Farmer walkout telling
What Mr Gardyne said, with supporting information throughout his speech (April 9) was that farmers need to find a way "of having economic progress without compromising our environment".
Sounds fine to me.
The fact that the members of Federated Farmers walked out in protest a his viewpoint goes a long way to explaining why our environment is degrading in front of our eyes.
The reaction to his message and subsequent walkout will make a clear statement from Federated Farmers to the people of New Zealand.
I await it with interest.
To the individual 'cowboys' who found his message unpalatable I have this message on behalf of all New Zealanders.
Either get with the programme or get the hell out of Dodge!
MAT FURNESS
Invercargill
(Mat is clearly not awed by the federation's might, and will doubtless write to the editor again, should the Feds dump their head at the up-coming AGM. We are all awaiting that decision with eager anticipation. Which is not to say, Anon, that I hope Mr Gardyne is displaced. I do not.)
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
seemed to me as though the walk out was prompted by Mr Gardyne straying from the agreed consensus stance?
In my opinion Matt is off track. I believe that people walked out because they felt Hugh was not representing them fairly. And because he supported a rule they didn't agree with. I would point out to Matt that just because people don't agree with an ES rule change it doesn't make them polluters. Or even wannabe polluters. Is it possible they feel that there is a better way? A way that has not been investigated yet?
A quick point for Robert. Like any voted representative Hugh is exposed to the democratic process. The word "dump" is not really fair. I am sure people vote for many different reasons. I think if he does fail to go another term the word 'dumped' would not be fair to label Hugh with.
Oh for crying out loud anon, could you be any more blinkered?
Perhaps if this had have happened in isolation you would have a chance in hell of being correct, but the reality is quite different isn't it.
Mr Gardyne's 'piece' is there for everyone to read, and you would have to be an ignoramus of monumental proportions to have a problem with him effectively saying "we should just do things properly".
Yet here we are.
They did walk out, they do see him as a traitor, and they appear to want to do what ever the hell they like and don't want anyone to get in their way.
What an appallingly arrogant and ignorant bunch.
They have been exposed, the gig is up and the gloves are off.
This is now a battle between those that want to do things properly and those that want to do whatever the hell they want.
Anon @9:13
The walkout was prompted by the Fed's executive who stood as soon as Hugh said he was there to support the Council's proposal.
I don't know if Hugh had agreed with the Fed's position prior to the Council meeting. It's possible he may not have - do you know?
Anon @9:57
"I believe that people walked out because they felt Hugh was not representing them fairly."
Agreed.
"And because he supported a rule they didn't agree with."
Agreed. Two seperate reasons then.
You don't like 'dump'?
Fair enough. I'll bet that's how rank and file federation members view it though. The national exec will want the process to appear more civilized and will have prepared an exit strategy for Hugh, should his dumping eventuate :-)
Of course I'm only floating an opinion here. I know nothing of internal federation business.
Shunda -
Interesting that you consider me to be blinkered. Do you know me? In what way have I not considered the issue fully? I think I have pretty much read every piece of paper on the rule change 13A,13B and 16C. Also every media release on the Hughs presentation. I have also spoken to many of those involved (in the Feds division and ES rule changes). Also I believe I am pretty worldly. Do you think I am not? Based on what? Just because I dont agree with you does that mean I have not considered all angles?
Interesting that you refer to the people that walked out as arrogant and ignorant. Did you speak to them? Do you know them? Are they uneducated in this issue? Were you there? Have you reviewed the material better than them?
Interesting that you suggest this is now a battle and the gloves are off. I would like to know who is in this battle and who is missing the gloves? Can you give a list of those parties?
Interesting that you have divided people into 2 parties those that do things properly and ... others (I prefer not use your wording as I seems to be trying to offend someone). Who are those that are doing it properly and who are those others?
Tell me then Anon, what specifically do you take exception to in Mr Gardyne's statement?
Give me one thing that he said that was deserving of such a strong reaction from his colleagues.
The only stronger reaction would have been a punch to the face.
And don't preach to me about the rights and wrongs of these 'walkouts' and their poor misunderstood ways.
