Who cares how high the Wilderness society plane was flying, not me, ..so by that statement you approve of illigal actions..it shows your true leanings...keep up the good work bushvision...these greeny's dont care who they step on to push their narrowminded illogical ideals...
What is the big deal ? the hicks have already said they have a licence to clear the entire block, isn't that the crime. Who cares how high the Wilderness society plane was flying, not me, I think this yanky couple should shoo off back to Florida from whence they came, and leave a just a little of old Australia intact - in a nature state. Goodness me, must we protect every granddad and grandma hick and their backward thinking that sets foot down under ?
I'd question the legality of the permits, especially if they're based on what's done 'in Florida'(?) Trees can regrow, but it obviously takes years for them to replace older trees, particularly if it's old growth forest we're talking about. Complex ecosystems can be ruined. Destroying 70% of forested areas isn't exactly a 'win' for conservation either.. I can understand why TWS would be concerned. Comparing environmentalists to the Nazis in Germany is just a tad ridiculous!
The permits are given because the land has gone from an open grassland at settlement to becoming closed forests over 100 years due to the aboriginal fire management ceasing. The permits were given so the farmers could look after the land close to it`s pre settlement levels of grasses & trees. TWS didn`t understand this got carried away with there actions just like idealogues in any belief system do. They assume they are correct & then persecute decent people who have done nothing wrong
As to its legality, not having the full details I'll have to take your word for it. The destruction of 70% of the forested areas still bothers me. TWS is made up of extremely brave, committed people. It's organizations such as the logging company GUNNs that are doing the persecuting.
The whole thing still seems very fishy (I wouldn't be suprised if that farmer had lit a fire nearby and left the coals there as false evidence to try and make up some story about TWS.. no sensible farmer would be burning off in the middle of bushland). The fact he just happened not to get the offending photos back seems very dodgy also.. perhaps there weren't any? TWS does not have the time or resources to be chasing innocent people- something shifty was going on at that property.
I have made several videos of my farming experiences (see Leon Ashby`s farming & property rights experiences Pt 1,2, & 3)& have received various awards but TWS & other greens visit our properties, say we do a good job & then persecute us - Its a fun world eco politics
It is indeed. Again, I'll state TWS would not put its time and energy into persecuting innocent people. The fact that you say there have been other cases only seems to emphasise that some poor environmental practices have likely been going on on these properties. But as the saying goes, if you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to fear.
You are a bit out of touch with TWS. In Australia they use all sorts of stunts to infer decent farmers do illegal things. Farmers are an easy target to make the media report them as sticking up for the environment when neither the media (nor TWS)knows anything of good land management in semi arid forest desert country (land that degrades when it`s forests become closed)
There is plenty to fear from TWS
Why do they persecute farmers with permits as in this video? I dunno - just pure craziness?
I assume that you are referring to national parks and the like when you comment on 'closed' forests. In such cases it is absolutely untrue to suggest semi arid desert country 'degrades' when left in its natural state; rather it is forestry practices, like clear felling that cause such problems.. along with destroying biodiversity, habitat for native fauna, etc.
Therefore, it's pretty obvious why TWS would have concerns with 70% of areas of natural vegetation being destroyed. Some farmers are environmentally aware, others aren't. Some are 'decent', others aren't. I still have my doubts about the validity of this video- it presents a very narrow view and there are gaping holes in the arguments presented which I've referred to in previous comments. It would be more valid if you'd at least made some attempt to present TWS point of view.
No - a closed forest is one which has tree cover (200 - 2,000 stems/ha depending on rainfall & soil type)that prevents grasses from growing.
It can occur in parks or on farmland. A closed forest in a semi arid environment reduces biodiversity - less grasses, less soil biota, more erosion, less animals & birdlife in short it degrades naturally without human management towards and open forest (10 - 400 stems /HA depending on rainfall & soil type etc) - Sounds like you`ve never seen it before?
Yes, I have seen these forests. In fact my family (third generation farmers) own a property which has such areas of bushland on it, covering some of the most rugged country in Australia. However, those who are against the protection of natural environmental areas (as you seem to be) often refer to national parks, etc as the 'locking up' or 'closing' of forests which is obviously what I thought you must mean. Now you have cleared up your point I can only disagree entirely with what you say.
