THE mayor of a rural shire in northern NSW says deep divisions over environmental issues were threatening to fracture her local community before the shooting of a state government Environment and Heritage officer yesterday

Glendon Turner, a 51-year-old understood to be a father of young children, was killed at a property in the Croppa Creek area roughly 60 kilometres north of Moree after going to serve a notice on the owner, Ian Robert Turnbull.

Seventy-nine-year-old Mr Turnbull, who was suspected of illegally clearing vegetation, was arrested late last night and will today appear in court, charged with murder.

“I’m not surprised this happened. I thought it would happen over water or coal seam gas exploration or mining, I didn’t think it would happen over trees,” said Moree Plains Shire mayor Katrina Humphries.

“The community is in shock, the community is feeling perhaps a little shamed because it’s been so obvious for so long that these issues are so heated and we haven’t been able to get some common ground.

“The tragedy of the fact is that a family has been left fatherless, brotherless, there’s huge tragedy in this but the question that has to be asked is why?” Ms Humphries said.

Describing Mr Turnbull as “a proud worker (and) successful farmer”, Ms Humphries said many in the local community had struggled recently as “it’s either flood or famine. It’s been a long time since we had some good middle ground.”

Mr Turnbull had in recent years challenged the state government in court after it ordered he stop clearing native vegetation on the Croppa Creek properties.

Blame the greenies for this shit

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger.

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger.

That’s not how our society works, it’s always someone elses fault

look guys it’s a troll post. best not respond any more.

ChrispenEvan said:

look guys it’s a troll post. best not respond any more.

you can fuck off then & ignor the post. And stop telling others what to do.

Charged with clearing native vegetation
Mr Turnbull was charged with illegally clearing native vegetation between November 2011 and January 2012. He pleaded guilty in the Land and Environment Court.
The prosecutor, the Director-General of the Office of Environment and Heritage, said Mr Turnbull used a bulldozer to clear 421 hectares of the property called “Colorado”, owned by his son Grant Wesley Turnbull, and 73 hectares of the adjacent property, called “Strathdoon”, owned by his grandson Corey Ian Turnbull.
Grant and Corey had purchased the properties at Croppa Creek in late 2011.
After contracts were exchanged but before the sales settled, Mr Turnbull and another unnamed man felled 2708 trees on Colorado and 694 trees on Strathdoon. Trees were pushed over and formed into piles and set alight. The family then raked out the ash heaps, ploughed the cleared land, applied herbicides to kill any emerging vegetation and sowed commercial crops of wheat and barley.
The crops were harvested in late spring of 2012. The process of ploughing, herbicide spraying, and sowing and harvesting of commercial crops was repeated in 2013 and 2014 and the areas are currently under crop.
A sentencing hearing has been held and Justice Terence Sheahan is currently reserved on the penalty.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/elderly-man-charged-with-murder-of-environment-and-heritage-worker-near-moree-20140730-zycl2.html#ixzz38vPCZw8k

:-)

ChrispenEvan said:

:-)

troll

Cymek said:

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger.

That’s not how our society works, it’s always someone elses fault

I blame Cymek.

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger.

no blame the extremist green laws being forced on the innocent public.

“r Humphries said there were no winners in a situation such as this.
“A man has lost his life, a lady has lost a husband, kids have lost their father. He has got family too. There is no way to console anyone over this,” she said.
“When somebody goes to do their job, and when they don’t make it home, that’s the biggest tragedy of all, that a man has lost his life. There are so many innocent parties drawn into it.”
She said frustration over environmental issues around the Moree area had been simmering for quite a while.
“ always been going to happen. I thought it would happen over coal or gas or water. The frustration is so great, but obviously to have an outcome like that is so horrible, it shouldn’t get to this,” she said.”

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger. No-one else made the decision. He made the decision. He picked up his gun, he pointed it, he pulled the trigger. It was all his own work.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger.

That’s not how our society works, it’s always someone elses fault

I blame Cymek.

WIFEY!

it was God’s will.

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger. No-one else made the decision. He made the decision. He picked up his gun, he pointed it, he pulled the trigger. It was all his own work.

driven to extremes

Still responsible. We make our own lives.

The_observer said:

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger. No-one else made the decision. He made the decision. He picked up his gun, he pointed it, he pulled the trigger. It was all his own work.

driven to extremes

He could have used a less lethal method, squirting him with a hose for example until he left

Cymek said:

He could have used a less lethal method, squirting him with a hose for example until he left

Yeah, when did we turn into America?

The_observer said:

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger. No-one else made the decision. He made the decision. He picked up his gun, he pointed it, he pulled the trigger. It was all his own work.

driven to extremes

What a crock. It’s not as if these properties had been in the family for generations. They’d only just bought them and would have been well aware of the legislation governing land clearing. He flouted the law and was charged for it. He’s now taken it to extremes and I hope they lock the prick away for the rest of his life.

Ah well at least he didn’t shoot a living one.

sibeen said:

The_observer said:

buffy said:

No, blame the man who pulled the trigger. No-one else made the decision. He made the decision. He picked up his gun, he pointed it, he pulled the trigger. It was all his own work.

driven to extremes

What a crock. It’s not as if these properties had been in the family for generations. They’d only just bought them and would have been well aware of the legislation governing land clearing. He flouted the law and was charged for it. He’s now taken it to extremes and I hope they lock the prick away for the rest of his life.

Tree killed man after council blocked removal, court told

By Ellen Connolly SMH
November 6 2002

The seven gum trees stood 30 metres high and 10 metres from the Timbs family house on a property in Nowra.

Gordon Timbs knew they posed a threat to his family and property, and he wanted them removed.

So in July 1996 the 48-year-old sought permission from Shoalhaven City Council to cut them down. He was refused under the Tree Preservation Order. Eighteen months later, when a large branch fell on a vehicle, he repeated his concerns to the council. In January 1998 it again refused, saying the trees were “sound” and could not be removed.

Mr Timbs, a father-of-two, even threatened to take the matter into his own hands, telling a council officer that if he could not obtain permission he would just have to cut them down himself to protect his family. He was subsequently warned that if he did so he would be fined $2000 per tree.

Six months later during a storm one of the trees came down – on top of his house. Mr Timbs, who was asleep in his bed, was killed instantly.

>there’s huge tragedy in this but the question that has to be asked is why?

Because a violent nutcase was allowed a gun licence?

The_observer said:

sibeen said:

The_observer said:

driven to extremes

What a crock. It’s not as if these properties had been in the family for generations. They’d only just bought them and would have been well aware of the legislation governing land clearing. He flouted the law and was charged for it. He’s now taken it to extremes and I hope they lock the prick away for the rest of his life.

Tree killed man after council blocked removal, court told

By Ellen Connolly SMH
November 6 2002

The seven gum trees stood 30 metres high and 10 metres from the Timbs family house on a property in Nowra.

Gordon Timbs knew they posed a threat to his family and property, and he wanted them removed.

So in July 1996 the 48-year-old sought permission from Shoalhaven City Council to cut them down. He was refused under the Tree Preservation Order. Eighteen months later, when a large branch fell on a vehicle, he repeated his concerns to the council. In January 1998 it again refused, saying the trees were “sound” and could not be removed.

Mr Timbs, a father-of-two, even threatened to take the matter into his own hands, telling a council officer that if he could not obtain permission he would just have to cut them down himself to protect his family. He was subsequently warned that if he did so he would be fined $2000 per tree.

Six months later during a storm one of the trees came down – on top of his house. Mr Timbs, who was asleep in his bed, was killed instantly.

Should the council people responsible be charged?

Bubblecar said:

>there’s huge tragedy in this but the question that has to be asked is why?

Because a violent nutcase was allowed a gun licence?

No, because green laws prevent people from making decisions about what they can & can’t do with their Land.

And fine them heavily for cutting down trees.

Oh hail the tree, all worship the tree, praise to be thy gaia, friend of the tree

bob(from black rock) said:

The_observer said:

sibeen said:

What a crock. It’s not as if these properties had been in the family for generations. They’d only just bought them and would have been well aware of the legislation governing land clearing. He flouted the law and was charged for it. He’s now taken it to extremes and I hope they lock the prick away for the rest of his life.

Tree killed man after council blocked removal, court told

By Ellen Connolly SMH
November 6 2002

The seven gum trees stood 30 metres high and 10 metres from the Timbs family house on a property in Nowra.

Gordon Timbs knew they posed a threat to his family and property, and he wanted them removed.

So in July 1996 the 48-year-old sought permission from Shoalhaven City Council to cut them down. He was refused under the Tree Preservation Order. Eighteen months later, when a large branch fell on a vehicle, he repeated his concerns to the council. In January 1998 it again refused, saying the trees were “sound” and could not be removed.

Mr Timbs, a father-of-two, even threatened to take the matter into his own hands, telling a council officer that if he could not obtain permission he would just have to cut them down himself to protect his family. He was subsequently warned that if he did so he would be fined $2000 per tree.

Six months later during a storm one of the trees came down – on top of his house. Mr Timbs, who was asleep in his bed, was killed instantly.

Should the council people responsible be charged?

it was utterly ridiculous that they were not only denied permission to cut down the >>trees <,

but harassed for suggesting they would do it without >>permission <<

bob(from black rock) said:

The_observer said:

sibeen said:

What a crock. It’s not as if these properties had been in the family for generations. They’d only just bought them and would have been well aware of the legislation governing land clearing. He flouted the law and was charged for it. He’s now taken it to extremes and I hope they lock the prick away for the rest of his life.

Tree killed man after council blocked removal, court told

By Ellen Connolly SMH
November 6 2002

The seven gum trees stood 30 metres high and 10 metres from the Timbs family house on a property in Nowra.

Gordon Timbs knew they posed a threat to his family and property, and he wanted them removed.

So in July 1996 the 48-year-old sought permission from Shoalhaven City Council to cut them down. He was refused under the Tree Preservation Order. Eighteen months later, when a large branch fell on a vehicle, he repeated his concerns to the council. In January 1998 it again refused, saying the trees were “sound” and could not be removed.

Mr Timbs, a father-of-two, even threatened to take the matter into his own hands, telling a council officer that if he could not obtain permission he would just have to cut them down himself to protect his family. He was subsequently warned that if he did so he would be fined $2000 per tree.

Six months later during a storm one of the trees came down – on top of his house. Mr Timbs, who was asleep in his bed, was killed instantly.

Should the council people responsible be charged?

Not sure if you could charge them.
Perhaps a clause added to the Tree Preservation Order were an independent arborist examines the trees and if they are dangerous the order is invalid and they can be cut down and the council pays for the arborist.

It’s not their land, strictly speaking. They are the lease-holder of an estate in fee simple. Our legal system is not the USA.

>No, because green laws prevent people from making decisions about what they can & can’t do with their Land.

Hmm, that’s an obvious Reason For Murdering Someone Fail.

Bubblecar said:

>there’s huge tragedy in this but the question that has to be asked is why?

Because a violent nutcase was allowed a gun licence?

Plus the ridiculous sense of entitlement of people with agricultural businesses.

“My topsoil blew away in the drought, give me money! And stop telling me to plant trees!”

Seems the widow did take the council to court

Council was found guilty of not looking at the trees properly, and the widow was awarded damages in light of her husband’s death.

Bubblecar said:

>No, because green laws prevent people from making decisions about what they can & can’t do with their Land.

Hmm, that’s an obvious Reason For Murdering Someone Fail.

There was obviously much more to it than that

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

>No, because green laws prevent people from making decisions about what they can & can’t do with their Land.

