http://www.tasmedia.org/node/1539

http://agmates.blogspot.com/

I don't know what to think of this other than it is short sighted and childish.

Perhaps, as one blogger said, we should all go and turn on our sprinklers to protest against water restrictions.

That is a stir. There are problems with the implementation of land clearing laws that do affect many farmers but we do need control of land clearing.

Issues within regions however can be more complex than the "tree is good" philosophy being applied generally. We have modified landscapes that once were very rich in grasslands for instance which have actually become more wooded. I am thinking of the mulga lands here which once contained much more grassland.

I have talked to farmers who are being affected and do clear but not wholesale like that example with the Gwydir River wetland. Some of them would growl about that one.

One grazier I met actually has a camera and records what birds are frequenting his property while he is on the back of a bulldozer. He was in SW Queensland and before anyone sites erosion issues, you would have to look at the country. The man has reduced erosion on his property using his bulldozer. He showed us what a bore drain had done on his land - he capped that, it had run out of its channel and created unbelievably huge canyons. Mulga that he had pushed was laid across slope as is a common practice. Other than for trees and shrubs, all the life that was sprouting from the ground during our stay was in the areas where soil had been caught behind these trunks. Drought!

Land management and what techniques work can be more complex than "tree is good" and "no tree is bad". But no trees is very often very bad and few trees often is inviting problems. You have to work with the land and its character.

I have to say that like all policies cooked up around tables of politicians, civil servants and advisers that it is well advised to have some sympathy with on ground realities and to have the flexibility to change to meet them.

- Stephen

What is the world coming too? Basically, I think we're screwed.

More from the Sydney Morning Herald......

FARMERS in NSW, Queensland and Victoria said they had chopped down as many as 4000 trees yesterday in a campaign to pressure state governments to weaken land clearing laws.

The farmers threaten to double the number of trees each farmer chops down each day, starting with one on Sunday, two yesterday, four today and so on.

They say vegetation management acts have robbed them of the ability to change land management practices to adapt to changing circumstances.

Go here for the rest of the article
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/tim...3351125228.html

This is a stunt and is inviting a beat up by the media.

The issues are more complex and this stunt is silly and does no good for their case.

Just angry and frustrated farmers.

A lot of them do have good points.

- Stephen

Would someone please explain to me why we need to clear more land than is already cleared?

Maybe the farmers have some issues that need to be dealt with, but I agree that they are not achieving anything by doing this. While the rest of Australia is being urged to change lightbulbs and conserve water in any way they can, these farmers are openly thumbing their noses the rest of the concerned citizens. It's not on.

This post has been edited by infinity: Jul 3 2007, 12:21 AM

A lot of clearing simply is not the clearing of virgin country but rather the thinning and removal of thickening and colonising woody vegetation.

It is a different issue.

There were once extensive areas of native grassland in areas where there is now dominance by trees and shrubs. This has an affect on ecologies as well. We have discussed the effect of overgrazing on Envirotalk and this is actually one of them. The overgrazing has happened historically and continues far too often.

Grazing impact is from stock, ferals and natives and promoted by the existence of open water points.

Again. Like I am saying. You can not generalise. You have to deal with what is happening with the land at hand.

This certainly makes legislation and implementation tricky though.

- Stephen

Ok, thanks for explaining that Stephen. This is why I come to this forum and post this type of thing. I need to understand the things I don't understand.

So, I can conclude from your comments that this regrowth of thickets is a result of poor grazing practices in the past and present? I read another thread where you talked about this a little more. It's all starting to make more sense. So these farmers that are threatening to chop down trees in protest are graziers, not plant farmers? The photos on that blog didn't really show land that looked to be suitable for plant crops.

Probably graziers involved - and some croppers. Crop farmers have got into trouble as well.

But again. Don't apply what I have said here to every situation. You have to look and learn first and too many people don't.

But overgrazing palatable species will advantage less palatable ones. This applies to other types of plant as well such as weeds, unpalatable grasses and annal grasses can also be advantaged by poor practice.

With some problem grasses heavy grazing for a short time can be used as a control if it is timed well according to when a problem species is palatable.

Does not work on shrubs and trees though.

Whether any clearing works to get back to grass also depends on the state of the soil seed bank.

A lot of areas are introducing buffel grass from Africa but it is not suitable everywhere - thankfully. The seed is cheap and it is just further pasture "improvement" which has resulted in the loss of native grassy ecologies over vast areas of the country.

Poor old grass doesn't have the charisma of trees but I think this is just as important an issue.

- Stephen