While through a short sighted farmer's eyes such 'closed' areas may be seen as worthless simply because they don't make prime grazing country, many native animals rely on this habitat for survival. In terms of the threat of 'less soil biota... more erosion' see my comment above. Removing trees will accelerate and cause problems, not fix them. This is common knowledge. Have you had any experience farming yourself?
Wrong again - If you check my three videos on farming & property rights you might get to see some of the research work I organised on water spreading which got some landcare awards. Certainly unmanaged land in many areas have worse environmental outcomes than managed land. several Aust land plots that have been fenced out so no animals at all graze them degrade within 5 - 10 years & lose the number & diversity of their grasses
Ever seen that happen? - back in 5 days (job to do)- cheers
Personally, I think you are the one in the wrong, but we may have to agree to disagree. I'd suspect such fenced off areas that were left had previously been impacted upon by farming or other harmful practices.. obviously in these cases the land would still suffer the ongoing impacts whether left or not. Grazing animals also clearly are not the only outward threat that could be effecting the health of an area. I could go on, but I'll let you get back to your job. :)
Cropping that saves the soil, Leon Ashby`s farming & property rights experience parts 1 & 2 & Greens cuse environmental disaster.
They demonstrate the narrow "Green" /TWS idealogy of leaving a landscape to degrade versus the consevation minded farming view of active management to retain high levels of soil biota and grass species while keeping trees at a constant level so they don`t reduce other species. Have you seen that happen?
Why would you want to clear all the trees on your property? And if a couple of planes flying over your place is supposed to be 'tyrannical harrassment' I'd hate to see how you'd cope with what Green groups have to put up with on a daily basis. The Wilderness Society does a lot of good work.
Farmers don`t clear all the trees on these properties - they leave around 30% but that isn`t enough for the wilderness society, they decide to hassel people who have legal permits and conduct good landcare work.
Most people don`t realise the trees regrow & / or increase in density on these farms.
Farmers attempt to keep the vegetation in a win /win level for conservation & productivity - but green groups idealogies make them do bizarre things (much as Nazism idealogy did in Germany in 30`s)
Who cares how high the Wilderness society plane was flying, not me, ..so by that statement you approve of illigal actions..it shows your true leanings...keep up the good work bushvision...these greeny's dont care who they step on to push their narrowminded illogical ideals...
dv8wolfie 2 years ago
What is the big deal ? the hicks have already said they have a licence to clear the entire block, isn't that the crime. Who cares how high the Wilderness society plane was flying, not me, I think this yanky couple should shoo off back to Florida from whence they came, and leave a just a little of old Australia intact - in a nature state. Goodness me, must we protect every granddad and grandma hick and their backward thinking that sets foot down under ?
errinundra 3 years ago
I'd question the legality of the permits, especially if they're based on what's done 'in Florida'(?) Trees can regrow, but it obviously takes years for them to replace older trees, particularly if it's old growth forest we're talking about. Complex ecosystems can be ruined. Destroying 70% of forested areas isn't exactly a 'win' for conservation either.. I can understand why TWS would be concerned. Comparing environmentalists to the Nazis in Germany is just a tad ridiculous!
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
The permits are given because the land has gone from an open grassland at settlement to becoming closed forests over 100 years due to the aboriginal fire management ceasing. The permits were given so the farmers could look after the land close to it`s pre settlement levels of grasses & trees. TWS didn`t understand this got carried away with there actions just like idealogues in any belief system do. They assume they are correct & then persecute decent people who have done nothing wrong
Bushvision 3 years ago
As to its legality, not having the full details I'll have to take your word for it. The destruction of 70% of the forested areas still bothers me. TWS is made up of extremely brave, committed people. It's organizations such as the logging company GUNNs that are doing the persecuting.
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
The whole thing still seems very fishy (I wouldn't be suprised if that farmer had lit a fire nearby and left the coals there as false evidence to try and make up some story about TWS.. no sensible farmer would be burning off in the middle of bushland). The fact he just happened not to get the offending photos back seems very dodgy also.. perhaps there weren't any? TWS does not have the time or resources to be chasing innocent people- something shifty was going on at that property.
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
I have made several videos of my farming experiences (see Leon Ashby`s farming & property rights experiences Pt 1,2, & 3)& have received various awards but TWS & other greens visit our properties, say we do a good job & then persecute us - Its a fun world eco politics
Bushvision 3 years ago
It is indeed. Again, I'll state TWS would not put its time and energy into persecuting innocent people. The fact that you say there have been other cases only seems to emphasise that some poor environmental practices have likely been going on on these properties. But as the saying goes, if you've got nothing to hide, there's nothing to fear.
