Subject to challenges from the district council and members of the local community, this de-forestation and the farmer who has been felling the trees, for 'firewood', has surged on regardless. This photo shows the bare patch lit by the morning sun and shows how visible the bush clearance is to everyone in the town and any tourists driving the Southern Scenic Route.
It's not something Riverton is proud of.
27 comments:
Quite a tragedy Robert.
With so little native bush down your way, every remaining patch is precious.
Is he doing it as some sort of protest? or is his ignorance more 'innocent'.
Pragmatism, he and his Federated Farmer supporters claim, and protest, the locals who objected to his activity would claim.
Ignorance is such a loaded word.
Is that beech forest? Original or regrowth?
Cut-over podocarp/kamahi, well recovered and connected to the reserve managed by the Council. Some of the larger trees are original. There are huge totara nearby and maybe their sons and daughters in his block. He's been felling big trees and cutting them up to sell as firewood - useful loophole that, for someone who wants to turn native forest into pasture. Plenty of big fires up there too. His supporters claim he was clearing 'scrub'. He owns the land, so he can do with it what he will.
Eh.
Next thing he'll be complaining that the culverts at the bottom of the hill are too small.
It's mystifying, isn't it, the way floods seem to increase when we fell our high country forests.
One day, someone will make the connection...
However, in this case the links will probably remain un-made.
"felling the trees, for 'firewood'"
A farmer exercising his property rights. And no doubt forced to pay exorbitant annual fees to ES for the privilege.
That's right PMofNZ. It's his right.
Looks appalling though. The same issue applies with the Waituna Lagoon, on the point of collapsing. Each farmer knows it's his right to farm and the destruction of the lagoon, owned by no-one in particular, results from the disconnect that exists between personal rights and global responsibility.
Don'cha think?
Maybe the 'no one in particular' consumers of such fine views would be willing to do a trade and pay the farmer handsomely for retaining his copse? I think not.
No sense of stewardship amongst farmers then?
The forest was there when he bought it.
Are farmers only motivated by profit?
Those trees had community benefit. Organising a community to pay for the retention of bush fragments like that of private land is impossible. The farmer has the responsibility to protect features like that. No one else can reasonably do it. He could easily do it.
Funny thing is, PM of NZ, that those rights come with responsibilities.
You are either ignoring this, or you are as thick as pig shit.
I'm guessing the later, so here's a quick and free lesson in how the right to cut down trees is balanced by the responsibility to not make things worse for your neighbour.
Common law says that a downstream neighbour is obliged to receive water from their upstream neighbour. It also says that the upstream neighbour may not make flooding worse for their downstream neighbour.
Cutting down trees changes how the land reacts to rainfall. Decreasing vegetation coverage results in:
- increased peak runoff rates, due to reduced storage in the humus, or top layer of the soil, and
- increased runoff volumes, due to the reduced availability of the plants to transpire the water away, reduced surface area for evaporation and shorter residence times for infiltration to occur, too, and
- reduced minimum flows in summer, due to the decreased infiltration.
None of this is good for the downstream neighbour.
Have a read of the US Soil Conservation Society's website if you want the details of one of the methods of determining the effect. It's very well established science.
And here's the thing, in NZ this common law was codified into the R&SCA, way back in the 1940s. The SC bit stands for "Soil Conservation". Essentially, the government of the day recognised that deforestation of the upper parts of catchments tended to bugger up the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property for a whole swathe of people further down the hill. But being the PM of NZ, you probably already knew this.
Those property rights that you are conveniently ignoring (you know, the right to not have some selfish bastard up the river flood your property out) are still written in law, and your lack of understanding of them shows you up as one dumb f**k.
If you care to educate yourself further on practical examples of how the right to deforest your land is not an absolute right, go to the Environment Waikato website and have a read about the Piako and Waihou River Schemes.
I doubt you will, so here's a summary (so it's on record). Areas of the upper parts of the Waihou River and Piako River Catchment have been "locked up" and can not be used for anything apart from forestry, because not doing so results in a significant loss of property rights for the people downstream. If they aren't doing so already, ES could consider doing something similar to EW. To protect people's property rights.
It is infuriating isn't it Armchair!!
This "I owns it so's I cans do's what's I likes" is the biggest load of bollocks out.
As far as I am concerned, it it took longer than a 'generation' to grow, it has value and significance to the entire community, and the community should have a say if it gets cut down or not.
It is simple really, old forests have been their a long time, no one can say they are somehow being denied anything or deserving of compensation.
Where I am it is new dairy farmers levelling the bush at an astonishing rate, the problems won't become fully apparent until well after it is too bloody late.
It pisses me off.
Oh yeah, Shunda, it frustrates the hell out of me.
