One would hope that the ES inquisitors did not intrude on private property to gather such shots.
It looks like the swamp/weed patch next door needs a decent clean out and draining. I see the farmer has done a nice job of channelling the excess water draining onto his property.
The downside of photos such as these is that they only capture a milli -second in time. This has been going on for millenniums - how else did we think the fertile flats that provide much of our food came about. Posting these Rg, does you scant credit - they are inflammatory, and serve no useful purpose in moving the debate on.
PMofNZ - it's more a case of private property intruding on the common estate isn't it? This 'farm' is making its way into the waterways we all share responsibility for. A farmer would surely regret the lost of his land. The recipients would similarly regret and resent the unwanted intrusion into what might have been a clean aquatic environment.
They are a snapshot Fred, but equating them with nature's ongoing plains-building process is a mis-direction I'm afraid. That soil should not be moving at all, given that it's now under human management. There is no gain in having it move to lower ground, which is so often our rivers, estuaries and lagoons. As for not showing photos like these - why ever not? Many people don't get to see such things and the waterways that are damaged by this sort of mismanagement are for all of us to face up to.
Shunda and Anonymous - I think it's the result of winter grazing, where hooves have churned the soil and rain has taken it and is sluicing it away. It's not an isolated incident. At all.
This is out and out stupidity. First, rivers are not disposal systems for things we no longer value. Second, wasting a resource like topsoil like this is appalling. Everyone one who has had a garden knows that topsoil is not to be let go this lightly. Worst of all, this could probably have been prevented with a bit of fencing riparian planting. ES should be charging the owner for the use of the waterway as a waste disposal system.
Armchair Critic cumulatively, this is very bad news for all concerned and I'd include those who live on the ocean floor as well. It takes enormous effort, resource and time to build soil. Allowing it to slip away en masse like this is a crime against humanity. It's not just farmers who do it, but farmers hold vast amounts of land and claim kaitiakitanga.
Jonesy - the only good news stories I know fro Australia regarding soil management come from the permaculture people. What I've seen from the conventional run-holders seems worse than what we see here. Perhaps I'm wrong and I'd like to be pointed in the direction of some best case scenarios. The scoured, eroded farm landscapes I've seen on film might not be commonplace in Australia, I don't know.
It's true Robert, oil and gold are not our most valuable resources; the most valuable are topsoil and water. Claiming kaitiakitanga is a bold move and farmers who fail to prevent damage like this have lost their claim. IMO the Clean Streams Accord needs to be strengthened and converted to the Clean Streams Act. Strengthened in terms of requiring a quicker time-frame, including all waterways, requiring monitoring and performance standards, and imposing penalties.
Agreed AC. I'm not impressed at all by the history of voluntary accords in agriculture. Even industry-led systems that promise punishment for transgressions are un-impressive - how many dairy farmers do you know that have had their milk refused by Fonterra for serious breaches of agreed environmental standards? Z E R O
Requiring Fonterra to refuse milk from farmers who do not meet environmental standards is misguided. Fonterra's job is to sell milk products on behalf of its owners. Pollution is not Fonterra's issue to manage* (except as described below), it is an offense by an individual against a group (call it society, or the commons or the environment or humanity or whatever). That group is responsible for dealing with incidents of pollution, through one of its forms of collective action, i.e. government at some level. My preference is that central government gives regional government the power to deal with the individuals (or family-owned companies, trusts etc.) as it sees fit. *If Fonterra chooses to become involved in the process with government, on behalf of its owners, and I think it should, that's a good thing. I quite like to cooperative model Fonterra uses, it flies on the face of all that neo-liberal bullshit. The idea of performance standards appeals to me - did you know that faecal pollution can be tested to find the type of animal it came from? This means the "blame the ducks crapping straight into the stream" argument can be resolved.
"Allowing it to slip away en masse like this is a crime against humanity"
So DOC as custodians would be liable for all slips in the Crown estate? When are the greens starting on reducing the damage glaciers do filling our rivers with silt and rocks?
With topsoil being such a valuable resource where were the protesters when over 40% of our Class A land was disappearing under housing and industrial estates? Land capable of producing large amounts of food very economically. I do not have my head in the sand Anon. Just a wee borax to get Sunday going - for Rg was saying Saturday had 'gone quiet'! In a broader context those photos show a tiny picture compared to the millions of tons of soil lost to population expansion. Further they do little to advance rational debate that in turn leads to progressing the rather sad situation Rg points to.
