Site Meter

Friday, August 26, 2011

Closed doors at Waituna meeting











The exits and entries were locked and barred at last night's meeting of Waituna catchment farmers, or so we were advised through this article in The Southland Times earlier in the day. There's kick-back, it seems, from farmers who don't like being told what to do. In this case 'what to do' is advice to stop contributing to the demise of the lagoon at the bottom of the catchment. Councillors were not invited. Or rather NOT invited. I hope there will be a leak of some kind, not of cow shit, silt, phosphate or nitrate into the Waituna Lagoon, but information about the discussions between het-up famers. I'd like to know if there were pitch-forks, for a start!
The Times article attracted 6 comments and I've represented them here for your information.

6 comments
Waimatua   #6   04:21 pm Aug 25 2011
Clean dairying. Yea right. The farmers and ES are each culpible for allowing this to happen. It is possible to farm in a clean manner by being proactive and carrying out good farming practice. It is not rocket science just common sense and hard work. These farmers do need to accept that what they have done and what they are doing is a major cause of the problem.
Syd   #5   04:20 pm Aug 25 2011
As the son of a dairy farmer, it sounds like some of these dairy farmers are too stupid to speak up. Involve yourself in the solution, or it may be imposed upon you.
If you deny there are issues with the lagoon, then organise a farmers only swimming sports day, for all the family but especially your pre-schoolers.
R   #4   01:02 pm Aug 25 2011
I'll tell you now, the information shared in meetings like this will be the most effective in helping to solve the problem. Farmers in the catchment are being proactive, ES don't have a clue. Jo2lo, if ES had been doing thier job in the first instance there wouldn't be an issue. They are nothing more than an ambulance at the bottom of the hill. I don't blame the farmers in the catchement for being upset, everyones an expert, happy to put the boot in pity they have no idea of the whole issue
Tarnz   #3   10:55 am Aug 25 2011
Hahaha and it couldn't possibly be the city sewage being pumped into it that's causing the problem. Idiots.
Amanda Broughton   #2   10:38 am Aug 25 2011
Stop shitting in our rivers! Some farmers are competent and don't allow this to happen, damn right you should be told how to farm if the way you have been doing it is ruining the environment. That lagoon does not belong to you, and you have no right to ruin it forever. And what on earth would the farmers be 'making a stand' over? Let us farm the way we want to, let us pollute then claim its not our fault? Educate yourselves on environmental issues and do us all a favour.
jo2lo   #1   09:01 am Aug 25 2011
Oh you poor diddums.
Stop allowing your fertiliser run-off into streams, restrict access of your stock near waterways, and manage your effluent controls better, then as the water quality improves the public opprobrium will also dissipate.
Gathering together and collectively whining isn't going to fix the problem. Get you heads out of the dark and manage your farms so that the environment is properly protected. If you then see your neighbour still polluting the nearby waterways you can put the boot into them, not the agent monitoring the water quality.
It is not Environment Southland's farming methods that makes the water quality suck.


24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Syd at #5 is my favourite. Gotta love a practical suggestion.

Dave Kennedy said...

When farmers hold closed meetings and complain of victimisation, you know they are feeling the pressure. The Government couldn't bring itself to do it so the weight of public opinion got through!

I'm weighting for the next headline, "Farmers take action and save the Waituna". I'm sure it won't be long coming...

PM of NZ said...

The picture says exactly why such meetings are required. Productive legal businesses need to be able to get on their legitimate business without interference from the zealots that infest our local government.

Jonesy said...

PM of NZ has a good point:

"Productive legal businesses need to be able to get on their legitimate business",

For the degree of pollution that is occuring, the law the RMA must be strenghtened to weed out the people taking advantage of the community and the environment by offloading some of their production costs/byproduct/waste/pollution.
Zealots who think that it is their right to make a buck at the expense of everyone and everything else are so last century :)

fredinthegrass said...

