 |
| Alpaca thinking of Waituna |
Farmers are loathe to accept rules for what they do on their farms. The problems with the Waituna lagoon in Southland have already thrown up responses from farmers who are putting their feet down and saying 'property rights' even as the seriousness of the situation and the repercussions for the economy are being described. Seems they are not to be told what to do on their own land, no matter what the effect on the greater environment. Certainly discussions around limiting stock numbers is not to be tolerated.
In Rotorua however, this ground has already been covered. The lakes there are endangered due to non-point pollution from farms and the regional council has made some rules ...and some of those are around stock.
Here's an extract:
"This means that such properties (small rural properties) can have only ONE of the following:
(a) Horse, donkey or mule (maximum of one per property).
(b) Sheep or goats - (maximum of three per property).
(c) Alpaca or llama - (maximum of two per property)...
and so on.
Perhaps this is a way forward for the Waituna lagoon - cut back on the donkey, mule and llama load.
It'd be a brave soul who suggested capping stock numbers to a dairy farmer.
The Feds'd be down on them like a ton of cow shit!
There's some very intense and deep thinking going on right now about Waituna and some on-the-ground work as well. Some of the practical stuff is hampered though, by the difficulties presented by having your fingers crossed as you work.
25 comments:
Are they not entitled to do what they will on their own land?
'Entitled' Shane?
Sounds like Roger Douglas describing his air travel plans.
Fonterra, the dairy farmers collective, has described rules for it's farmers that are the result of concern for the environment outside of individual's boundaries.There are requirements and punishments for those who don't comply.
Why do you think that position has been taken by the farmers coop?
Do you have no concern for 'downstream' effects resulting from the actions of an entitled individual?
As far as I am concerned, anyone should be able to do what they like with their own property.
However, this does NOT give license to infringe upon the property rights of others, under any circumstances.
And what do you propose to do if they do impinge on the activities of of others?
For example, a careless farmer who releases cowshit into a drain that damages a fishery used by anglers?
Im going to go out tonight and plough barrels and barrels of discarded oil into my land so that nothing will grow for then next 300 years and don't you dare try to tell me what to do with my property.
Are you with me Shane?
That raises an interesting issue Bio - what about the rights of land owners yet to come? The present owners children for example.
Shane?
"As far as I am concerned, anyone should be able to do what they like with their own property."
Shane, we already have all sorts of limits on what people can do with land they own. You can't for instance build a long drop toilet in an urban area. Or put too many buildings on a rural property. It's to do with what's appropriate use of land, and recognises that there are physical limits inherent with land use.
There's a further issue with Waituna. It's whether nature has any inherent rights that trump our desires.
Bioneer - knock yourself out, as they say. However, I am driven by rational self interest, and would rather the value of my asset appreciates.
Ergo, if I owned Waituna, I would sue the farmers for all they have.
Ah!
The Americam litigation for all model!
That's going well.
...and the wetlands issue is going so well!
Good point.
What do you envisage farmers might have done differently, knowing that the owner of the wetland could sue them?
I wonder if he might have gone for 'mitigation' and accepted a deal for free milk to compensate for the damage done to the wetland ecosystem. Or, he might welcome their effluent and silt, knowing that when the wetland became choked, he could run dairy cows himself and make a fortune.
How do you guard against such abuses under your proposed system Shane?
Rules? (Wetlands must be kept as wetlands?)
Its not my proposed system, Robert. Common law has evolved over centuries, and worked well until we started not enforcing it properly, then needed silly new laws to compensate... (driving texting for example).
Common law backed with proper property rights (and vice versa) should be enough of a disincentive to stop my rights being violated.
Add to this my rational selfishness to improve my environment/property (MY environment), should lead to a great wetlands.
If the economic disincentive is such that me taking legal action against those who would damage my property was strong enough to avoid it happening, the farmer has a incentive (rational selfishness) to find innovative ways to stop the offending.
However, the overriding dis-ease I feel about this is that it is pitching groups against one another. Greenies versus the productive, and vice versa, for example. It is a moral situation which is leading on a slippery path in this country and the world.
I'm very interested in your description Shane. I'd like to ask re:
"Common law has evolved over centuries, and worked well until we started not enforcing it properly."
How was Common Law enforced when it was being done properly?
I certainly agree with your 'silly new laws to compensate example - texting whilst driving would have been cried-down had Labour suggested it, let alone pushed it rapidly through to law.
I'm for voluntary use of cycle helmets, if that's a measure you could use.
The wetlands, I'm not so sure you are onto a winner there. Southland was largely wetland, and for good reason and to good effect, until it was developed by landowners. I can't see how ownership protected that resource at all. Listening to stories from farmers of how they cut corners/beat the system by doing 'unforgivable' things on their own farm, makes me very suspicious that the system you favour has huge holes in reality, despite it's ideological neatness.
I certainly agree with your 'pitching one group against another' statement.
If a landowner screws up his land it is his/her issue.
And pitching one group against another is a central premise of Atlas Shrugged. The productive all just buggered off...
The book became a bestseller again recently.
"If a landowner screws up his land it is his/her issue."
Not that of generations yet to come?
How about rules governing the use of dioxins, for example, where they are going to sit in the soil for generations and cause damage to the damn fool's grand-children's grand-children?
Am I reading it right that you believe land should not be utilised at all? Or only in the way you see fit?
Wetlands are a resource, and farmland is not? Caves are good and houses are a blight?
Seeing an interesting picture here.
Hmm..some landscape features are poorly understood (most probably) and are reformed to suit individuals with seriously bad consequences for the overall health of that landscape. If decisions are made by an individual to suit their own needs and they lack the broader view and knowledge, all may suffer.
For example, a swamp may be drained to provide firm farmland, to the advantage primarily of one farmer, while the draining work might adversely affect the whole river system and thereby the livelihood of the entire 'valley' or what ever.
...and if the valley was privately owned...
lol you can tell where I am going with this...
:-)
Feudal Lords and land barons by the sound ...
Which is what we have now! Commons, monopolies and favour.
Certainly not in a genuinely free society where the function of the government is only to protect the rights of the citizens.
Hmmm....
Its hard to see the mountaintops of Liberty when you are under the heel of Marx.
Is there anyone living on those mountaintops Shane?
The air there seems to rarified to support life.
Post a Comment