Hmm, that’s an obvious Reason For Murdering Someone Fail.

There was obviously much more to it than that

Yeah they haven’t dug up this guys back yard yet…….

Bubblecar said:

>No, because green laws prevent people from making decisions about what they can & can’t do with their Land.

Hmm, that’s an obvious Reason For Murdering Someone Fail.

again…

Cr Humphries said

“Frustration over environmental issues around the Moree area had been simmering for quite a while.”

>>>> “Violence has always been going to happen.” <<<

I thought it would happen over coal or gas or water. The frustration is so great, but obviously to have an outcome like that is so horrible, it shouldn’t get to this,”

So the Timbs’ wanted to get rid of the trees, yet they couldn’t afford to do it anyway? “ although on the second visit, the officer gave permission for the trees on the western side to be lopped. Evidence was adduced that the trees were not lopped due to financial restraints.”

not getting much sympathy i see.

:-)

Divine Angel said:

So the Timbs’ wanted to get rid of the trees, yet they couldn’t afford to do it anyway? “ although on the second visit, the officer gave permission for the trees on the western side to be lopped. Evidence was adduced that the trees were not lopped due to financial restraints.”

They couldn’t afford to get professionals to lop the trees.

They could have hired a chainsaw & cut the trees down themselves, cheaply!

ChrispenEvan said:

not getting much sympathy i see.

:-)

Not after sympathy, never expected it.

so, GFYS

Bah, I got it arse about.
“Further, if contrary to his decision, the Council officer ought to have given permission to remove the trees, the trial Judge
was satisfied that due to the same financial constraints, which prevented the Timbs from lopping the trees, they would not
have been removed, and the tragic incident would still have occurred. For these reasons, the trial Judge gave judgment in
favour of the Council in both actions and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. “

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

not getting much sympathy i see.

:-)

Not after sympathy, never expected it.

so, GFYS

Go Find Yellow Sneakers?

could be cymek. can’t be “yourself” cos that is one word.

The_observer said:

again…

Cr Humphries said

“Frustration over environmental issues around the Moree area had been simmering for quite a while.”

I’m experiencing simmering frustration. You’ll understand and support me when my son’s mother disappears huh?

Divine Angel said:

Bah, I got it arse about.
“Further, if contrary to his decision, the Council officer ought to have given permission to remove the trees, the trial Judge
was satisfied that due to the same financial constraints, which prevented the Timbs from lopping the trees, they would not
have been removed, and the tragic incident would still have occurred. For these reasons, the trial Judge gave judgment in
favour of the Council in both actions and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs. “

fuck me… the council ranger told them the trees “were safe”, &, didn’t give them permission to cut them down, twice in two years.

Threatened to fine them if they cut them down.

Then one of the trees fell onto their house, in the wind, & killed the poor fucker.

council regulations fucked up

case closed

vaginal thrush

Also, apologies for formatting. Somehow it changed between posting and appearing as a sumbitted post.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

again…

Cr Humphries said

“Frustration over environmental issues around the Moree area had been simmering for quite a while.”

just to anyone here thinking I support the killing of the ranger…

stop being ridiculous. its just trolling

I’m experiencing simmering frustration. You’ll understand and support me when my son’s mother disappears huh?

• vaginal thrush

Wrong thread…

—-> What music are you listening to?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

again…

Cr Humphries said

“Frustration over environmental issues around the Moree area had been simmering for quite a while.”

I’m experiencing simmering frustration. You’ll understand and support me when my son’s mother disappears huh?

Or would you rather we help you find her when she does disappear?

sure looks like you support it. blaming everyone but the farmer. still, typical.

>—-> What music are you listening to?

yeah sorry about that, furious, mate, freudian typo

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

again…

Cr Humphries said

“Frustration over environmental issues around the Moree area had been simmering for quite a while.”

just to anyone here thinking I support the killing of the ranger…

stop being ridiculous. its just trolling

I’m experiencing simmering frustration. You’ll understand and support me when my son’s mother disappears huh?

No it was a serious question aimed at guaging how far you will go with condoning and excusing murder

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

again…

Cr Humphries said

“Frustration over environmental issues around the Moree area had been simmering for quite a while.”

I’m experiencing simmering frustration. You’ll understand and support me when my son’s mother disappears huh?

Or would you rather we help you find her when she does disappear?

Actually she’s already done that but the feds have her number. Genuinely I’d prefer she just get properly treated.

FFS get real TO. He killed someone over trees.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

I’m experiencing simmering frustration. You’ll understand and support me when my son’s mother disappears huh?

No it was a serious question aimed at guaging how far you will go with condoning and excusing murder

so you’re suggesting, seriously, that I reckon that the ranger, who was simply doing his job, applying the extremists laws greens have forced on government agencies, deserved what he got?

Certainly not. And I’ll just point out that I never ever even made the slightest remark to make any normal person believe that i support that notion.

So get a better argument & stop pretending you know how I think…again, apply some of your own advice to yourself.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

No it was a serious question aimed at guaging how far you will go with condoning and excusing murder

so you’re suggesting, seriously, that I reckon that the ranger, who was simply doing his job, applying the extremists laws greens have forced on government agencies, deserved what he got?

Certainly not. And I’ll just point out that I never ever even made the slightest remark to make any normal person believe that i support that notion.

So get a better argument & stop pretending you know how I think…again, apply some of your own advice to yourself.

You are a rank amateur if you think you are proving any salient point other than you are obnoxius, abusive and possibly dangerously vexatious.

Postpocelipse said:

FFS get real TO. He killed someone over trees.

FFS, there is more to it than that!

The constant harassment & threat of substantial fines, to comply to laws enforced on to the majority by the few.

This death is what these extremist green laws & their ruthless enforcement can result in.

That is what I am saying.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

No it was a serious question aimed at guaging how far you will go with condoning and excusing murder

so you’re suggesting, seriously, that I reckon that the ranger, who was simply doing his job, applying the extremists laws greens have forced on government agencies, deserved what he got?

Certainly not. And I’ll just point out that I never ever even made the slightest remark to make any normal person believe that i support that notion.

So get a better argument & stop pretending you know how I think…again, apply some of your own advice to yourself.

You are a rank amateur if you think you are proving any salient point other than you are obnoxius, abusive and possibly dangerously vexatious.

Is that how you see me.

Success!

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

FFS get real TO. He killed someone over trees.

FFS, there is more to it than that!

The constant harassment & threat of substantial fines, to comply to laws enforced on to the majority by the few.

This death is what these extremist green laws & their ruthless enforcement can result in.

That is what I am saying.

No in this case there is bugger all more to it. No one was being threatened and he killed someone. Probably had some screw loose. Interesting you claim there is more to this subject yet ignore an overwhelming raft of evidence regarding the sensitivity of the environment.

nah we see you as a troll who supports murder as long as you can blame environmentalists. pathetic.

I blame the extremist green laws forced onto the majority by the few, ruthlessly enforced, with the threat of substantial fines & imprisonment, & constant harassment of the innocent going about their lives, for the rangers death.

the environmental lobby industry has a lot to answer for.

Although I must say the case of the Nowra man killed by “safe” trees was interesting, so thanks for that, whomever posted about it first.

ChrispenEvan said:

nah we see you as a troll who supports murder as long as you can blame environmentalists. pathetic.

your not a council or land & environment ranger are you.

I’ll write you a glowing reference!

The_observer said:

I blame the extremist green laws forced onto the majority by the few, ruthlessly enforced, with the threat of substantial fines & imprisonment, & constant harassment of the innocent going about their lives, for the rangers death.

the environmental lobby industry has a lot to answer for.

Well the unemployed and low income earners are experiencing far greater pressure. Must be time for handing out free passes to lynch pollies.

The_observer said:

I blame the extremist green laws forced onto the majority by the few, ruthlessly enforced, with the threat of substantial fines & imprisonment, & constant harassment of the innocent going about their lives, for the rangers death.

the environmental lobby industry has a lot to answer for.

Hey people have fought wars to acquire land and resources

Divine Angel said:

Although I must say the case of the Nowra man killed by “safe” trees was interesting, so thanks for that, whomever posted about it first.

When a council employee arrived at the scene – the third such council inspection of the property in two years – permission was finally granted for all the trees to be removed.

“You can now chop down the trees. They should not have been within 20 metres of the house,” the officer told Mr Timbs’ distraught son, Damien, 20 at the time, who grabbed the officer by the shirt and screamed: “It’s a bit late for that now.”

Yesterday in the District Court, Mr Timbs’ widow, Carlene, said the council caused her husband’s death on July 29, 1998, by breaching its duty of care. She is seeking up to $750,000 damages for loss of financial support.

Mrs Timbs said she was at home on the two occasions a council officer came to the home to inspect the trees.

During the second inspection her husband expressed fears that someone could be very seriously hurt, she said. In her statement of claim, Mrs Timbs alleged the council had engaged in misleading and false conduct because she had discovered that the Tree Preservation Order did not apply to the property as it was zoned rural. She said therefore permission was not required to remove trees.

still, can’t sit around here all day annoying fuck knuckles. got some trees and furry animals to save.

ChrispenEvan said:

still, can’t sit around here all day annoying fuck knuckles. got some trees and furry animals to save.

try not to get any of those fury animals pregnant crisp.

wear a condom, animals rights, you know

ChrispenEvan said:

still, can’t sit around here all day annoying fuck knuckles. got some trees and furry animals to save.

Don’t shoot anybody

bloody environmentalists!!! complain at hardworking people trying to earn money and make this a better world.

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

still, can’t sit around here all day annoying fuck knuckles. got some trees and furry animals to save.

try not to get any of those fury animals pregnant crisp.

wear a condom, animals rights, you know

So you are going with invitro to start your own species????

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

ChrispenEvan said:

still, can’t sit around here all day annoying fuck knuckles. got some trees and furry animals to save.

try not to get any of those fury animals pregnant crisp.

wear a condom, animals rights, you know

So you are going with invitro to start your own species????

Call it Wankasaurus Ginormous

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

try not to get any of those fury animals pregnant crisp.

wear a condom, animals rights, you know

So you are going with invitro to start your own species????

Call it Wankasaurus Ginormous

You give it enough credit to get past incubation then?

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

try not to get any of those fury animals pregnant crisp.

wear a condom, animals rights, you know

So you are going with invitro to start your own species????

Call it Wankasaurus Ginormous

gee, you’re a funny fucker

Postpocelipse said:

You give it enough credit to get past incubation then?

Sure, even a Woolly Mammoth was cloned and incubated in an elephant. Didn’t survive long though.

Postpocelipse said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

So you are going with invitro to start your own species????

Call it Wankasaurus Ginormous

You give it enough credit to get past incubation then?

you made it, anything can

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Call it Wankasaurus Ginormous

You give it enough credit to get past incubation then?

you made it, anything can

deep!! did you study under Old Ben Kenobe?

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

You give it enough credit to get past incubation then?

you made it, anything can

deep!! did you study under Old Ben Kenobe?

I’m glad that my thread has upset you post,

because you are just the sort of despicable cunt I was aiming for!

:)

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

you made it, anything can

deep!! did you study under Old Ben Kenobe?

I’m glad that my thread has upset you post,

because you are just the sort of despicable cunt I was aiming for!

:)

bwahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! I’m upset am I? Haven’t been so entertained since I first turned up at SSSF and found out how many people were looking for a good ‘ol verbal stoush. You need to select your assumptions with greater scrutiny and forethought………

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

deep!! did you study under Old Ben Kenobe?