Rg, what is the value of the Waituna Lagoon to the community?
Not the economic or monetary value but the 'social' value. Without it what would the effect be on the local community?
I ask because I am unfamiliar with your region.

robertguyton said...

Syd's the man wildcrafty.
Most in the catchment are doing just that.
There's always a 'tail'.

robertguyton said...

bsprout - a guy like you could've infiltrated the meeting easily - the whole catchment's green, including the creeks!

robertguyton said...

PMofNZ - you're swimming against the tide here and it smells of cow effluent! I'd love you to turn up at one of our council meetings spouting that cr*p. You'd be flayed as a ideologue (by the staff, for starters!)
Come on down PM!

robertguyton said...

Jonesy - perfectly put. PM's argument shrivels with the heat of it.
It's the 'unclaimed' costs that need to be sheeted home.

robertguyton said...

'Without' the lagoon Fred?
The whole region would (should) hand its head in shame but would it?
Did Canterbury reverse its direction when Ellesmere died?
Nope.
The loss of a lagoon isn't enough to stem the tide of unsustainable development.
That's a crime, in my opinion.
Next, it'll be a bay, a watershed, a river system, whatever, we're still making money aren't we?
Rock on!
(Hey! Why not dig it up and sell it! I'm talkin' lignite here - black gold!)

fredinthegrass said...

Is there a cost to the community in maintaining the sanctity of the lagoon?

fredinthegrass said...

Or rephrasing that last question, Rg, should the WHOLE community be responsible for the integrity of the lagoon?

robertguyton said...

Fred - yes indeed! Not only should the whole community have a responsibility to keep it alive and healthy, they should have a real say in how the lagoon is managed. The farming community might say, mind your own business, it's our land, but you and I might say differently. The ratepayers already have contributed substantial amounts to the cause of the floundering Waituna, though they won't know the details for a while. The farming industry say they are contributing, though not a cent has reared its little round head by my reckoning. From the Government, zilch. One wonders... why Ellesemere did so splendidly and why no one is crying 'lolly scramble' and 'buying off Ngai Tahu'. I am.

fredinthegrass said...

As a farmer, Rg, I see the farmers contributing in ways most will have little awareness of. I cant speak for those involved down your way, but we spent money on stock 'exclusion' fences. We lost production from the areas fenced. We lowered production in other areas by reducing fertilizer near waterways or sensitive parts. We refrained from land tillage cropping in areas likely to cause issues, and took the consequent income reduction as part of our 'responsibility' to the wider picture.
The meeting seems to be a response from farmers who feel threatened - as Pip says in a later post - a total waste of energy and likely to put the issue further backwards.
Sounds like you need a wise old head who can bring the parties together to listen to each other and to look for common ground so as to advance the chances of the Waituna Lagoon surviving.

robertguyton said...

Fred - the 'parties' are together, by and large' over the Waituna response. This disparate/desperate group are outliers with some burr or other under their saddles. A desire to continue to convert lagoon-side wetland into dairy platform is the whisper. Collaboration has been the call from the outset and I suspect DairyNZ will be more appalled by this meeting than anyone else.The public, I suspect, won't favour the feet-dragging.
You've described some very proactive steps you have taken in favour of the 'wider picture' and I commend you for those. I hardly dare challenge you on those, as I wish for you to keep going along that path, but can I ask if you might consider this: that the things you have done have brought you up to the position you should always have been at with regard the greater environment. For example spending money on stock exclusion fences. Shouldn't those be automatic for all stock farmers, from day one? And fertilizer reduction til the leaching is nil, all tillage where soil is being lost to waterways etc. It's asking a lot I know, but I argue that farming should improve the land, not merely keep it as it is or worse, try to minimize the degradation. When farmers of all striped adopt a 'positive improvement' approach to land management, I'll be cheering them on. Number one on my list of things to consider-and-attend-to is biodiversity. The loss of such through farming practices in NZ appals me, day in day out. We've simplified what once was a complex biosphere around us and in the process imperilled the whole system.A monoculture is a vulnerable one. Many feet on the ground improves your balance.
I do applaud your approach Fred, from what little you've told me, but am not easily satisfied. Your feeling that greenies should improve their knowledge of what efforts farmers are making interests me too, and I've tried to elicit further info from you on another thread so that we can do ideological battle. However, I recognise that it's Friday night and sensible folk are kicking back after a hard week's graft.

fredinthegrass said...