Here's a recent example of what a celebrated farming representative said in my neck of the woods:
"In NZ as a whole, farmers have to watch the 'greenies' don't get too much power. We as a farmer have to have the right (emphasis mine) to dam a few rivers and knock over a few trees",
The right?? oh really? you see, this is typical of the arrogance of this community that is (at present) oh so beautifully being exposed in Southland.
A guy stands up and says "look folks, we just have to do this right" and the response is "oh f@ck off you greenie friendly pr!ck".
And Anon, don't bullshit me about that reality, you know damned well that that is the "unofficial" attitude towards this Gardyne chap.
If you are concerned about the future of dairy in this country you would have been appalled at such a brazen display of ignorance and contempt for correct process.
Are you committed to sustainable industry or a flash in the pan at the environments expense?
Epic fail Southland farmers.
Robert,
You are nearly as interesting as Shunda. Am I right in to interpret that 'you believe the Feds national exec will have an exit stratergy for Hugh should his term end'?
(note I didnt use dump)
Is it surprising to have exit strategies prepared? For most businesses it is good business practice to have a succesion plan in place. Imagine if they werent prepared and Hugh wasnt back.... The media release would go something like.... Ummmmmmmm, Bye Hugh, hello new person. We should not speculate such things, it is disrespectful. If you are reading this Hugh. Sorry. All the best for your AGM. PS I never used the word "dumping" that was Robert.
Anon @9:13
Haha good call, well as he had a copy for the paper I’m willing to venture that he disagreed before the meeting and decided to abuse his position with a clear head and a sense of self satisfaction.
Shunda,
Well you didn't answer any of my questions. But I do have a retort. Albeit more conservative than yours. I realise that the anonymity of these forums encourages some to talk in ways that may not be respectful or similar to the way they would face to face. But it is fair to say I wont lower myself to talking to you in a way that doesnt respect your view.
This has nothing to do with my opinion on Hughs presentation. And entering my opinion on his presentation takes us off track of this debate. I will put it simply. "If people dont agree with a rule change or Hughs views it doesnt make them polluters". Lets run an example. Imagine if the Government of NZ decided that it was right for you to steer your car with your feet. And if they found you werent steering with your feet you would lose your car. Now lets imagine that you dont agree with that. And othes in New Zealand dont too. And you have a leader that you have paid for to go and sort it out. And the leader backs the rule change. You are now annoyed that your leader has not represented your views and you have to drive with your feet. Were you a bad driver to start with? No. But you have been labeled as one. And now you are disappointed with your leader and a rule you dont agree with imposed on you.
Perhaps not the best example but I tried.
The point you have to focus on is that people were there to protest the rule change. And Hugh stood up and agreed with the rule change. Was their protest of Hughs opinion surprising... I dont believe so. I will agree that is was somewhat misplaced. But if you understood how strongly people felt about this you might think different.
Just like I can see you have strong feelings about this. But I forgive your cursing regardless. It is an emotional topic for you and I am not surprised that you lash out. I would not judge you for that.
I do think you are labelling unfairly. But that is a different topic.
Am I committed to sustainable industry. Yes I am. I have done a lot of good for Environment. Am I without fault. No. We all have areas of of life we can improve on.Just by breathing we are all polluters.
But I am certainly not going to sit by whilst I watch people carelessly label others. It is not fair.
Some people like to curse and swear in blogs. Doesnt mean I label all bloggers rude.
Anonymous @ 2:36 pm
Less interesting than Shunda, eh! Dang!
You ask do I believe the Feds will have an exit strategy ready for Hugh's removal from office - yes, I do expect that they'll have organised a way of presenting the news to the public. I know I would, were I in the same awkward position.
Awkward position?
Having to announce to the public, should it come to that, that the president has been dumped. The public at large, I propose, regards Hugh's view as the best one and the Fed executive's 'draconian', to borrow Doug's ill-chosen word,reactions, the worst. Seeing Hugh 'retired' by the federation for saying what the public believe, will not impress the likes of Matt (whom I don't know, btw), who will doubtless be vocal in their discomfort. I don't think many outside of the federation pay much heed to the cry 'he went against our wishes'. They think it too important an issue for that sort of technicality to get in the way of protecting their rivers.