I’m glad that my thread has upset you post,

because you are just the sort of despicable cunt I was aiming for!

:)

bwahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! I’m upset am I? Haven’t been so entertained since I first turned up at SSSF and found out how many people were looking for a good ‘ol verbal stoush. You need to select your assumptions with greater scrutiny and forethought………

yep, success.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

I’m glad that my thread has upset you post,

because you are just the sort of despicable cunt I was aiming for!

:)

bwahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! I’m upset am I? Haven’t been so entertained since I first turned up at SSSF and found out how many people were looking for a good ‘ol verbal stoush. You need to select your assumptions with greater scrutiny and forethought………

yep, success.

TO is Daffy Duck! No one else uses the word despicable………

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

bwahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! I’m upset am I? Haven’t been so entertained since I first turned up at SSSF and found out how many people were looking for a good ‘ol verbal stoush. You need to select your assumptions with greater scrutiny and forethought………

yep, success.

TO is Daffy Duck! No one else uses the word despicable………

probably, but in your case I bet plenty of people use the word cunt

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

yep, success.

TO is Daffy Duck! No one else uses the word despicable………

probably, but in your case I bet plenty of people use the word cunt

I’ve heard wascawee often but that word only muttered under the breath from the guys who’s girlfriends I walk off with while they are standing in a queue for back row seats at the concert I have backstage passes for.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

TO is Daffy Duck! No one else uses the word despicable………

probably, but in your case I bet plenty of people use the word cunt

I’ve heard wascawee often but that word only muttered under the breath from the guys who’s girlfriends I walk off with while they are standing in a queue for back row seats at the concert I have backstage passes for.

what, 11 year olds at a Bugs Bunny concert

Sufferin’ succotash

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

probably, but in your case I bet plenty of people use the word cunt

I’ve heard wascawee often but that word only muttered under the breath from the guys who’s girlfriends I walk off with while they are standing in a queue for back row seats at the concert I have backstage passes for.

what, 11 year olds at a Bugs Bunny concert

Sufferin’ succotash

So this is your animation?

Observer, restrictions on land clearing have nothing to do with the Greens. It is a non-political policy which I believe applies to all States. Its prime purpose is to stop erosion of soils into waterways, or blowing away in the wind. It is also to stop people clearing land for unsuitable use, plus to avoid damaging rare habitats. If they wish to clear, they need only to apply for permission, which is usually given.

How you can blame the officer who was trying to serve a notice but was shot and killed in the process, by a person with a similar cockeyed outlook as yourself, who thinks he can do what he likes and everything else can go and get f#@ked. So once again Observer you have proved yourself to be an ignorant oaf, who has an arse about face of looking at things. I too hopes he spends the rest of his life in prison and the family is fined and forced to plant trees over all the land.

PermeateFree said:

(land clearing) Its prime purpose is to stop erosion of soils into waterways,
or blowing away in the wind.
It is also to stop people clearing land for {unsuitable use], plus to avoid damaging >>> rare habitats. <<<
restrictions on land clearing have nothing to do with the Greens.
<<<

nothing to do with the greens,,,LOL
Although some of the points you make are justified, it is a somewhat blanket law enforced to extreme, back up vigilante like by local & non local conservationists (greenies) where in many cases none of the above come into play. And no doubt it was local conservationists who (dobbed him in to stir the shit happening in the region).

>>>How you can blame the officer who was trying to serve a notice but was shot and killed in the process
<<<

Just ignore the fact I never blamed the ranger or condoned his death.

>>> So once again Observer you have proved yourself to be an ignorant oaf, who has an arse about face of looking at things.
<<<

He we go again. where the first paragraph of your response was quite reasonable, you just had to go & build a straw-man argument to oppose my view & then throw in the insults. This is why I find you so obnoxious.

Turnbull owns at least 4000ha around Moree and Croppa Creek. 1200ha property, Buckie, just outside the Croppa Creek township, as well as at least five other farms in the area.

Turnbull had no criminal history.

In town, Croppa Creek residents said Mr Turnbull was a key member of the community and generally well-liked. “Ian was always a very even-­tempered man and would ­always stop for a chat if he was going past,” one elderly woman said. “He is a decent man. He is always talking to other people in town, as well. He is a cheerful, happy fella. Grant and Roger, his sons, are both nice boys.”

“Ian is a well known and respected member of the community — he has been part of the community forever” said Moree Plains Shire Council Mayor Katrina Humphries. “The relationship between conservationists, the government and local farmers had become toxic: “

Agricultural Minister Barnaby Joyce echoed her concerns, saying it was currently “a very hostile environment”. He said farmers hated native vegetation laws, which had created incredible animosity toward the government. “This is not an isolated incident, this is just the worst of a range of incidents,’’ he said.

Ecologist Phil Spark, who has worked in the Croppa Creek community, said some landholders knew they could not afford to lose another tree. But others were clearing vegetation to take advantage of the rich agricultural soil and, as a result, there was friction between farmers & conservationists. “There is a lot of fear and threats,” he said.

Ian Turnbull’s son Grant and grandson Cory bought two adjoining properties, Colorado and Strathdoon, measuring 2433ha at Croppa Creek, north of Moree in February 2012. Land around Croppa Creek is prime growers’ territory and the Turnbulls quickly set about clearing more than 500ha of land to make way for crops. But the family fell foul of NSW’s Native Vegetation Act 2003, which makes it illegal to clear native ­vegetation except in accordance with development consent or a property vegetation plan.

The fight unfolded as NSW, Queensland and Victoria all began changing its laws on land clearance, following anger among rural communities that the rules were too strict. In June 2013 then NSW environment minister Robyn Parker accepted 40 recommendations for change, ­including provisions for landowners to self-assess “low risk” land clearances. New exemptions have been ­introduced for some landowners to clear native vegetation without a property vegetation plan and other new land clearance laws are being introduced through 2014.

People rally outside Parliament House in protest against land clearing laws

Peter Spencer hunger strike

PermeateFree said:

restrictions on land clearing have nothing to do with the Greens
<<<

16th May 2013

WILDLIFE advocates are funding a campaign against the Queensland Government as new land-clearing laws sit ready to be passed by Parliament.

WWF Australia is running television and radio advertisements against the government, as it prepares to create laws allowing clearing for areas deemed “high-value agriculture”.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

restrictions on land clearing have nothing to do with the Greens
<<<

16th May 2013

WILDLIFE advocates are funding a campaign against the Queensland Government as new land-clearing laws sit ready to be passed by Parliament.

WWF Australia is running television and radio advertisements against the government, as it prepares to create laws allowing clearing for areas deemed “high-value agriculture”.

The greens just want the law enforced, they have no more sway than anyone else, and as the right-wing conservative parties are in government, I would say they have a great deal less. You see observer, people like you are regarded by many as environmental vandals.

Lets face it Observer, what you would like is no laws at all, so you could do exactly as you like with absolutely no regard for the environment, the creatures that live there or future generations that might appreciate it for what it is.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

restrictions on land clearing have nothing to do with the Greens
<<<

16th May 2013

WILDLIFE advocates are funding a campaign against the Queensland Government as new land-clearing laws sit ready to be passed by Parliament.

WWF Australia is running television and radio advertisements against the government, as it prepares to create laws allowing clearing for areas deemed “high-value agriculture”.

The greens just want the law enforced, they have no more sway than anyone else, and as the right-wing conservative parties are in government, I would say they have a great deal less. You see observer, people like you are regarded by many as environmental vandals.

Lets face it Observer, what you would like is no laws at all, so you could do exactly as you like with absolutely no regard for the environment, the creatures that live there or future generations that might appreciate it for what it is.

as usual cometh the straw man

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

restrictions on land clearing have nothing to do with the Greens
<<<

16th May 2013

WILDLIFE advocates are funding a campaign against the Queensland Government as new land-clearing laws sit ready to be passed by Parliament.

WWF Australia is running television and radio advertisements against the government, as it prepares to create laws allowing clearing for areas deemed “high-value agriculture”.

The greens just want the law enforced, they have no more sway than anyone else, and as the right-wing conservative parties are in government, I would say they have a great deal less. You see observer, people like you are regarded by many as environmental vandals.

Lets face it Observer, what you would like is no laws at all, so you could do exactly as you like with absolutely no regard for the environment, the creatures that live there or future generations that might appreciate it for what it is.

as usual cometh the straw man

Not sure if I should regard that as a compliment, coming from someone who does nothing else but build strawmen. You also say I insult you, yet it is you who is the most abusive in all your threads. Personally observer, I think your mind is so muddled that you don’t know what you do say.

Crazy thread, guys

If I shot and killed an unarmed burglar (on my property) that wasn’t threatening me i’d be in serious hot water, let alone an innocent person going about their legitimate job.

The land clearing described appears of a typical method.

I’d guess the old fella is of such an age that he thought fuck it, probably doesn’t matter if they lock me up. That’s if he didn’t accidently shoot the other, you know threatening to and intending are quite different, but the prosecution wont be entertaining much of that.

Anyway it’s a sensitive subject, a life lost and hardship for quite a few, so hardly rates as entertainment. Such things are rare in this country.

On the other subject of councils and risky trees. Councils across the country have millions of trees, whatever the number it’s many, the point though is accidents happen, and sometimes people die or are injured. It doesn’t happen very often fortunately. In the case the deceased formalized their concerns (which appears to be the situation) and death or injury results from inaction, there will be compensation for those with an immediate interest. It’s covered by insurance, and in the unlikely case the insurer doesn’t pay up to the satisfaction of those with whatever interest, then there’s other avenues.

Lot of risk for councils, not just trees.

As for people cutting trees down without approval, well sometimes individuals do this, and to be honest I’m not opposed to them doing so should someone think it necessary.

You can’t take a few examples and generalize to there being some serious problem.

Alex, are you still here?

Pushed beyond despair: Farmer Ian Turnbull’s family says feud over trees consumed hardworking man of the land. He was a broken man, crushed by worry over his land-clearing court struggle with the government. Turnbull, the patriarch of a well-respected wheat farming dynasty, had endured more than a year of pressure from the government over the clearing of his land to plant crops at Croppa Creek, 55km from Moree.
In the period he had ­battled with the government, Ian Turnbull needed a pacemaker to regulate his heart, suffered high blood pressure, and succumbed to ­insomnia and depression.
“He was not like a hermit who lived away in a cave,” the family said.
“He was out in the community — he was helping to build old people’s homes, he was collecting trampolines at school fetes, he did Meals on Wheels.
“He was the respected elder who people turned to.
“He has held this all in, he has crumbled, he has tried to carry this all to himself.”
“It is not about objection to authority; there are rules and regulations.
“But it is how they are administered, that is the issue with dad.”
“The last couple of years I noticed that every time I did speak to dad or mum or my brothers it was all-consuming this case of clearing — their lives were clouded by it,” the family said.
“We got to the situation where it became the focus entirely of having inspectors on the property, being asked for information on plans.”
The family said they hoped the tragedy would help prompt change to the Native Vegetation Act to give farmers more say in the clearing of their land. They claimed that the farming community’s calls for change have fallen on deaf ears.

“The native vegetation laws have been a sore point in farming communities since they were introduced by a LaborGreens alliance in 2003

RED TAPE NIGHTMARE

• NSW farmers wishing to clear land containing native vegetation must obtain a property vegetation plan or development consent from the state government.
• Approval can take months or even years.
• Permission from councils and the federal government may be required as well.
• Penalties include fines of more than $1 million.

THE NSW government is using satellites to spy on farmers and enforce its despised land- ­clearance laws that a Nationals MP says was linked to the death of environmental compliance officer Glen Turner.