Kindness itself you are, Rg. Yes this week has seen more toil than some in recent times, with consequent lack of incisive thought!!
As a young lad starting to work the land in order to make a living, then marrying and raising a family in relatively stringent times - for a period our land provided much of the food and was the sole source of income for 9 adults and 13 children.
In this environment what I now know, understand, and try to adhere to did not come to mind.
As awareness grew so did frustrations with people who, with the best of intentions, sabotaged progress to improve food production techniques that would stand the test of time, leading to extreme viewpoints that meant reasoned debate became virtually impossible. In this huge and complex field there are many misnomers - on both sides - but until the debate is reasoned and level headed - the decisions that will take us all into the future will remain elusive.
And now I'm for some shuteye - not running away - just in need of sleep!!!

paulinem said...

The Problem with Waituna is not ES fault its our Govt for refusing to back up policy with hard laws that enforce policy. Its like saying we have a speed restriction on driving at 100km on open highways etc ..but when culprits that speed over the limit are caught they are given a $50 fine and NO demerit points lost ..in other words the speeding laws under this scenario are ineffectual and weak. The same as our NZ pollution laws.

Fred get real farmers are interested in maxing production in the environment to make the maximum profit. Environmentalist are interested in protecting the environment to the maximum so future generations can enjoy the natural world what we are so fortunate to have enjoyed.

In other words farmers and environmentalists come from totally different perspective and We NEED TOUGH laws by Govt to keep farmers in line, and look after our environment. Its time Fred you and your friends realise its because of our ENVIRONMENT you have enjoyed a good lifestyle and income over the years. You therefore have a reponsibilty to show appreciation of this gift to you by NOT abusing it.

WE also need to change our RC laws to allow cumulative effect as a justification to refuse another consent issues this way regional councils such as ES can in effect DO their JOB.

fredinthegrass said...

I'm relatively comfortable Pauline with where you are coming from. I just disagree with your total commitment to an extreme point of view that takes no account of mitigating circumstances in the production of food.
Their is merit in both sides of this argument, and to progress there needs to be a meaningful dialogue, not a slanging match.
As I have said in other comments, and on another thread, I believe there is a solution but it has to come from each side taking ownership and from the community as a whole.
Resorting to Central Government is a last resort - maybe it has gone that far already.

Shane Pleasance said...

As ever, tradgedy of the commons.

In the absence of clear property rights, we are pitching smug, intellectual, financial & moral battles against our fellow man, and each side rallying more support wherever they can in pursuit of their 'cause'.

Sadly, it is the most powerful cause that will win.

This uncivilized behaviour is archaic and has a future fixed only in destruction.

Shane Pleasance said...

And when I say most powerful, I do not mean the 'right' cause will win.

Shane Pleasance said...

In fact, the way things are looking, NO ONE will win.

paulinem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paulinem said...

Fred the problem is not with local born cockies. Its with overseas owners and corporate owners who control decisions on farm management from Auckland to Hamburg. These later owners are focused totally on maximum profit and care not a jot for Southlands environment, it is simply a means to make maximum economic return

I am well aware that there are good Southland farmers. My own cousins daughter and hubby won the Southlands Enviro farmer of year award.

We need our central government to back up our regional council with HARD enviro laws to protect us against these selfish morons who are destroying what you and I know is a precious gift to us all to enjoy.

robertguyton said...

Don't pull those punches Pauline :-)