Again with the dumped...
I don't think I want to keep talking about this. Even though I don't agree with Hughs tact, speculating his demise is a bit disrespectful. Here I was thinking he was an advocate for the new rules. And all you can do is broadcast his possible down fall in a public forum. If that is how you treat your supporters I would hate to be your enemy.
But I am certainly not going to sit by whilst I watch people carelessly label others. It is not fair.
Carelessly? not fair? why do you feel the need to be an apologist for the poor behaviour of certain rural folk and then ping me for (apparently) the same thing?
Here's the deal Anon, I am not an extremist greenie and I am not anti farming, but experience has taught me to be extremely wary of both those groups. What I think you really need to understand is that farming is in the middle of a serious public relations crisis and there are damned good reasons for non farming NZers to be concerned.
This guy Gardyne was a public relations coup for Southland farmers and they blew it in spectacular fashion.
What is so terrible about aiming high and farming to the carrying capacity of the land? why is it so offensive and incomprehensible for farmers in Southland to accept some necessary regulation?
The current model of dairying in NZ is just not sustainable long term, and people like MR Gardyne are your best hope of ensuring that dairying is an enduring industry and not the thing that drags NZ down as soon as commodity prices change because Chile ups production with cheaper labour.
Anon - I think you misunderstand my position and perhaps haven't read my earlier posts on the issue, nor my letter of support for Mr Gardyne to the Southland Times.
I sincerely hope he remains as chairman of the dairy federation here in Southland. He's seen the issue for what it is and has shown courage. That has compromised him in his position as chair, it's clear, but it would be a great shame to lose him from the debate, in my opinion. Is there someone else putting up their hand for the job who has shown signs of flexibility and initiative in their thinking around the future of dairying in Southland? I hope so. A vigorous contest for the leadership would be a healthy thing. I've not heard who's trying for the role, but I hope they are able to balance the perceptions a change or retaining the status quo would require.
Shunda,
I am suggesting that farmers were there to protest the new rule. Hugh supported the rule and got protested too. That is completely different to labelling of groups above. I don't tolerate careless labelling of farmers, environmentalists or any other groups. I believe that every corner of society has good and bad. A majority of farmers are good in my opinion. A few let the crew down. That is no reason for all farmers to be labeled badly. If you look at the steps some farmers have taken to protect the environment (and improve it) it is impossible not to be amazed. I also think most farmers believe things need to improve. That doesn't mean they should agree with every rule put forward. Particularly when the rules keep changing on them. And each time the rules change there are costs and sometimes the old changes get thrown away. In the past most farmers have absorbed costs without too much complaint. Often hundreds of thousands of dollars. But if you can't make sense of the rule how do you justify more cost?
I am no farmer, but the more farmer bashing see the more research I do and the more sympathetic I feel for their position. And that is an important point for anyone concerned about the environment. If you think farmers are at fault work with them. Working against them is turning the public to their favour. It has certainly inspired me to enter the debate. I certainly don't think it is all roses and I have my own opinions about change. But you must understand that alienating farmers is only going to stall environmental progress.
he is feds chair not dairy chair think u will find that he is a sheep farmer.
he is feds chair not dairy chair think u will find that he is a sheep farmer.
Ahh the plot thickens.
So we have a fellow that knows the good times and the bad times and can see what is going to (shortly) happen.
A prophet is never well received in their home town.
If you think farmers are at fault work with them
Anon, I think we need to make a distinction here between farming and the dairy industry.
I have meet lots of wonderful people that happen to be farmers.
I have meet lots of nasty people involved in the dairy industry.
You don't "work with" these people, you get out of their bloody way...or else.
I also know for a fact that many of the old time farmers and farming families in Southland are appalled by some of the practices currently emerging in the modern dairy industry.