Mr Turner, 51, was shot dead as he served a notice on Ian Turnbull, 79, at his family’s adjoining farms in Croppa Creek north of Moree on Tuesday.

Coffs Harbour MP Andrew Fraser last night blamed the death on deep resentment felt by landowners to the Native Vegetation Act 2003, which prevents even the smallest of land clearances without strict and cumbersome consents.

“It’s a tragic event that I think has been brought about by bad legislation,” Mr Fraser said.

Turnbull, who has been charged with Mr Turner’s murder, had been in dispute with the Office of Environment and Heritage for more than a year over alleged breaches of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

The bitter dispute rumbled on via a series of appeals in the Land and Environment Court and reached the most tragic of conclusions on Tuesday.

Nationals leader Andrew Stoner last night acknowledged the frustration among landholders and reiterated his support for an overhaul of NSW’s tightly controlled land clearance laws, which are being enforced by Big Brother-style satellites.

Government documents show the Office of Environment and Heritage and the Environment Protection Agency both use satellites to spy on farmers’ land.

“The native vegetation laws have been a sore point in farming communities since they were introduced by a LaborGreens alliance in 2003,” Mr Stoner said.

A review of the hated act is now under way that should completely overhaul the law.

The_observer said:

Pushed beyond despair: Farmer Ian Turnbull’s family says feud over trees consumed hardworking man of the land. He was a broken man, crushed by worry over his land-clearing court struggle with the government. Turnbull, the patriarch of a well-respected wheat farming dynasty, had endured more than a year of pressure from the government over the clearing of his land to plant crops at Croppa Creek, 55km from Moree.
In the period he had ­battled with the government, Ian Turnbull needed a pacemaker to regulate his heart, suffered high blood pressure, and succumbed to ­insomnia and depression.
“He was not like a hermit who lived away in a cave,” the family said.
“He was out in the community — he was helping to build old people’s homes, he was collecting trampolines at school fetes, he did Meals on Wheels.
“He was the respected elder who people turned to.
“He has held this all in, he has crumbled, he has tried to carry this all to himself.”
“It is not about objection to authority; there are rules and regulations.
“But it is how they are administered, that is the issue with dad.”
“The last couple of years I noticed that every time I did speak to dad or mum or my brothers it was all-consuming this case of clearing — their lives were clouded by it,” the family said.
“We got to the situation where it became the focus entirely of having inspectors on the property, being asked for information on plans.”
The family said they hoped the tragedy would help prompt change to the Native Vegetation Act to give farmers more say in the clearing of their land. They claimed that the farming community’s calls for change have fallen on deaf ears.

“The native vegetation laws have been a sore point in farming communities since they were introduced by a LaborGreens alliance in 2003

RED TAPE NIGHTMARE

• NSW farmers wishing to clear land containing native vegetation must obtain a property vegetation plan or development consent from the state government.
• Approval can take months or even years.
• Permission from councils and the federal government may be required as well.
• Penalties include fines of more than $1 million.

THE NSW government is using satellites to spy on farmers and enforce its despised land- ­clearance laws that a Nationals MP says was linked to the death of environmental compliance officer Glen Turner.

Mr Turner, 51, was shot dead as he served a notice on Ian Turnbull, 79, at his family’s adjoining farms in Croppa Creek north of Moree on Tuesday.

Coffs Harbour MP Andrew Fraser last night blamed the death on deep resentment felt by landowners to the Native Vegetation Act 2003, which prevents even the smallest of land clearances without strict and cumbersome consents.

“It’s a tragic event that I think has been brought about by bad legislation,” Mr Fraser said.

Turnbull, who has been charged with Mr Turner’s murder, had been in dispute with the Office of Environment and Heritage for more than a year over alleged breaches of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.

The bitter dispute rumbled on via a series of appeals in the Land and Environment Court and reached the most tragic of conclusions on Tuesday.

Nationals leader Andrew Stoner last night acknowledged the frustration among landholders and reiterated his support for an overhaul of NSW’s tightly controlled land clearance laws, which are being enforced by Big Brother-style satellites.

Government documents show the Office of Environment and Heritage and the Environment Protection Agency both use satellites to spy on farmers’ land.

“The native vegetation laws have been a sore point in farming communities since they were introduced by a LaborGreens alliance in 2003,” Mr Stoner said.

A review of the hated act is now under way that should completely overhaul the law.

A review should be carried out and indeed has been in many ways into the viability of every Tom Dick and Harry thinking that they can make money by knocking all else out of their way. The facts or a lot of them are already out there. Which is why the native vegetation act is in force.

It should be quite clear to anyone that if money cannot be made from efficiently farming the land that has already been cleared then the farming enterprise is clearly not viable.

Any person believing that he will go broke if he doesn’t kill every stick of native vegetation, is not ever going to be a farmer.

roughbarked said:

It should be quite clear to anyone that if money cannot be made from efficiently farming the land that has already been cleared then the farming enterprise is clearly not viable.

Any person believing that he will go broke if he doesn’t kill every stick of native vegetation, is not ever going to be a farmer.

that sentence obviously doesn’t apply to Turnbull

roughbarked said:

It should be quite clear to anyone that if money cannot be made from efficiently farming the land that has already been cleared then the farming enterprise is clearly not viable.

Any person believing that he will go broke if he doesn’t kill every stick of native vegetation, is not ever going to be a farmer.

And obviously the farming communities see the Act & it’s specifics differently to you

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

It should be quite clear to anyone that if money cannot be made from efficiently farming the land that has already been cleared then the farming enterprise is clearly not viable.

Any person believing that he will go broke if he doesn’t kill every stick of native vegetation, is not ever going to be a farmer.

that sentence obviously doesn’t apply to Turnbull

Why?

If he had been a successful wheat farmer, why did he want to clear more land? Why was clearing more land the only solution to his financial problems?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

It should be quite clear to anyone that if money cannot be made from efficiently farming the land that has already been cleared then the farming enterprise is clearly not viable.

Any person believing that he will go broke if he doesn’t kill every stick of native vegetation, is not ever going to be a farmer.

And obviously the farming communities see the Act & it’s specifics differently to you

The functional farming community has no problems with it. It is the dysfunctional farming community that has the issue.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

It should be quite clear to anyone that if money cannot be made from efficiently farming the land that has already been cleared then the farming enterprise is clearly not viable.

Any person believing that he will go broke if he doesn’t kill every stick of native vegetation, is not ever going to be a farmer.

that sentence obviously doesn’t apply to Turnbull

Why?

If he had been a successful wheat farmer, why did he want to clear more land? Why was clearing more land the only solution to his financial problems?

he cleared land he just bought, to grow crops, the land was an investment & he was maximising it’s yield per acre,,, & who says he had financial problems?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

that sentence obviously doesn’t apply to Turnbull

Why?

If he had been a successful wheat farmer, why did he want to clear more land? Why was clearing more land the only solution to his financial problems?

he cleared land he just bought, to grow crops, the land was an investment & he was maximising it’s yield per acre,,, & who says he had financial problems?

Who says? I did. Nobody without rocks in their head would waste money on unproductive land based on the premise that it could be if one could get away with breaking the existing land tenure laws.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

It should be quite clear to anyone that if money cannot be made from efficiently farming the land that has already been cleared then the farming enterprise is clearly not viable.

Any person believing that he will go broke if he doesn’t kill every stick of native vegetation, is not ever going to be a farmer.

And obviously the farming communities see the Act & it’s specifics differently to you

The functional farming community has no problems with it. It is the dysfunctional farming community that has the issue.

not going by reports or feedback. The actual farmers in farming communities do have a problem, more so in cases like Turnbulls where he has bought more land & wanted to maximise it’s output.

The act has been changed in queensland & is up for review in NSW with 40 recommendations on the agenda, probably more after this incident

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Why?

If he had been a successful wheat farmer, why did he want to clear more land? Why was clearing more land the only solution to his financial problems?

he cleared land he just bought, to grow crops, the land was an investment & he was maximising it’s yield per acre,,, & who says he had financial problems?

Who says? I did. Nobody without rocks in their head would waste money on unproductive land based on the premise that it could be if one could get away with breaking the existing land tenure laws.

you do hey. I afraid making stuff up doesn’t count.
And you seem to have no idea of the specifics of this case, as the land was prime for growing crops, which he had already established,,,wheat & barley.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

And obviously the farming communities see the Act & it’s specifics differently to you

The functional farming community has no problems with it. It is the dysfunctional farming community that has the issue.

not going by reports or feedback. The actual farmers in farming communities do have a problem, more so in cases like Turnbulls where he has bought more land & wanted to maximise it’s output.

The act has been changed in queensland & is up for review in NSW with 40 recommendations on the agenda, probably more after this incident

There are too many people pretending to be farmers. There are too many farmers who think they can just pick up a new block of land and rape it.

There should be a law that states that if a farmer is finished with a block of land that it should be put back the way it was before he came. The mining industry has to suffer under such constraints. He shouldn’t be able to sell it to finance clearing a new block or an expansion. He should only be able to expand onto existing cleared land.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

he cleared land he just bought, to grow crops, the land was an investment & he was maximising it’s yield per acre,,, & who says he had financial problems?

Who says? I did. Nobody without rocks in their head would waste money on unproductive land based on the premise that it could be if one could get away with breaking the existing land tenure laws.

you do hey. I afraid making stuff up doesn’t count.
And you seem to have no idea of the specifics of this case, as the land was prime for growing crops, which he had already established,,,wheat & barley.

You don’t know a lot about farming, do you.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The functional farming community has no problems with it. It is the dysfunctional farming community that has the issue.

not going by reports or feedback. The actual farmers in farming communities do have a problem, more so in cases like Turnbulls where he has bought more land & wanted to maximise it’s output.

The act has been changed in queensland & is up for review in NSW with 40 recommendations on the agenda, probably more after this incident

There are too many people pretending to be farmers. There are too many farmers who think they can just pick up a new block of land and rape it.

you are take a few cases, suggest this is the norm, then suggest this is a wide ranging problem that has to be dealt with aggressively. Circular reasoning.

Most people affected by the laws are experienced farmers. & in reality how many ignorant people are taking up farming,,,fuck all, except for a few hippie ‘organic

satellite surveillance, juesus

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Who says? I did. Nobody without rocks in their head would waste money on unproductive land based on the premise that it could be if one could get away with breaking the existing land tenure laws.

you do hey. I afraid making stuff up doesn’t count.
And you seem to have no idea of the specifics of this case, as the land was prime for growing crops, which he had already established,,,wheat & barley.

You don’t know a lot about farming, do you.

I’m not a farmer that’s for sure, but I can read –

“Land around Croppa Creek is prime growers’ territory and the Turnbulls quickly set about clearing more than 500ha of land containing native vegetation, including 3402 trees, to make way for crops.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

not going by reports or feedback. The actual farmers in farming communities do have a problem, more so in cases like Turnbulls where he has bought more land & wanted to maximise it’s output.

The act has been changed in queensland & is up for review in NSW with 40 recommendations on the agenda, probably more after this incident

There are too many people pretending to be farmers. There are too many farmers who think they can just pick up a new block of land and rape it.

you are take a few cases, suggest this is the norm, then suggest this is a wide ranging problem that has to be dealt with aggressively. Circular reasoning.