Armchair - it may be misguided, as you say, but it was voluntary, presumably as a fob to regulation by regional councils. If it had worked, I'd be cheering it loud. "My preference is that central government gives regional government the power to deal with the individuals (or family-owned companies, trusts etc.) as it sees fit." - agreed, but there is then the problem of industry pressuring small councils, or loading them with their own people. Central Government can set real standards, then empower local councils to use their discretion on how to achieve those. As well, the Ministry should/could/does audit regularly to check the systems effectiveness Councils can use the same model with the landowners in their rohe.
Fred - soil lost to habitation is a necessary, temporary thing - as with that lost to roading but when it washes down-stream, there's no getting it back but I know you are well aware. Population expansion - now there's a topic that might get the thread thrumming! I still hold though, that soil leaving a farm in that way is an eco-crime as well as a stark failure on the part of the steward of that patch of dirt.
PMofNZ asks when the Greens are going to command that the tide stays out. I have to assume that you're just poking the ol' borax. You can't be that dim PM!
B....r! I have just written the most passionate repost, Rg, filled with vitriol, and acerbic wit, taking you to task for your totally reprehensible view on soil loss in 'urbanisation'. Sadly , as it flowed, the memory failed to record it, so having pressed an errant key it is lost even before its journey through cyber space. Suffice to say IMHO, you are not right concerning the temporary nature of the loss. I spent time and energy over many years trying to convince local authorities that they were not giving sufficient recognition to the economic impact of the loss of Class A land as more and more was lost to housing and industry- and we are not making any more of this valuable asset in food production. I am surprised at your rather flippant attitude to the extent of the damage. While disappointed I can no longer back my argument with figures I have lost none of the passion. So your little bit of soil in relation lost off the paddock somewhat pales by comparison, and you give no regard to how our top producing soils were formed in the first place. Accretion. Still want to expand the population growth thread!!??
Fred! I know just how you must have felt - losing an impassioned essay into the ether is beyond infuriating, most especially because re-writing is quite impossible in the deflated state you find yourself in post-loss. I've been there and never want to go back. I imagine your work was elegantly constructed, irresistibly persuasive and charmingly writ and I mourn that I shall never read it. No, I concur, Class A land lost to unnecessary sprawl is reason for fury. Town planning is a huge topic but if you've a simple solution to the problem, I'd be interested to hear your views. I'm presuming that you'd like there to be rules around development, Fred? Not leaving it to chance, open slather, the market, whim to decide who goes where? Surely you'd want the farmer selling the beautiful turf to be able to get the best price he can for his land - you're not thinking of dictating what he can and cannot do at point of sale, are you? I await with great interest.
"Town planning is a huge topic". understatement of the thread,Rg. In our society we already have areas of subjective decision making. To tell a farmer his land is too valuable to sell for housing etc falls into that area. But it becomes a community issue to be resolved by the community. In this example if the community decides the the loss of food production is warranted then the land goes, but the converse is the community pays to retain the land in its food producing form. Not simple but some decisions are not going to be simple. You have a few of those in your 'patch' I see. I have been described as a liberal socialist, so I have some difficulty with dictating the "who" and "what" but I also hold to the long term good and that can necessitate some hard calls. A recent read showed the loss of this top land is impacting on our ability to keep up with population growth. You are aware this places pressure on production 'systems' - the photos of this post are a testament to this pressure. I can only repeat earlier comments - keep the dialogue open and forward moving. The goal maybe obvious to you but it may be clouded for the other person. As a farmer I relied on many sources for advice, and with the wisdom that time affords I found some of that advice to be wanting. When pushed I would fight for what I believed was right. With the benefit of hindsight I was not always right. I find it hard to do justice to this thread without going on too long but what do you say on the subject, Rg.
"To tell a farmer his land is too valuable to sell for housing etc falls into that area." No one does that do they? I've never heard of a community attempting to stop the sale of a farm because they feared losing productive land. They know they can just import via the supermarket. But it becomes a community issue to be resolved by the community. In this example if the community decides the the loss of food production is warranted then the land goes, I don't know what you mean here. When does a community get to make a decision like this? but the converse is the community pays to retain the land in its food producing form.Buys the land and manages it, I take you to mean. Or pay the farmer to continue. 'Scuse my ignorance but I can't think of any real-life situations like those you are describing but would like to.
29 comments:
I'd say landowners are going to get scared when they see you and your camera. Do you submit then to ES staff for follow up?
These came from ES Kylie but yes, I do pass on any shots that I collect.
This is not a good look, is it.
One would hope that the ES inquisitors did not intrude on private property to gather such shots.
It looks like the swamp/weed patch next door needs a decent clean out and draining. I see the farmer has done a nice job of channelling the excess water draining onto his property.
Not a cool look I agree.
The downside of photos such as these is that they only capture a milli -second in time. This has been going on for millenniums - how else did we think the fertile flats that provide much of our food came about.