Annom ...my approach to the dairy issue is it needs to be legislated I mean re deliberate pollution ... means serious consequences. I believe if you are in an industry you must accept the community expectations in production and take steps to prevent Pollution
A good example is the freezing industry which has paid huge money on sewage treatment stations to deal with their pollution in production
As an example of what I mean re legislation we have serious public concerns re speeding and bad driving problems ...The Govt hearing these concerns has introduced legislation to penalise those that continue to speed and are a hazard to public safety. The legislation is tough enough where offenders could even loose their license if they were bad enough.
I can see no reason why the dairy industry shouldn't also face this same type of legislation. Which would then target the corporate/overseas owners dairy farmers whose prime and only consideration is the profit margin regardless of the consequences in production. These dairy farms are controlled by managers whom are under orders by their owners not to do anything ( such as pollution protection )that will affect profit!
I do appreciate Anon some dairy farmers feel very aggrieved at what they believed is they are being unfairly targeted by the community.
Maybe what we need is a special public meeting where they can present their case openly full and fairly. Then in return they will promise to listen to others in the community who feel equally aggrieved at the Dairy federations attitude in regards the pollution problem we have.
Maybe in this way the Dairy/pollution problem in our community can be tackled once and for all.
Shunda, I can't say I see lots of nasty. But I am a pretty relaxed turkey. There is the odd one but as I said you get that in every industry/society.
Keep in mind I agree that change needs to happen. And I think most farmers share that view. I believe that most farmers are environmentalists. They know their livelihood relies on it.
Paulinem. You know I am going to call you out for targeting a group. Some corporate and overseas owners invest more in environmental protection than locals. I can't single them out like you. But I do agree we need legislation to identify polluters and punish that behaviour. I don't think you would find a single person to disagree with that.
Also keep in mind a majority of the freezing industry is owned by farmers. Farmers paid for that.
I agree there seems to be a growing divide between farmers and town people. And a massive education programme is required for both parties to cross this hurdle. I used to think ES had a great opportunity here but the boat has been missed. Why have farmers not been given credit for pollutants that are declining when they are brandished with those that increase? Aside from that doors need to open in all directions. It is a lot easier to take a punch in the face when you are getting a pat on the back.
Also Paulinem. There is already massive environment investment on dairy farms . I know a farmer who spent $40k on a effluent pond liner. Imagine spending that much on a piece of plastic.... Total environment investment on that farm over $1M. Well beyond council requirements. It makes my cringe to think about how he feels when he reads media, labelling dairy farmers as polluters. Or when he hears Shundas labels. Must make him wild? Or even nasty?
gr I can't believe the comments here, Gardyne broke all the rules of democratic processes, where there is a different view that debate happens behind close doors and the majority rules and all executive members must support the view of the executive. Anybody who has been involved in Board of Trustees or any club or organisation that has a governance executive will understand this.
As a dairy farmer or any farmer it is bad business to pollute it is very costly to lose nutrients down waterways. With nitrogen at $700 a tonne and phosphate at about $500 a tonne why would we throw this down the creek. It's the same with effluent(which is full of phosphate and nitrogen and potash) why would we waste this free fertilizer. Farmers are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on systems to ensure that we keep that free fertilizer on our farms.May be the urban people should be aware of the nutrients that are lost from their waste and were it goes most of the time it ends in rivers and the sea. The environment southland state of environment report told us the most polluted site in southland is the winton stream at lociel (below the winton waste water station)so we know were wintons nutrients are going into invercargills drinking water. Southland times Monday the 12th headline Sewerage schemes worry council. Not one word from you Mr Guyton about this. I was amused about Mr Ross Haslemore comment on the Waikaka scheme non-complice, because it was caused by wet weather and snow.This is no excuse. Dairy farmers can't use that so why should a local authority get away with it. I think it's time to stop the Dairy farming bashing, we are not perfect but nobody is. We have issues all through Southland and working together we will find solutions. Urban people not understand farming and it's time you engage with farmers to find out the facts and stop stereotyping.
Anonymous@2;25 am
You're a light sleeper! Maybe you've not hit the sack yet, who knows? I'd like to take you to task over this claim you've made:
"Urban people not understand farming and it's time you engage with farmers to find out the facts and stop stereotyping."