Most people affected by the laws are experienced farmers. & in reality how many ignorant people are taking up farming,,,fuck all, except for a few hippie ‘organic

satellite surveillance, juesus

Surveillance is carried out in other parts of the world and a lot of it is about tax avoidance and other fraudulent activities by landholders. It is becoming the norm due to the high incidence of fraudulent activities by such people. Farming should not be about constant expansion. Profits come from greater efficiency.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

you do hey. I afraid making stuff up doesn’t count.
And you seem to have no idea of the specifics of this case, as the land was prime for growing crops, which he had already established,,,wheat & barley.

You don’t know a lot about farming, do you.

I’m not a farmer that’s for sure, but I can read –

“Land around Croppa Creek is prime growers’ territory and the Turnbulls quickly set about clearing more than 500ha of land containing native vegetation, including 3402 trees, to make way for crops.

There’s no such thing as prime growers territory if it is bushland.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

There are too many people pretending to be farmers. There are too many farmers who think they can just pick up a new block of land and rape it.

you are take a few cases, suggest this is the norm, then suggest this is a wide ranging problem that has to be dealt with aggressively. Circular reasoning.

Most people affected by the laws are experienced farmers. & in reality how many ignorant people are taking up farming,,,fuck all, except for a few hippie ‘organic

satellite surveillance, juesus

Surveillance is carried out in other parts of the world and a lot of it is about tax avoidance and other fraudulent activities by landholders. It is becoming the norm due to the high incidence of fraudulent activities by such people. Farming should not be about constant expansion. Profits come from greater efficiency.

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

I’m saying the laws are over the top in many cases (this is a good example) & enforced with over aggression.

The most abhorring aspect of these laws & their enforcement is the overwhelming ‘extreme green’ influence built in;
tree worshipping, and the harassment of anyone who dares to want to try & cut a single tree down.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

You don’t know a lot about farming, do you.

I’m not a farmer that’s for sure, but I can read –

“Land around Croppa Creek is prime growers’ territory and the Turnbulls quickly set about clearing more than 500ha of land containing native vegetation, including 3402 trees, to make way for crops.

There’s no such thing as prime growers territory if it is bushland.

If the soil is fertile, & the climate is suitable, it prime.

The_observer said:

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

I’m saying the laws are over the top in many cases (this is a good example) & enforced with over aggression.

The most abhorring aspect of these laws & their enforcement is the overwhelming ‘extreme green’ influence built in;
tree worshipping, and the harassment of anyone who dares to want to try & cut a single tree down.

There is no overwhelming green influence. This is rubbish talk.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I’m not a farmer that’s for sure, but I can read –

“Land around Croppa Creek is prime growers’ territory and the Turnbulls quickly set about clearing more than 500ha of land containing native vegetation, including 3402 trees, to make way for crops.

There’s no such thing as prime growers territory if it is bushland.

If the soil is fertile, & the climate is suitable, it prime.

Again people who think this way are complete tossers.

Prime, may well mean that it is prime for many other species than wheat or barley. I can grow wheat and barley in the cracks of my footpath.

roughbarked said:

Prime, may well mean that it is prime for many other species than wheat or barley. I can grow wheat and barley in the cracks of my footpath.

could probably grow it in other cracks also……

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Prime, may well mean that it is prime for many other species than wheat or barley. I can grow wheat and barley in the cracks of my footpath.

could probably grow it in other cracks also……

David Attenborough should latch onto this story and do a docco, as a sequel to the one he did about wheat planning the obsolescence of all forests.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

I’m saying the laws are over the top in many cases (this is a good example) & enforced with over aggression.

The most abhorring aspect of these laws & their enforcement is the overwhelming ‘extreme green’ influence built in;
tree worshipping, and the harassment of anyone who dares to want to try & cut a single tree down.

There is no overwhelming green influence. This is rubbish talk.

so the laws have nothing to do with environment, carbon sequestration, wildlife ?

and environmentalists don’t lobby for even stricter laws & enforcement?

& politicians don’t bend over backwards to environmentalists to get votes.

OK then

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

There’s no such thing as prime growers territory if it is bushland.

If the soil is fertile, & the climate is suitable, it prime.

Again people who think this way are complete tossers.

>>complete tossers<<

strike one

roughbarked said:

Prime, may well mean that it is prime for many other species than wheat or barley. I can grow wheat and barley in the cracks of my footpath.

I hope you crack is big enough to feed the world

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

I’m saying the laws are over the top in many cases (this is a good example) & enforced with over aggression.

The most abhorring aspect of these laws & their enforcement is the overwhelming ‘extreme green’ influence built in;
tree worshipping, and the harassment of anyone who dares to want to try & cut a single tree down.

There is no overwhelming green influence. This is rubbish talk.

so the laws have nothing to do with environment, carbon sequestration, wildlife ?

and environmentalists don’t lobby for even stricter laws & enforcement?

& politicians don’t bend over backwards to environmentalists to get votes.

OK then

WFM.. So You’d prefer that the governments gave open slather to complete destruction of everything in the name of Joe Blogs?

TO in regard to the beginnning of this thread I would explain that drawing connections the way you did is akin(on a different scale) to Israel justifying flattenning schools and hospitals because of a few dodgy rockets. Better choices should have been found.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

If the soil is fertile, & the climate is suitable, it prime.

Again people who think this way are complete tossers.

>>complete tossers<<

strike one

>>complete tossers<<

>>complete tossers<<

So now, am I out?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Prime, may well mean that it is prime for many other species than wheat or barley. I can grow wheat and barley in the cracks of my footpath.

I hope you crack is big enough to feed the world

I know what they should keep out of cracks.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

There is no overwhelming green influence. This is rubbish talk.

so the laws have nothing to do with environment, carbon sequestration, wildlife ?

and environmentalists don’t lobby for even stricter laws & enforcement?

& politicians don’t bend over backwards to environmentalists to get votes.

OK then

WFM.. So You’d prefer that the governments gave open slather to complete destruction of everything in the name of Joe Blogs?

.
The_observer said: ID: 569628

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

Postpocelipse said:

Better choices should have been found.

They have been found. It is simply dolts who cannot adapt who have the problem.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

so the laws have nothing to do with environment, carbon sequestration, wildlife ?

and environmentalists don’t lobby for even stricter laws & enforcement?

& politicians don’t bend over backwards to environmentalists to get votes.

OK then

WFM.. So You’d prefer that the governments gave open slather to complete destruction of everything in the name of Joe Blogs?

.
The_observer said: ID: 569628

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

Mr Turnbull did and you seem to wish to support his actions.

Postpocelipse said:

TO in regard to the beginnning of this thread I would explain that drawing connections the way you did is akin(on a different scale) to Israel justifying flattenning schools and hospitals because of a few dodgy rockets. Better choices should have been found.

My opinion from the first was that – here you had a hard working farmer who was a decent man driven to extremes by extreme laws enforced with extreme vigour.

It broke him and the results were tragic, & the media, although never condoning Turners murder, has backed my opinion.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

TO in regard to the beginnning of this thread I would explain that drawing connections the way you did is akin(on a different scale) to Israel justifying flattenning schools and hospitals because of a few dodgy rockets. Better choices should have been found.

My opinion from the first was that – here you had a hard working farmer who was a decent man driven to extremes by extreme laws enforced with extreme vigour.

It broke him and the results were tragic, & the media, although never condoning Turners murder, has backed my opinion.

And your opinion has no base in fact.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Again people who think this way are complete tossers.

>>complete tossers<<

strike one

>>complete tossers<<

>>complete tossers<<

So now, am I out?

that’s up to you. I’m just pointing out that I can argue without reverting to name calling,
even when provoked.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

>>complete tossers<<

strike one

>>complete tossers<<

>>complete tossers<<

So now, am I out?

that’s up to you. I’m just pointing out that I can argue without reverting to name calling,
even when provoked.

It cannot be name calling when it is the truth. Blood cannot be squeezed from a stone. It can only come from the hand of the tosser attempting it.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

WFM.. So You’d prefer that the governments gave open slather to complete destruction of everything in the name of Joe Blogs?

.
The_observer said: ID: 569628

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

Mr Turnbull did and you seem to wish to support his actions.

the laws should not have applied in his case is what I’m saying.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

TO in regard to the beginnning of this thread I would explain that drawing connections the way you did is akin(on a different scale) to Israel justifying flattenning schools and hospitals because of a few dodgy rockets. Better choices should have been found.

My opinion from the first was that – here you had a hard working farmer who was a decent man driven to extremes by extreme laws enforced with extreme vigour.

It broke him and the results were tragic, & the media, although never condoning Turners murder, has backed my opinion.

And your opinion has no base in fact.

so why did Turnbull murder Turner again?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

.
The_observer said: ID: 569628

I’m not saying there should be NO laws.

Mr Turnbull did and you seem to wish to support his actions.

the laws should not have applied in his case is what I’m saying.

and you have better proof of that than the department who sent the man out to be shot in the back?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

My opinion from the first was that – here you had a hard working farmer who was a decent man driven to extremes by extreme laws enforced with extreme vigour.

It broke him and the results were tragic, & the media, although never condoning Turners murder, has backed my opinion.

And your opinion has no base in fact.

so why did Turnbull murder Turner again?

Because he didn’t have the guts to point it at his own head.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

>>complete tossers<<

>>complete tossers<<

So now, am I out?

that’s up to you. I’m just pointing out that I can argue without reverting to name calling,
even when provoked.

It cannot be name calling when it is the truth. Blood cannot be squeezed from a stone. It can only come from the hand of the tosser attempting it.

referring to someone who has a different opinion to yourself as a “complete tosser” is rude & shows intolerance & lack of argument.

you lose.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

TO in regard to the beginnning of this thread I would explain that drawing connections the way you did is akin(on a different scale) to Israel justifying flattenning schools and hospitals because of a few dodgy rockets. Better choices should have been found.

My opinion from the first was that – here you had a hard working farmer who was a decent man driven to extremes by extreme laws enforced with extreme vigour.

It broke him and the results were tragic, & the media, although never condoning Turners murder, has backed my opinion.

Popular opinion is often an emotional one and therefore fallible. Many people experience worse treatment and never go near violence. IMO his act was entirley selfish and had no other meaningful motivation that isn’t justification. Most people would have avoided this simply to save their families grief. His decision wasn’t rational and shouldn’t be over rationalised.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

that’s up to you. I’m just pointing out that I can argue without reverting to name calling,
even when provoked.

It cannot be name calling when it is the truth. Blood cannot be squeezed from a stone. It can only come from the hand of the tosser attempting it.

referring to someone who has a different opinion to yourself as a “complete tosser” is rude & shows intolerance & lack of argument.

you lose.

opinions are not facts. The facts are; the land was not given clearance to be cleared. He cleared it. He fought for a right he didn’t have, never planned to have, simply bulldozed his way. He shot the guy in the back for simply doing the job he was required to do..

call me rude if you like. but Mr Turnbull and anyone who supports his actions or even his mindset, are indeed complete tossers.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

that’s up to you. I’m just pointing out that I can argue without reverting to name calling,
even when provoked.

It cannot be name calling when it is the truth. Blood cannot be squeezed from a stone. It can only come from the hand of the tosser attempting it.

referring to someone who has a different opinion to yourself as a “complete tosser” is rude & shows intolerance & lack of argument.

you lose.

It’s better than killing the person because you feel all persecuted………

Postpocelipse said:

It’s better than killing the person because you feel all persecuted………

That part should be told to the farmers wives.