All I was trying to do was extend the "property rights" argument and point out that there is more to it than the "they are mine, so I can do what I want" line. I detest how some people expound rights and responsibilities in one breath, but their actions show they think rights are for them whereas responsibilities are for everyone else.
But what I said we is not quite what I believe. I reckon the whole "the land belongs to me" concept is a failure. I much prefer the idea that "I belong to the land". As such, I am its property and thereby I am responsible for looking after it.
That was some serve Armchair Critic.
I'm calling 'ace!"
PM - it's in your court.
(Shunda - keep score eh! It's One/Love.)
AC, as always, someone resorts to playing the man.
And from the rambling essays post my last it shows that there are those in the community that have absolutely no respect for property rights held by the owner of a piece of land. They do not give a toss how much said owner pays in taxes, rates and other rapacious levies to local council bureaucracies for the peaceable enjoyment of his property rights.
Far too many of them these days for my liking sticking their nose over my fence.
Oh dear, PM of NZ, did I hurt your feelings?
Convenient for you that you can ignore the bulk of my comment, based on the contents of a couple of sentences. I wonder what you would have done if there were no personal reflections or speculation in my comment. Found another excuse to blithely dismiss the comment, or just not replied?
You give the impression that you don't understand the subject being discussed. Since it is a complex subject, it takes some describing. All I was trying to point out is that your line of argument has big inconsistencies. I hope that grates with you, and causes you to rethink your beliefs.
Thank you for your suggestions regarding my writing style. In the future I will try to completely avoid personal attacks, in the hope that commenters will not run away from the debate when they are challenged with difficult things like facts, and common sense.
Don't let the occasional ball-strike put you off the game PM!
Fight back with ideas!
Don't throw the towel in now, it'll look bad.
With respect, Robert, I'll be surprised if PM of NZ has a comeback. After all, he is expounding the idea that one individual's right to create firewood is greater than the rights of many individuals to not be flooded.
I'm inclined to believe that the number of people in NZ who agree with PM of NZ's argument could be counted on my thumbs - both of them.
Federated Farmers has only two members now?
Don and who else?
That's the really weak point in PM of NZ's argument - farmers understand basic hydrology.
The Piako and Waihou Schemes don't only protect towns like Te Aroha, Paeroa, Thames and Ngatea, they protect thousands of hectares of farmland. Just like the Lower Waikato Scheme doesn't just protect towns like Ngaruawahia and Huntly, it also protects thousands of hectares of farmland.
For farmers, the alternative is incertainty about when their land will be inundated and ruined, matched by the certainty that one day it will happen. And quite regularly.
Back when the Schemes were started, it was recognised that some land needed to be dedicated to forestry, rather than pasture. Even if this removed someone's right to make firewood.
For me, it's an excellent practical example of where the right of an individual to do whatever they want with their land was not upheld, for good reasons.
It fascinates me that PM of NZ can only see the "individual rights" side of the coin, on this subject. Perhaps if you write a post on beneficiaries, PM of NZ will suddenly flip the coin over and comment on the other side - "personal responsibility".
Perhaps...
Never heard back from PM of NZ. Funny that. I must remind him, next time he pops up.
Spent the day arond the table with the Feds and DairyNZ, along with a gaggle of others of that ilk. All fell about in disarray with the delivery from the DoC guy though - he knows environmental degradation when he sees it!
Shoulda asked about hydrology and property rights but it'll keep.
Perhaps you should pop over to PM's blog and poke him in the virtual eye Armchair Critic. He'll be hiding there, behind the sofa.
I only address the right using my real name and address, usually on paper rather than electronically.
I usually include my full qualifications and professional affiliations, and while I say similar things on paper as I do on blogs, I'm more measured in my language. Mostly they take me very seriously.
Commenting on blogs is much more fun, though you'll not find me commenting on blogs where I don't trust the owner.
Forgot to ask, does Mr Key have a post on his blog on a relevant subject, or are you recommending I visit his blog regularly, in the hope he says something interesting?
Wish you had a blog AC.
"I reckon the whole "the land belongs to me" concept is a failure. I much prefer the idea that "I belong to the land". As such, I am its property and thereby I am responsible for looking after it."
There's a conversation I'd like to see NZ having more of.
Thanks, I've considered it, wildcrafty.
ATM I'm helping with the recovery in Chch and I'm absolutely exhausted. I probably will be for the rest of winter.
After that blog could assist with my state of mind.
I heartily agree with wildcrafty Armchair Critic - your pov and the expression of it is the good medicine. However, if you were operating your own blog, we might not hear much from you out here in the shadowlands.
My advice to visit the PM was a lazy reference to PMofNZ, who has his own blog. I'd not bother with Key's hollow site.
Post a Comment