Surely you are stereotyping urban people? For starters, lots of them have been farmers before the 'went urban', retired to the towns. They must have at least a bit of an idea about farming. In a town like Riverton, many 'townspeople' spend time on farms, have family members who work on farms, friends who are farmers or work with...etc. I believe your claim is wrong. There is a fair amount of awareness of what farming is, in the towns. I'm a 'townie' for example, but have worked on all sorts of farms up and down the South Island, including dairy and especially in Southland. Most people I know, know stuff about farming, after all, Southland is a farming region and you don't have to go far to be on one. Kids at school mix, urban and rural. It's no great mystery.
As to your 'didn't mention the sewerage' claim, Anonymous, I did in fact, discuss the issue in the comments. If anything, I've been accused of talking about shit too much on this blog. I'm more than interested and alarmed about Southland's sewerage 'issues' and have been vocal on the Council about those issues. I've even had a letter or two to the editor of the Southland Times about it in the past. I helped construct a managed wetland system for the Riverton sewerage treatment station, years ago, in an attempt to improve the system beyond what I consider less-than-acceptable.
As for Hugh's having 'misbehaved' constitutionally, I've no argument there, never have had. That's for the Feds to sort out. It's his message I support. What did you make of that? No Fed seems to be commenting on what Hugh said. How come?
Robert, I am loathed to stereo type rural and urban as has been above in 2.25am. But I will try and provide an opinion. I believe that the 'rural urban gap' is getting greater. And I believe that to be widely accepted in the farming community. Sure there are people that have some experience of farming but I believe it is declining. And those with a little experience appear to be willing to form an opinion and voice it. There are many reasons for this growing voice and we could discuss that for weeks. However the major point I have is that sometimes a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. In today's society some people become pseudo experts at the drop of a hat. I have no problems with hearing these opinions, everyone has a right to voice them. But there is often a big difference between some opinions and scientific fact. I spend a lot of time reading science to form my opinions. I have to say these growing rifts make me nervous.
Most recent anon. I take your point, though I beg to differ. I've recently read research into the issue of 'farmer perceptions of what urbanites think of them' which found that rural people have a distorted perception. That is, farmers think townies regard them more negatively than is actually the case. I notice it myself. Whenever I have spoken to townie groups on issues such as water quality, they do not 'slam the farmers', and are generally quite balanced in their views. On the other hand, I have spoken to farming groups who are quite het-up about what they think townies think of them. There's an imbalance that I have noticed personally. I also note that farmers (I'm generalizing for the sake of brevity) regard the media as the enemy, believing that the newspapers in particular, are anti-farming and always present the rural stories in a way that casts farmers in a bad light. I am always surprised by this comment and don't believe it to be true. It's a bit like Right-wingers accusing the media of being left-wing, while at the same time the Left-wing accusing the media of being Right-wing.
Robert is absolutely right on that score.
I had no particular issue with rural folk until I started getting accused by rural folk!!
The "anons" here seem very blinkered to me, and while they may personally be more 'moderate', the most visible rural representatives often are not.
We get a regular publication from the Feds up here that proves the point. The crap that some of these folk put into print for the "townies" to read is often down right offensive and extremely provocative.
I am not basing my opinion on ANYTHING BUT WHAT HAS COME FROM THE HORSES MOUTH!!.
The problem with this divide growing is that some rural folk clearly think: "about bloody time".
I am a moderate on this issue, and that is why I am so wound up about it, these folk won't budge even in the face of reason.
There are people that are trying to resolve these issues and they are almost always just casually labelled and chucked in the extremist camp.
You can't blame "townies" for eventually saying "why bloody bother" OR think regulation is the only way forward.
"There are people that are trying to resolve these issues and they are almost always just casually labelled and chucked in the extremist camp."
You going to march in opposition to the asset sales, Shunda, alongside of the other extremists? I certainly am.
Robert, the take home message from all this is that humans can't collectively overcome there nature.
We may object, but this stuff is going to run it's course and there really is little that can be done about it.
The older I get the more pessimistic I am becoming about these things.