Farmers should be able to love and respect the land they are caretaking.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Mr Turnbull did and you seem to wish to support his actions.

the laws should not have applied in his case is what I’m saying.

and you have better proof of that than the department who sent the man out to be shot in the back?

they harassed him for cutting down trees, to grow crops, in a farming district, on land he bought & owned as an investment, in fertile soil, with a suitable climate, & he was successful.

did it cause erosion of soils into waterways? ……..no evidence
cause topsoil to be blown away? ……………………. no evidence
was it a ‘rare habitat’………………………………………..it all sacred to the greens

was the land unsuitable for the purpose he bought it for???……….. certainly not

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

the laws should not have applied in his case is what I’m saying.

and you have better proof of that than the department who sent the man out to be shot in the back?

they harassed him for cutting down trees, to grow crops, in a farming district, on land he bought & owned as an investment, in fertile soil, with a suitable climate, & he was successful.

did it cause erosion of soils into waterways? ……..no evidence
cause topsoil to be blown away? ……………………. no evidence
was it a ‘rare habitat’………………………………………..it all sacred to the greens

was the land unsuitable for the purpose he bought it for???……….. certainly not

You are still not looking at the facts. Your last question should have been your only one.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

It cannot be name calling when it is the truth. Blood cannot be squeezed from a stone. It can only come from the hand of the tosser attempting it.

referring to someone who has a different opinion to yourself as a “complete tosser” is rude & shows intolerance & lack of argument.

you lose.

call me rude if you like. but Mr Turnbull and anyone who supports his actions or even his mindset, are indeed complete tossers.

I haven’t found anyone who supports Turnbull’s actions yet.

But don’t let that stop you from making that strawman argument.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

It cannot be name calling when it is the truth. Blood cannot be squeezed from a stone. It can only come from the hand of the tosser attempting it.

referring to someone who has a different opinion to yourself as a “complete tosser” is rude & shows intolerance & lack of argument.

you lose.

It’s better than killing the person because you feel all persecuted………

yeh

roughbarked said:

was the land unsuitable for the purpose he bought it for???……….. certainly not

You are still not looking at the facts. Your last question should have been your only one.

And still would have provided no justification for homicide.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

referring to someone who has a different opinion to yourself as a “complete tosser” is rude & shows intolerance & lack of argument.

you lose.

call me rude if you like. but Mr Turnbull and anyone who supports his actions or even his mindset, are indeed complete tossers.

I haven’t found anyone who supports Turnbull’s actions yet.

But don’t let that stop you from making that strawman argument.

You are supporting his actions by attempting to argue his case. His case has nothing to do with you. You have nothing to gain by arguing it other than to support his actions.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

was the land unsuitable for the purpose he bought it for???……….. certainly not

You are still not looking at the facts. Your last question should have been your only one.

And still would have provided no justification for homicide.

another strawman. That’s desperate you know.

I never set out to provide ‘ justification for homicide.’

I have said that extreme laws enforced extremely in all cases will end in a situation like this.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

was the land unsuitable for the purpose he bought it for???……….. certainly not

You are still not looking at the facts. Your last question should have been your only one.

And still would have provided no justification for homicide.

another strawman. That’s desperate you know.

I never set out to provide ‘ justification for homicide.’

I have said that extreme laws enforced extremely in all cases will end in a situation like this.

I never set out to provide ‘ justification for homicide.’

I have said that extreme laws enforced extremely in all cases will end in a situation like this.

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

was the land unsuitable for the purpose he bought it for???……….. certainly not

You are still not looking at the facts. Your last question should have been your only one.

And still would have provided no justification for homicide.

another strawman. That’s desperate you know.

I never set out to provide ‘ justification for homicide.’

I have said that extreme laws enforced extremely in all cases will end in a situation like this.

This law is in no way, extreme.

I for one will be extremely interested in the case for the defendant when this goes to court,

& the outcome.

I’ll say it again, for clarity.

This law is in no way, extreme. To think it is, puts the thinker in the extremist category.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

And still would have provided no justification for homicide.

another strawman. That’s desperate you know.

I never set out to provide ‘ justification for homicide.’

I have said that extreme laws enforced extremely in all cases will end in a situation like this.

This law is in no way, extreme.

the farmers disagree with you, & it is why the Act is being reviewed, & why it has been changed in queensland.

The_observer said:

I for one will be extremely interested in the case for the defendant when this goes to court,

& the outcome.

accidental manslaughter at the very least, if his lawyer can prove that he couldn’t hit the side of a barn with a shotgun from 2 metres.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

another strawman. That’s desperate you know.

I never set out to provide ‘ justification for homicide.’

I have said that extreme laws enforced extremely in all cases will end in a situation like this.

This law is in no way, extreme.

the farmers disagree with you, & it is why the Act is being reviewed, & why it has been changed in queensland.

No. The Farmers do not disagree. Maybe some Kwenslander land rapists do.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This law is in no way, extreme.

the farmers disagree with you, & it is why the Act is being reviewed, & why it has been changed in queensland.

No. The Farmers do not disagree. Maybe some Kwenslander land rapists do.

.
Coffs Harbour MP Andrew Fraser last night blamed the death on deep resentment felt by landowners to the Native Vegetation Act 2003, which prevents even the smallest of land clearances without strict and cumbersome consents.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

the farmers disagree with you, & it is why the Act is being reviewed, & why it has been changed in queensland.

No. The Farmers do not disagree. Maybe some Kwenslander land rapists do.

.
Coffs Harbour MP Andrew Fraser last night blamed the death on deep resentment felt by landowners to the Native Vegetation Act 2003, which prevents even the smallest of land clearances without strict and cumbersome consents.

For the votes of a handful of rednecks?

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

was the land unsuitable for the purpose he bought it for???……….. certainly not

You are still not looking at the facts. Your last question should have been your only one.

And still would have provided no justification for homicide.

another strawman. That’s desperate you know.

I never set out to provide ‘ justification for homicide.’

I have said that extreme laws enforced extremely in all cases will end in a situation like this.

The primary feature that leads to this sort of act is a sense of entitlement. Connecting other issues to it does not over ride this as being the root motivation.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This law is in no way, extreme.

the farmers disagree with you, & it is why the Act is being reviewed, & why it has been changed in queensland.

No. The Farmers do not disagree. Maybe some Kwenslander land rapists do.

There are similar laws in WA and they are hated by the farming community that need expansion.

“ land rapists”

emotive language straight from the gospel of environmentalism

I’ve been in and around farmers all my life. (sexual connotations aside)

To make such blanket statements about what farmers want, is simply ludicrous.

The_observer said:

“ land rapists”

emotive language straight from the gospel of environmentalism

The greenies won’t be happy until all the cleared land is allowed to go back to bush and the last dam is knocked down.

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

the farmers disagree with you, & it is why the Act is being reviewed, & why it has been changed in queensland.

No. The Farmers do not disagree. Maybe some Kwenslander land rapists do.

There are similar laws in WA and they are hated by the farming community that need expansion.

The expansion problem in farming communities is about keeping the offspring as feudal overlords.

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

“ land rapists”

emotive language straight from the gospel of environmentalism

The greenies won’t be happy until all the cleared land is allowed to go back to bush and the last dam is knocked down.

Not true at all, in any way.

There is no farmer worth his salt who could ever speak thus.

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

“ land rapists”

emotive language straight from the gospel of environmentalism

The greenies won’t be happy until all the cleared land is allowed to go back to bush and the last dam is knocked down.

observational fail………

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

No. The Farmers do not disagree. Maybe some Kwenslander land rapists do.

There are similar laws in WA and they are hated by the farming community that need expansion.

The expansion problem in farming communities is about keeping the offspring as feudal overlords.

Another RB load of irrelevent crap.

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

There are similar laws in WA and they are hated by the farming community that need expansion.

The expansion problem in farming communities is about keeping the offspring as feudal overlords.

Another RB load of irrelevent crap.

Are you a farmer?

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

“ land rapists”

emotive language straight from the gospel of environmentalism

The greenies won’t be happy until all the cleared land is allowed to go back to bush and the last dam is knocked down.

nah, they still won’t be happy even then.

If your farm didn’t make enough money to at least educate your children, why do you want to clear a bit of bush for them to farm?

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

The expansion problem in farming communities is about keeping the offspring as feudal overlords.

Another RB load of irrelevent crap.

Are you a farmer?

Find out. You know everything else there is to know.

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

Another RB load of irrelevent crap.

Are you a farmer?

Find out. You know everything else there is to know.

stalling will get no crops planted.

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

Are you a farmer?

Find out. You know everything else there is to know.

stalling will get no crops planted.

Well if they aren’t in by now someone is in the shit.

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

Find out. You know everything else there is to know.

stalling will get no crops planted.

Well if they aren’t in by now someone is in the shit.

Wheat farmers, for sure.

The_observer said:

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

“ land rapists”

emotive language straight from the gospel of environmentalism

The greenies won’t be happy until all the cleared land is allowed to go back to bush and the last dam is knocked down.

nah, they still won’t be happy even then.

We should address this issue by at first realising that the above statements all come from those who would prefer to find someone else to blame.

I know no people who do not comprehend that it may be required to dig up that hill over there so as to avoid being bogged every time one needs to trade some milk and eggs for a bag of wheat. These things are the basis of becoming more efficient. However, the same people would prefer that the hill be used for communal paving rather than as the source of profit for one man.

Anyway, since TO did agree that we need regulating laws, it is true that the native vegetation laws have been around for a good while and it does stand to reason that an investor would not see a property that had to be cleared as a viable investment. It doesn’t stand to reason that he should buy it and clear it anyway. This is the reason that the law was put in place.

There is ample cleared farming land in Australia. There are no reasons why some of that land cannot be returned to pristine habitat if some needs to be cleared somewhere else, if it does not interfere with the stability of the localised habitat in question. Simply because someone knows how to grow wheat does not qualify that person to pick a new place to grow it when he wears the last place out. If he knows how to grow wheat then he should be able t do it on concrete.

Well done rb, you raised some good points that were well argued.

In local communities there are often slabs of native vegetation that are well known as habitat for rare and endangered species. This land is often cheap because it is known that it cannot be extensively cleared, yet you still get these greedy individuals who do purchase it, then clear it illegally. It is quite possible that the murderer was elderly and thought he had little to lose and would probably get away with it. However, many people including local government, scientific institutions and other interested parties (not just conservationists), strongly object to such action. Fortunately there are strong laws to stop or at least reduce this sort of thing, which is of benefit to only those who seek a quick profit and who care nothing for the damage they cause.

PermeateFree said:

Well done rb, you raised some good points that were well argued.

In local communities there are often slabs of native vegetation that are well known as habitat for rare and endangered species. This land is often cheap because it is known that it cannot be extensively cleared, yet you still get these greedy individuals who do purchase it, then clear it illegally. It is quite possible that the murderer was elderly and thought he had little to lose and would probably get away with it. However, many people including local government, scientific institutions and other interested parties (not just conservationists), strongly object to such action. Fortunately there are strong laws to stop or at least reduce this sort of thing, which is of benefit to only those who seek a quick profit and who care nothing for the damage they cause.

The farmer was not in control of his emotions was he?

I bet the farmer is a stubborn close minded conservative old fart

>> Harassed Farmer shoots dead council environmental officer
Why would he shoot a dead council environmental officer?

Tamb said:

>> Harassed Farmer shoots dead council environmental officer
Why would he shoot a dead council environmental officer?

Coup de grace?

Tamb said:

>> Harassed Farmer shoots dead council environmental officer
Why would he shoot a dead council environmental officer?

Pre-emptive strike in case he becomes a zombie

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

>> Harassed Farmer shoots dead council environmental officer
Why would he shoot a dead council environmental officer?

