away with. Seems a recently publicised example is a grazier in Omeo area who had a lease in the Alpine National Park adjoining his property. The boundary fence was burnt in a fire and unlike those between private properties, the Govt does not pay half share of the large replacement cost. Without a functional fence, it was impracticable to keep cattle grazing on some private property out of the Park. Local Parks management, who undoubtedly approved of this grazing reducing fire risk in their area apparently took no action to have them removed after the lease was cancelled.

Regarding scientific opinions cited by the former State Government, which many people with background knowledge on Alpine Grazing issues disagree with, what I said could not be more than something like an emotive rant because explanation of why they are wrong requires considerable detail.

Now look at what the present Victorian Government is doing. It is not large scale reintroduction of cattle grazing. It is a trial in six areas to determine whether cattle grazing reduces fire risk. Obviously the methodology and evidence used by scientists running this trial will be subject to considerable scrutiny as it progresses, unlike the obviously highly flawed ones the previous Government wanted everyone to accept.
The greens groups and Labor Party who supported the Alpine grazing ban are terrified that their dishonesty will be exposed and are doing everything they can to stop this new trial. Hopefully the Federal ALP will not be able to enforce the cattle grazing ban they are posturing about and the trial will continue. Would be interesting if it came to them trying to arrange removing the cattle themselves. A can of worms! Of those with gear and expertise to do the job, who would touch it? Laws regarding impounding livestock would cause problems. Also is very unlikely any livestock transporter would cart these impounded cattle as afterwards many farmers would never give them another job.

Onviously a significant proportion of people taking an interest in the Alpine National Park cattle grazing issue are presently opposed to its large scale reintroduction. However, hopefully many should be open minded enough to accept a proper trial on how much it reduces fire risk and major environmental destruction of wildfires. Also, if the trial proves that undoubtedly any damage properly managed grazing causes is greatly outweighed by by overall benefit to the Park, they will accept it on a larger scale permanent basis. Undoubtedly there are some who will remain philosophically opposed to cattle in National Parks regardless of any proven benefits though.

The important question: Under consideration here is not immediate large scale grazing reintroduction. It is a trial. Do you support it?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Am I missing something here?

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.

What you are missing is an explanation of what is more properly understood as modern scientific method which centres on falsification of hypotheses rather than proof. This approach is generally attributed to Karl Popper though it really predated him by more than a hundred years. The approach demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be 'confirmed', because there is always the possibility that a future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action, ie, we can act as if it were true, until such time as it is falsified. Just because we've never observed rain falling upward, doesn't mean that we never will—however improbable.

Cheers
KarlB