When have human beings ever stopped a major self inflicted economic catastrophe?
Don't give up, Shunda!
The little man becomes a big man when there are enough of him.
Have your say. Draw your line in the sand.
You only live once (sorry to any Buddhists reading).
Robert. I was describing the 'Rural Urban gap'. That describes the way each of the parties understands what each other does. Not how they percieve each other. There was a time when things were simpler. Regardless of what you do. Now things are more complicated. As all of our lives get more complicated it is becoming more difficult to understand what those on the other side of the fence do. Now days life on the farm is a lot more complicated and it is more difficult for outsiders to understand what farmers do. As parties lose contact with others it is possible that suspicion can grow.
The research you refer to. Does it have comparisons over time? Ie is there a reference point for improvements or declines?
With regard to media. I will generalise and say I think the perception has come from what could be called one sided reporting. Now i dont think this is the fault of the media. Farmers simply dont want to defend their positions. As soon as your community is labeled as polluting the last thing you want to do is be singled out. Farmers simply dont want to enter the debate for fear of being labelled. I dont blame them. As I sign this Anon.
This is going a long way off topic.
Shunda... Again with labeling me as blinkered. You realise that labeling people can be offensive. So far you have sworn in a public forum and repetively labeled me. Is it possible that you may be part of the communication failing you have with these dairy farmers you refer to? The only reason why I ask this is because you seem to judge me incorrectly.
If there are good Dairy farmers out there, how do you think they will feel when they read your labelling of dairy farmers? Do you think they will appreciate it? You accuse farmers for offending you but you seem to be willing to do the same back? Does 2 wrongs make a right?
Anon, it is actually you here that is desperate to "push" me into a corner of your making.
It doesn't matter how "nice" you do it my friend, but don't kid yourself about your own prejudice that is now shining through.
I will tell you this, I get along with decent farmers just fine, and why? because I am actually a decent bloke and quite capable of "understanding" and respecting their business.
It is this understanding that causes me to become frustrated at the actions of certain people involved in the modern dairy industry.
And for the record anon, if a bit of bad language so offends your delicate sensibilities it is pretty obvious you haven't spoken to many farmers.
I can tell by your description of these people that you know very little about rural folk at all.
Shunda, interested how I have pushed you into any corner? I would like you to enlighten me on that one.
Also interested in this prejudice that you describe. More information would be of value to me.
I think it is quite possible you are a decent bloke. I am trying to give you plenty of opportunity to prove this.
You suggest that I don't know rural folk at all. I find that pretty interesting. Also that I have not spoken to many rural folks. That is almost humorous. If you are using your powers of perception to determine this you might need to recalibrate this tool. If you have used the same powers to judge dairy farmers I might have found the root cause of your frustrations?
I will give you credit for finally referring to "certain people". Well done. I think this reference is much more palatable to people in that group.
Keep up the good work.
Hey, you're the guy that can't cope with a bit of terse language, which of course, never occurs in your idealised rural NZ.
Sorry Anon, but try as you might, the feds keep making silly press releases and keep publicly attacking decent folks like Mr Gardyne.
You can scream bigot from the hill tops for all I care, but I base my opinions on direct experience and the very words of the feds themselves.
You can be an apologist for unsustainable farming and attitudes, that is your right, but don't expect others to switch off their testimony because you don't like the truth of what they have to say.
You have engaged a typical defensive mechanism, I suggest instead of trying to make me out to be irrational, you listen to why people like me are frustrated, you may learn something that could actually help the situation.
Shunda,
When did I defend unsustainable farming practices? Can you direct me to that statement? I think you will find that I have done the opposite. Have a read again.
Also I certainly have not labeled anyone a bigot. Where did you get that from?
Nor have I called you irrational.
I have questioned your powers of perception as I feel you have incorrectly perceived me.
Im not sure how or why you interpret my statements in such a way. But I am hoping that along with your powers of perception, that you don't use the same powers of interpretation on those 'certain' people in the dairy industry.
Rest assured I am trying to understand why you are frustrated. You are definitely helping me to form a picture.
Post a Comment