Pre-emptive strike in case he becomes a zombie

I thought that involved mallets & wooden stakes.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

>> Harassed Farmer shoots dead council environmental officer
Why would he shoot a dead council environmental officer?

Pre-emptive strike in case he becomes a zombie

I thought that involved mallets & wooden stakes.

Thats vampires, zombie are head shots to destroy the brain

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Well done rb, you raised some good points that were well argued.

In local communities there are often slabs of native vegetation that are well known as habitat for rare and endangered species. This land is often cheap because it is known that it cannot be extensively cleared, yet you still get these greedy individuals who do purchase it, then clear it illegally. It is quite possible that the murderer was elderly and thought he had little to lose and would probably get away with it. However, many people including local government, scientific institutions and other interested parties (not just conservationists), strongly object to such action. Fortunately there are strong laws to stop or at least reduce this sort of thing, which is of benefit to only those who seek a quick profit and who care nothing for the damage they cause.

The farmer was not in control of his emotions was he?

I bet the farmer is a stubborn close minded conservative old fart

Yes, I have lived next door to two such people who were a constant irritation.

For the record, all native vegetation is protected by the State and permission is required before it is cleared. This requirement stems from the State Herbarium who have a strong interest in the preservation of rare species. Also the State Museum are very interested in remnant populations of native species and are also concerned about the health of their habitat. They and many others acknowledge that you cannot have rednecks destroying large tacks of land for their self-centred short-term interests.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Pre-emptive strike in case he becomes a zombie

I thought that involved mallets & wooden stakes.

Thats vampires, zombie are head shots to destroy the brain

So THAT’S where I’ve been going wrong. Drat!

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

:)

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

and make him plant trees all around the prison every day

PermeateFree said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

:)

Feed him a vegan diet or is that a step too far?

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

He’s 79. He may not live long enough to be able to bump into a tree fern.
The stuff people don’t comprehend is that wheat ripens in like six months. It’s a fire hazard after that. A tree fern or a grass tree are going to take much longer to replace.

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

He’s 79. He may not live long enough to be able to bump into a tree fern.
The stuff people don’t comprehend is that wheat ripens in like six months. It’s a fire hazard after that. A tree fern or a grass tree are going to take much longer to replace.

Don’t grass trees require fire as part of their life cycle?

Farming is always a gamble. Gamblers should always be able to wear their losses. One good year in ten is enough to keep a family on a farm for 150 years.

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

He’s 79. He may not live long enough to be able to bump into a tree fern.
The stuff people don’t comprehend is that wheat ripens in like six months. It’s a fire hazard after that. A tree fern or a grass tree are going to take much longer to replace.

I wonder if his defence lawyer will use the defence “Cranky old men yells git off ma lawn young whippersnapper and then shoots dead said young whippersnapper”

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

He’s 79. He may not live long enough to be able to bump into a tree fern.
The stuff people don’t comprehend is that wheat ripens in like six months. It’s a fire hazard after that. A tree fern or a grass tree are going to take much longer to replace.

Don’t grass trees require fire as part of their life cycle?

They desire it, yes.

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

He’s 79. He may not live long enough to be able to bump into a tree fern.
The stuff people don’t comprehend is that wheat ripens in like six months. It’s a fire hazard after that. A tree fern or a grass tree are going to take much longer to replace.

I wonder if his defence lawyer will use the defence “Cranky old men yells git off ma lawn young whippersnapper and then shoots dead said young whippersnapper”

Doesn’t work in this day and age.

79

he should have known better

even for a stubborn old minded old fart

make him plant seedlings then

CrazyNeutrino said:

79

he should have known better

even for a stubborn old minded old fart

make him plant seedlings then

No. put him to work in a rice paddy on an Asian mountainside.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I hope they fill up his prison cell with large ferns and indoor plants so he finds it hard to get from his bed to the dunny

He’s 79. He may not live long enough to be able to bump into a tree fern.
The stuff people don’t comprehend is that wheat ripens in like six months. It’s a fire hazard after that. A tree fern or a grass tree are going to take much longer to replace.

Don’t grass trees require fire as part of their life cycle?

Yes, but there can be many years between. Restoration of farmland is really only appreciable to certain trees and large shrubs, but most of the smaller vegetation would take decades if at all, plus you would have the weeds to battle that are very likely to win in these restorations.

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

He’s 79. He may not live long enough to be able to bump into a tree fern.
The stuff people don’t comprehend is that wheat ripens in like six months. It’s a fire hazard after that. A tree fern or a grass tree are going to take much longer to replace.

Don’t grass trees require fire as part of their life cycle?

Yes, but there can be many years between. Restoration of farmland is really only appreciable to certain trees and large shrubs, but most of the smaller vegetation would take decades if at all, plus you would have the weeds to battle that are very likely to win in these restorations.

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

The issue with this thread is the presumption in the title.

Nobody was harassing the farmer. The farmer was harassing everyone else. In all the initial reports I read, all his neighbours were horrified and came out in support of the dead man.

roughbarked said:

The issue with this thread is the presumption in the title.

Nobody was harassing the farmer. The farmer was harassing everyone else. In all the initial reports I read, all his neighbours were horrified and came out in support of the dead man.

That does not surprise me

I hope they give him a good kick up his arse

Stubborn close minded conservative old farts are a danger to society

roughbarked said:

The issue with this thread is the presumption in the title.

Nobody was harassing the farmer. The farmer was harassing everyone else. In all the initial reports I read, all his neighbours were horrified and came out in support of the dead man.

Even if he was harassed the response was extreme, it’s not as if his life was threatened.

If the native vegetation act is reduced in any way at all, then there will basically be no native vegetation left at all within a very short time. The available reserves now are far too few to provide sufficient resources for sustainable populations. We need to actually be increasing habitat rather than diminishing it further. There are incentives in place for farmers to include better management of native vegetation resources whilst also being more efficient as farmers.

what a lot of childish tripe being posted on this thread by you lot.

just make shit up, by all means.

The_observer said:

what a lot of childish tripe being posted on this thread by you lot.

just make shit up, by all means.

Hi YA Troll

roughbarked said:

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

The_observer said:

what a lot of childish tripe being posted on this thread by you lot.

just make shit up, by all means.

Well, you do.

Nobody is making up shit apart from the person who wrote the title of the thread.

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

what a lot of childish tripe being posted on this thread by you lot.

just make shit up, by all means.

Hi YA Troll

you really ought to get off the pot lowlife

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

2 years old

OUT OF DATE

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

can kicking.

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

what a lot of childish tripe being posted on this thread by you lot.

just make shit up, by all means.

Hi YA Troll

you really ought to get off the pot lowlife

No way, I’m enjoying the pot

you wouldn’t know what low life is

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

2 years old

OUT OF DATE

Farmers have always thought trees to be oppressive. In the old days a single farmer employed 6,000 people to ringbark trees.

Go off and find some more outdated articles TO

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

2 years old

OUT OF DATE

Farmers have always thought trees to be oppressive. In the old days a single farmer employed 6,000 people to ringbark trees.

They had no Idea what they were doing

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

what a lot of childish tripe being posted on this thread by you lot.

just make shit up, by all means.

Well, you do.

Nobody is making up shit apart from the person who wrote the title of the thread.

RB, your argument from the start is just you making shit up,,,like me condoning his murder, that he has financial troubles, that the land wasn’t suitable for the purpose he used it for, etc, etc

Even your suggestion that farmers support the Act is a load of crap, as I have proven.

just strawman, & a tad of name calling, because you & your argument are piss weak.

I’ll leave you intolerant little greenies here to keep showing your intolerance & nastiness & making shit up because you have no arguments

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

2 years old

OUT OF DATE

moron

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Hi YA Troll

you really ought to get off the pot lowlife

No way, I’m enjoying the pot

you wouldn’t know what low life is

it would be the cause of your depression son, either from smoking it, or withdrawal symptions when you can’t get it.

but keep puffin away son

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

what a lot of childish tripe being posted on this thread by you lot.

just make shit up, by all means.

Well, you do.

Nobody is making up shit apart from the person who wrote the title of the thread.

RB, your argument from the start is just you making shit up,,,like me condoning his murder, that he has financial troubles, that the land wasn’t suitable for the purpose he used it for, etc, etc

Even your suggestion that farmers support the Act is a load of crap, as I have proven.

just strawman, & a tad of name calling, because you & your argument are piss weak.

I’ll leave you intolerant little greenies here to keep showing your intolerance & nastiness & making shit up because you have no arguments

Your behaving like a little baby throwing a tantrum in a high chair throwing food on the floor

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

2 years old

OUT OF DATE

moron

Out of date terminology

The days of clearing scrub without approval ended in the very early eighties as recall here in SA (may have even been late seventies), so like thirty years ago. Last lot was cleared when I was maybe 14YO, I remember driving one of the tractors with chain between, there was one other larger area dozers went through with rippers, sort of tried to get it done in a hurry I think before new legislation was to come about, anyway that was left after ripping and burning and it all grew back. Is on an agreement now, or has been for a long time, the arrangement was they paid you a modest amount per acre to basically put it out of or stay it from production, all got fenced off.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

Observer in case you did not notice, the above was a SUBMISSION by the NSW Farmers’ Association, which is like submissions from the Fossil Fuel Industry, Timber Industry, etc., etc., etc. So what else would you expect, other than them saying give more and/or a better deal? That is what they do!

NSW Farmers’ Association

As part of their active management role, farm businesses in NSW already invest more than 3 million person days per year managing their weed, pest, land and soil problems – the highest level of investment per farm business nationally.

These efforts are the result of what the NSW Natural Resources Commission has described as a “quiet revolution taking place in rural Australia”, whereby farmers are “actively seeking to restore our damaged rivers and landscapes and create a new model
of sustainability”.

Unfortunately, there is well founded concern that ‘locking up’ parcels of land under
heavy-handed native vegetation laws has undermined farmers’ stewardship efforts to the detriment of the
environment, their businesses and their local communities.

Yep, that sums up what the farmers think of the Act,,,LOL

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This is why in our great wisdom we all agreed to have the native vegetation act. It was put before all the stakeholders years past. It is in force because the majority of farmers accept these responsibilities.

SUBMISSION TO THE NSW GOVERNMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION REGULATION REVIEW
August 2012
NSW Farmers’ Association

As custodians of approximately 72% of the land mass of NSW, farmers take their role as custodians of the land seriously. NSW Farmers continues to take pride in the role our industry plays in sustainably producing food and fibre whilst providing ecosystem services.

However, current native vegetation rules represent one of the biggest impediments to the sustainable production of food and fibre in NSW.

Farmers are responsible land managers who do not need heavy-handed regulation and penalties in
order to do the right thing.

Whilst the NSW Government is to be congratulated for its commitment to delivering
more balanced, practical, streamlined and effective native vegetation regulations, there
is unfortunately a long way to go before these outcomes can be successfully delivered.

It is clear that in order to deliver these positive outcomes, the Native Vegetation Act 2003
itself must be amended.

The current Act is the product of an ideological debate about tree clearing, as opposed
to the active management of our natural resources. Urgent legislative change is required
to refocus the native vegetation framework on achieving environmental outcomes while
minimising the cost to the NSW economy and the pressure on farming communities.

As outlined in this submission, NSW Farmers’ members have rejected fundamental
aspects of the Act, including the way development proposals are assessed and
determined. The consultation drafts released as part of the Review fail to address these
concerns and fall short of delivering outcomes that would build landholder confidence in
the process.