Posting these Rg, does you scant credit - they are inflammatory, and serve no useful purpose in moving the debate on.
Fred has his head in the sand on this one, or the mud, as it were.
PM, Fred, do you need your heads read?...
This is not an acceptable way of growing grass...
leaching the products of cow arse....
Farmers should contain it instead...
else the stream life will be dead!....
Not a time for indignation...
Or cries of 'back bone of the nay-shun'.....
Confess, clean up this mess....
Don't whinge or grump...
it just makes you sound like a pack of c........grouches.
"leaching the products of cow arse...."
Looks like topsoil to me
PMofNZ - it's more a case of private property intruding on the common estate isn't it?
This 'farm' is making its way into the waterways we all share responsibility for.
A farmer would surely regret the lost of his land. The recipients would similarly regret and resent the unwanted intrusion into what might have been a clean aquatic environment.
They are a snapshot Fred, but equating them with nature's ongoing plains-building process is a mis-direction I'm afraid. That soil should not be moving at all, given that it's now under human management. There is no gain in having it move to lower ground, which is so often our rivers, estuaries and lagoons.
As for not showing photos like these - why ever not? Many people don't get to see such things and the waterways that are damaged by this sort of mismanagement are for all of us to face up to.
In fact Fred, they do none of us any credit.
Shunda and Anonymous - I think it's the result of winter grazing, where hooves have churned the soil and rain has taken it and is sluicing it away.
It's not an isolated incident. At all.
This is out and out stupidity.
First, rivers are not disposal systems for things we no longer value.
Second, wasting a resource like topsoil like this is appalling. Everyone one who has had a garden knows that topsoil is not to be let go this lightly.
Worst of all, this could probably have been prevented with a bit of fencing riparian planting.
ES should be charging the owner for the use of the waterway as a waste disposal system.
We have a lot to learn from the Australians. They place a lot of importance in, and are skilled at sediment control.
Armchair Critic cumulatively, this is very bad news for all concerned and I'd include those who live on the ocean floor as well. It takes enormous effort, resource and time to build soil. Allowing it to slip away en masse like this is a crime against humanity.
It's not just farmers who do it, but farmers hold vast amounts of land and claim kaitiakitanga.
Jonesy - the only good news stories I know fro Australia regarding soil management come from the permaculture people. What I've seen from the conventional run-holders seems worse than what we see here. Perhaps I'm wrong and I'd like to be pointed in the direction of some best case scenarios. The scoured, eroded farm landscapes I've seen on film might not be commonplace in Australia, I don't know.
It's true Robert, oil and gold are not our most valuable resources; the most valuable are topsoil and water.
Claiming kaitiakitanga is a bold move and farmers who fail to prevent damage like this have lost their claim.
IMO the Clean Streams Accord needs to be strengthened and converted to the Clean Streams Act. Strengthened in terms of requiring a quicker time-frame, including all waterways, requiring monitoring and performance standards, and imposing penalties.
Agreed AC. I'm not impressed at all by the history of voluntary accords in agriculture. Even industry-led systems that promise punishment for transgressions are un-impressive - how many dairy farmers do you know that have had their milk refused by Fonterra for serious breaches of agreed environmental standards?
Z
E
R
O
Requiring Fonterra to refuse milk from farmers who do not meet environmental standards is misguided. Fonterra's job is to sell milk products on behalf of its owners. Pollution is not Fonterra's issue to manage* (except as described below), it is an offense by an individual against a group (call it society, or the commons or the environment or humanity or whatever). That group is responsible for dealing with incidents of pollution, through one of its forms of collective action, i.e. government at some level. My preference is that central government gives regional government the power to deal with the individuals (or family-owned companies, trusts etc.) as it sees fit.
*If Fonterra chooses to become involved in the process with government, on behalf of its owners, and I think it should, that's a good thing.
I quite like to cooperative model Fonterra uses, it flies on the face of all that neo-liberal bullshit.
The idea of performance standards appeals to me - did you know that faecal pollution can be tested to find the type of animal it came from? This means the "blame the ducks crapping straight into the stream" argument can be resolved.
"Allowing it to slip away en masse like this is a crime against humanity"
So DOC as custodians would be liable for all slips in the Crown estate? When are the greens starting on reducing the damage glaciers do filling our rivers with silt and rocks?
With topsoil being such a valuable resource where were the protesters when over 40% of our Class A land was disappearing under housing and industrial estates? Land capable of producing large amounts of food very economically.
I do not have my head in the sand Anon. Just a wee borax to get Sunday going - for Rg was saying Saturday had 'gone quiet'!