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
You are a bit out of touch with TWS. In Australia they use all sorts of stunts to infer decent farmers do illegal things. Farmers are an easy target to make the media report them as sticking up for the environment when neither the media (nor TWS)knows anything of good land management in semi arid forest desert country (land that degrades when it`s forests become closed)
There is plenty to fear from TWS
Why do they persecute farmers with permits as in this video? I dunno - just pure craziness?
Bushvision 3 years ago
I assume that you are referring to national parks and the like when you comment on 'closed' forests. In such cases it is absolutely untrue to suggest semi arid desert country 'degrades' when left in its natural state; rather it is forestry practices, like clear felling that cause such problems.. along with destroying biodiversity, habitat for native fauna, etc.
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
Therefore, it's pretty obvious why TWS would have concerns with 70% of areas of natural vegetation being destroyed. Some farmers are environmentally aware, others aren't. Some are 'decent', others aren't. I still have my doubts about the validity of this video- it presents a very narrow view and there are gaping holes in the arguments presented which I've referred to in previous comments. It would be more valid if you'd at least made some attempt to present TWS point of view.
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
No - a closed forest is one which has tree cover (200 - 2,000 stems/ha depending on rainfall & soil type)that prevents grasses from growing.
It can occur in parks or on farmland. A closed forest in a semi arid environment reduces biodiversity - less grasses, less soil biota, more erosion, less animals & birdlife in short it degrades naturally without human management towards and open forest (10 - 400 stems /HA depending on rainfall & soil type etc) - Sounds like you`ve never seen it before?
Bushvision 3 years ago
Yes, I have seen these forests. In fact my family (third generation farmers) own a property which has such areas of bushland on it, covering some of the most rugged country in Australia. However, those who are against the protection of natural environmental areas (as you seem to be) often refer to national parks, etc as the 'locking up' or 'closing' of forests which is obviously what I thought you must mean. Now you have cleared up your point I can only disagree entirely with what you say.
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
While through a short sighted farmer's eyes such 'closed' areas may be seen as worthless simply because they don't make prime grazing country, many native animals rely on this habitat for survival. In terms of the threat of 'less soil biota... more erosion' see my comment above. Removing trees will accelerate and cause problems, not fix them. This is common knowledge. Have you had any experience farming yourself?
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
Wrong again - If you check my three videos on farming & property rights you might get to see some of the research work I organised on water spreading which got some landcare awards. Certainly unmanaged land in many areas have worse environmental outcomes than managed land. several Aust land plots that have been fenced out so no animals at all graze them degrade within 5 - 10 years & lose the number & diversity of their grasses
Ever seen that happen? - back in 5 days (job to do)- cheers
Bushvision 3 years ago
Personally, I think you are the one in the wrong, but we may have to agree to disagree. I'd suspect such fenced off areas that were left had previously been impacted upon by farming or other harmful practices.. obviously in these cases the land would still suffer the ongoing impacts whether left or not. Grazing animals also clearly are not the only outward threat that could be effecting the health of an area. I could go on, but I'll let you get back to your job. :)
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
Back again - Can I refer you to four videos
Cropping that saves the soil, Leon Ashby`s farming & property rights experience parts 1 & 2 & Greens cuse environmental disaster.
They demonstrate the narrow "Green" /TWS idealogy of leaving a landscape to degrade versus the consevation minded farming view of active management to retain high levels of soil biota and grass species while keeping trees at a constant level so they don`t reduce other species. Have you seen that happen?
Bushvision 3 years ago
Why would you want to clear all the trees on your property? And if a couple of planes flying over your place is supposed to be 'tyrannical harrassment' I'd hate to see how you'd cope with what Green groups have to put up with on a daily basis. The Wilderness Society does a lot of good work.
Practicalpolitics 3 years ago
Farmers don`t clear all the trees on these properties - they leave around 30% but that isn`t enough for the wilderness society, they decide to hassel people who have legal permits and conduct good landcare work.
Most people don`t realise the trees regrow & / or increase in density on these farms.
Farmers attempt to keep the vegetation in a win /win level for conservation & productivity - but green groups idealogies make them do bizarre things (much as Nazism idealogy did in Germany in 30`s)
Bushvision 3 years ago