Observer in case you did not notice, the above was a SUBMISSION by the NSW Farmers’ Association, which is like submissions from the Fossil Fuel Industry, Timber Industry, etc., etc., etc. So what else would you expect, other than them saying give more and/or a better deal? That is what they do!

He is an outdated Observer isn’t he

not much of an Observer at all

transition said:

The days of clearing scrub without approval ended in the very early eighties as recall here in SA (may have even been late seventies), so like thirty years ago. Last lot was cleared when I was maybe 14YO, I remember driving one of the tractors with chain between, there was one other larger area dozers went through with rippers, sort of tried to get it done in a hurry I think before new legislation was to come about, anyway that was left after ripping and burning and it all grew back. Is on an agreement now, or has been for a long time, the arrangement was they paid you a modest amount per acre to basically put it out of or stay it from production, all got fenced off.

Providing the soil is not turned over and otherwise interfered with, most will grow back without a great deal of loss. Depending on surrounding areas, weeds can still be a problem, but if surrounded by bush it is not too bad. The main problem is the lingering ground fires where trees have been dragged down, as this will sterilise the soil beneath.

The_observer said:

NSW Farmers’ Association

As part of their active management role, farm businesses in NSW already invest more than 3 million person days per year managing their weed, pest, land and soil problems – the highest level of investment per farm business nationally.

These efforts are the result of what the NSW Natural Resources Commission has described as a “quiet revolution taking place in rural Australia”, whereby farmers are “actively seeking to restore our damaged rivers and landscapes and create a new model
of sustainability”.

Unfortunately, there is well founded concern that ‘locking up’ parcels of land under
heavy-handed native vegetation laws has undermined farmers’ stewardship efforts to the detriment of the
environment, their businesses and their local communities.

Yep, that sums up what the farmers think of the Act,,,LOL

No, Not all farmers think like you do thankfully

presuming and generalizing

you’re one of these close minded conservatives old farts aren’t you

outdated and out of touch

The_observer said:

NSW Farmers’ Association

As part of their active management role, farm businesses in NSW already invest more than 3 million person days per year managing their weed, pest, land and soil problems – the highest level of investment per farm business nationally.

These efforts are the result of what the NSW Natural Resources Commission has described as a “quiet revolution taking place in rural Australia”, whereby farmers are “actively seeking to restore our damaged rivers and landscapes and create a new model
of sustainability”.

Unfortunately, there is well founded concern that ‘locking up’ parcels of land under
heavy-handed native vegetation laws has undermined farmers’ stewardship efforts to the detriment of the
environment, their businesses and their local communities.

Yep, that sums up what the farmers think of the Act,,,LOL

Why don’t you look a little further at the States, Local Governments and Scientific Institutions that also have a national interest in what goes on in vegetated areas. There is a great deal more at stake than a grieved farmer who cannot be bothered to seek permission to clear.

transition said:

The days of clearing scrub without approval ended in the very early eighties as recall here in SA (may have even been late seventies), so like thirty years ago. Last lot was cleared when I was maybe 14YO, I remember driving one of the tractors with chain between, there was one other larger area dozers went through with rippers, sort of tried to get it done in a hurry I think before new legislation was to come about, anyway that was left after ripping and burning and it all grew back. Is on an agreement now, or has been for a long time, the arrangement was they paid you a modest amount per acre to basically put it out of or stay it from production, all got fenced off.

Don Dunstan did that in the seventies.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

This isn’t true you know

Cymek said:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

This isn’t true you know

Bet he believes in Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy as well.

Unfortunately, there is well founded concern that ‘locking up’ parcels of land under
heavy-handed native vegetation laws has undermined farmers’ stewardship efforts to the detriment of the
environment, their businesses and their local communities.

Yep, that sums up what the farmers think of the Act,,,LOL

[/quote said:

PermeateFree]
Why don’t you look a little further at the States, Local Governments and Scientific Institutions that also have a national interest in what goes on in vegetated areas. There is a great deal more at stake than a grieved farmer who cannot be bothered to seek permission to clear.

The fight unfolded as NSW, Queensland and Victoria all began changing its laws on land clearance, following anger among rural communities that the rules were too strict. In June 2013 then NSW environment minister Robyn Parker accepted 40 recommendations for change, ­including provisions for landowners to self-assess “low risk” land clearances. New exemptions have been ­introduced for some landowners to clear native vegetation without a property vegetation plan and other new land clearance laws are being introduced through 2014.

On 2 December 2013, a range of reforms to Queensland’s vegetation management laws took effect, reducing unnecessary red-tape and regulatory burden, while maintaining key environmental protections.

Cymek said:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

This isn’t true you know

And God blessed them = brain washed

Be fruitful = have lots of sex

and multiply = have lots of kids

and replenish the earth = have a piss and a crap

and subdue it = mining

and have dominion over the fish of the sea = over fishing

and over the fowl of the air = shoot ducks

and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth = drive cars, run over things

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

This isn’t true you know

Bet he believes in Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy as well.

yep, more strawman & put downs, typical of greenies, they just hate logical people talking truthfully

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

This isn’t true you know

And God blessed them = brain washed

Be fruitful = have lots of sex

and multiply = have lots of kids

and replenish the earth = have a piss and a crap

and subdue it = mining

and have dominion over the fish of the sea = over fishing

and over the fowl of the air = shoot ducks

and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth = drive cars, run over things

smoke pot, be a dill

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

This isn’t true you know

And God blessed them = brain washed

Be fruitful = have lots of sex

and multiply = have lots of kids

and replenish the earth = have a piss and a crap

and subdue it = mining

and have dominion over the fish of the sea = over fishing

and over the fowl of the air = shoot ducks

and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth = drive cars, run over things

smoke pot, be a dill

Smoke pot

Be Happy

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth

This isn’t true you know

Bet he believes in Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy as well.

yep, more strawman & put downs, typical of greenies, they just hate logical people talking truthfully

I’m not a greenie thanks, if you want logic “Then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”
Wrecking the planet for short term gain (ie money) doesn’t make logical sense, a balance needs to be found

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

And God blessed them = brain washed

Be fruitful = have lots of sex

and multiply = have lots of kids

and replenish the earth = have a piss and a crap

and subdue it = mining

and have dominion over the fish of the sea = over fishing

and over the fowl of the air = shoot ducks

and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth = drive cars, run over things

smoke pot, be a dill

Smoke pot

Be Happy

yes, apparently some people need drugs to get by & feel happy.

I can understand that in your case.

The_observer said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The_observer said:

smoke pot, be a dill

Smoke pot

Be Happy

yes, apparently some people need drugs to get by & feel happy.

I can understand that in your case.

No, I dont think you understand

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Bet he believes in Santa, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy as well.

yep, more strawman & put downs, typical of greenies, they just hate logical people talking truthfully

I’m not a greenie thanks, if you want logic “Then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”
Wrecking the planet for short term gain (ie money) doesn’t make logical sense, a balance needs to be found

I’m not a greenie >>>Wrecking the planet

sure ya not

The_observer said:

Unfortunately, there is well founded concern that ‘locking up’ parcels of land under
heavy-handed native vegetation laws has undermined farmers’ stewardship efforts to the detriment of the
environment, their businesses and their local communities.

Yep, that sums up what the farmers think of the Act,,,LOL

[/quote said:

PermeateFree]
Why don’t you look a little further at the States, Local Governments and Scientific Institutions that also have a national interest in what goes on in vegetated areas. There is a great deal more at stake than a grieved farmer who cannot be bothered to seek permission to clear.

The fight unfolded as NSW, Queensland and Victoria all began changing its laws on land clearance, following anger among rural communities that the rules were too strict. In June 2013 then NSW environment minister Robyn Parker accepted 40 recommendations for change, ­including provisions for landowners to self-assess “low risk” land clearances. New exemptions have been ­introduced for some landowners to clear native vegetation without a property vegetation plan and other new land clearance laws are being introduced through 2014.

On 2 December 2013, a range of reforms to Queensland’s vegetation management laws took effect, reducing unnecessary red-tape and regulatory burden, while maintaining key environmental protections.

Yes these are State regulations that are being relaxed by their respectively Liberal/Nats governments. It is similar to permitting grazing in Alpine National Parks and building coal ports adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, etc. Project that are considered by environmental scientists and scientific institutions as reckless and short-sighted.

“Man gets caught breaking the Law and eventually shoots environmental officer.” Well I can’t see how that is okay. I can’t even see why anyone would choose to use it in some justification in their support or lack of support for the particular law.

Glendon Turner had a wife and two children and worked in the same building as my brother. His death has been and is being felt as a significant emotional strain and great lose to his family, friends and colleagues.

nut said:

“Man gets caught breaking the Law and eventually shoots environmental officer.” Well I can’t see how that is okay. I can’t even see why anyone would choose to use it in some justification in their support or lack of support for the particular law.

Glendon Turner had a wife and two children and worked in the same building as my brother. His death has been and is being felt as a significant emotional strain and great lose to his family, friends and colleagues.

:-(

nut said:

“Man gets caught breaking the Law and eventually shoots environmental officer.” Well I can’t see how that is okay. I can’t even see why anyone would choose to use it in some justification in their support or lack of support for the particular law.

you can’t see how someone would choose to “justify” the murder because no one has.

I must have misunderstood when you initially posted “Blame the greenies for this shit”.

nut said:

I must have misunderstood when you initially posted “Blame the greenies for this shit”.

Join the club..

roughbarked said:

nut said:

I must have misunderstood when you initially posted “Blame the greenies for this shit”.

Join the club..

I don’t have to defend myself against strawmen

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

nut said:

I must have misunderstood when you initially posted “Blame the greenies for this shit”.

Join the club..

I don’t have to defend myself against strawmen

:))))))))))

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Join the club..

I don’t have to defend myself against strawmen

:))))))))))

BE MY GUEST THEN LAUGHING FOOL, SHOW MY POST WHERE I CONDONED TURNER’S MURDER.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I don’t have to defend myself against strawmen

:))))))))))

BE MY GUEST THEN LAUGHING FOOL, SHOW MY POST WHERE I CONDONED TURNER’S MURDER.

Loser.

:)))))))))))

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

:))))))))))

BE MY GUEST THEN LAUGHING FOOL, SHOW MY POST WHERE I CONDONED TURNER’S MURDER.

Loser.

:)))))))))))

fuckwit troll

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

BE MY GUEST THEN LAUGHING FOOL, SHOW MY POST WHERE I CONDONED TURNER’S MURDER.

Loser.

:)))))))))))

fuckwit troll

Double loser.

:))))))))))

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Loser.

:)))))))))))

fuckwit troll

Double loser.

:))))))))))

BE MY GUEST THEN LAUGHING FOOL, SHOW MY POST WHERE I CONDONED TURNER’S MURDER.

no you can’t can ya, fuck knuckle

piss of you green maggotts. I hate you all.

did you know a maggot is also a dance? and a book written by john fowles.

party_pants said:

piss of you green maggotts. I hate you all.

Would you like to clarify?

:))))))

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

piss of you green maggotts. I hate you all.

Would you like to clarify?

:))))))

The umpires in the AFL wear green, and they are all cheats and I hate them.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

piss of you green maggotts. I hate you all.

Would you like to clarify?

:))))))

yeah, you’re a grotty little scum bag.
get back under ya rock

and the book was only slightly more comprehensible than the magus.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

piss of you green maggotts. I hate you all.

Would you like to clarify?

:))))))

yeah, you’re a grotty little scum bag.
get back under ya rock

You very funny man Observer.

:))))))))))

a village called dolihay
deinstitutionalized came
digitals from far away
to play, weird’n insane