In a broader context those photos show a tiny picture compared to the millions of tons of soil lost to population expansion.
Further they do little to advance rational debate that in turn leads to progressing the rather sad situation Rg points to.
Armchair - it may be misguided, as you say, but it was voluntary, presumably as a fob to regulation by regional councils. If it had worked, I'd be cheering it loud.
"My preference is that central government gives regional government the power to deal with the individuals (or family-owned companies, trusts etc.) as it sees fit." - agreed, but there is then the problem of industry pressuring small councils, or loading them with their own people. Central Government can set real standards, then empower local councils to use their discretion on how to achieve those. As well, the Ministry should/could/does audit regularly to check the systems effectiveness Councils can use the same model with the landowners in their rohe.
Fred - soil lost to habitation is a necessary, temporary thing - as with that lost to roading but when it washes down-stream, there's no getting it back but I know you are well aware.
Population expansion - now there's a topic that might get the thread thrumming! I still hold though, that soil leaving a farm in that way is an eco-crime as well as a stark failure on the part of the steward of that patch of dirt.
PMofNZ asks when the Greens are going to command that the tide stays out. I have to assume that you're just poking the ol' borax. You can't be that dim PM!
B....r! I have just written the most passionate repost, Rg, filled with vitriol, and acerbic wit, taking you to task for your totally reprehensible view on soil loss in 'urbanisation'. Sadly , as it flowed, the memory failed to record it, so having pressed an errant key it is lost even before its journey through cyber space.
Suffice to say IMHO, you are not right concerning the temporary nature of the loss.
I spent time and energy over many years trying to convince local authorities that they were not giving sufficient recognition to the economic impact of the loss of Class A land as more and more was lost to housing and industry- and we are not making any more of this valuable asset in food production.
I am surprised at your rather flippant attitude to the extent of the damage.
While disappointed I can no longer back my argument with figures I have lost none of the passion. So your little bit of soil in relation lost off the paddock somewhat pales by comparison, and you give no regard to how our top producing soils were formed in the first place. Accretion.
Still want to expand the population growth thread!!??
Fred! I know just how you must have felt - losing an impassioned essay into the ether is beyond infuriating, most especially because re-writing is quite impossible in the deflated state you find yourself in post-loss. I've been there and never want to go back. I imagine your work was elegantly constructed, irresistibly persuasive and charmingly writ and I mourn that I shall never read it.
No, I concur, Class A land lost to unnecessary sprawl is reason for fury. Town planning is a huge topic but if you've a simple solution to the problem, I'd be interested to hear your views. I'm presuming that you'd like there to be rules around development, Fred? Not leaving it to chance, open slather, the market, whim to decide who goes where? Surely you'd want the farmer selling the beautiful turf to be able to get the best price he can for his land - you're not thinking of dictating what he can and cannot do at point of sale, are you?
I await with great interest.
"Town planning is a huge topic". understatement of the thread,Rg.
In our society we already have areas of subjective decision making. To tell a farmer his land is too valuable to sell for housing etc falls into that area. But it becomes a community issue to be resolved by the community. In this example if the community decides the the loss of food production is warranted then the land goes, but the converse is the community pays to retain the land in its food producing form. Not simple but some decisions are not going to be simple. You have a few of those in your 'patch' I see.
I have been described as a liberal socialist, so I have some difficulty with dictating the "who" and "what" but I also hold to the long term good and that can necessitate some hard calls.
A recent read showed the loss of this top land is impacting on our ability to keep up with population growth. You are aware this places pressure on production 'systems' - the photos of this post are a testament to this pressure. I can only repeat earlier comments - keep the dialogue open and forward moving. The goal maybe obvious to you but it may be clouded for the other person. As a farmer I relied on many sources for advice, and with the wisdom that time affords I found some of that advice to be wanting. When pushed I would fight for what I believed was right. With the benefit of hindsight I was not always right.
I find it hard to do justice to this thread without going on too long but what do you say on the subject, Rg.
"To tell a farmer his land is too valuable to sell for housing etc falls into that area."
No one does that do they? I've never heard of a community attempting to stop the sale of a farm because they feared losing productive land. They know they can just import via the supermarket.
But it becomes a community issue to be resolved by the community. In this example if the community decides the the loss of food production is warranted then the land goes,
I don't know what you mean here. When does a community get to make a decision like this?
but the converse is the community pays to retain the land in its food producing form.Buys the land and manages it, I take you to mean. Or pay the farmer to continue. 'Scuse my ignorance but I can't think of any real-life situations like those you are describing but would like to.
Report saying ES is too soft on dairy farmers - there must be a post in that. or are you banned from posting on the subject
Post a Comment