If you live in Southland you'll probably know that much of the network of wetlands that once graced the plains, are gone. Most of the wetlands that served for millenia to protect the environment from scouring and flooding were drained by farmers as they sought to convert a vibrant mahi nga kai resource into production pasture. The consequences of that clearing has been devastating to many components of the broader environment; fish, birds and people, not to mention plants and untold trillions of smaller players. I've been involved for many years in the protection of a wetland that was snatched from the jaws of the dairy giant; bought, fenced and managed to keep it functioning as it should and so the article in today's Southland Times caught my eye immediately and held my attention throughout. It's the story of a wetland and its saviour, Tony Reiger who similarly turned the dairy 'machine' from its path of wetland destruction and saved his wetland, Big Lagoon from ruination. Sadly, Tony's moving on and the future of the wetland is uncertain. It's protected by a QEII covenant, but not by Tony for much longer. Tony says:
"If there was no lagoon, house or covenant on this land, I could get top dollar from the dairy industry but this land deserves to be protected for future generations."
I couldn't agree more. The article continues,"Originally the lagoon covered an area of 17 hectares, but after major drainage efforts were made by dairy farmers in the rearly 1980's to expand grazing lands, all that remained in 2003 when he brought the property was a mudhole one hectare in size."
"Big lagoon's destruction was not unique. It was a casualty of an ongoing war from industry, farming and other factors against wetlands all across New Zealand." Mr Reiger said.
Tony's efforts have been Herculean and I'm grateful to him for it. Now, if we can just spread his enthusiasm for wetlands right across the region, we'd be starting to redress some of the wrongs inflicted upon the landscape in the name of progress and private property rights.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Guess what the towns people did to wetlands....?
http://www.icc.govt.nz/ServicesA-Z/DrainageAndSewerage/History.aspx
Driven through Otatara lately?
Probably retired farmers, Anonymous.
Do you get humour, I wonder?
Yes, townspeople, that rotten bunch! I notice a concerted effort by the farming sector to sheet blame for waterway pollution to 'townspeople', the local example being the Winton sewerage treatment issue. Have you figures on how many Winton residents are retired farmers, Anonymous. They won't all be, of course.
I'm also fascinated by the intention of the diary industry to link their farmers with the All Blacks and have the public adore the dairy men as they do the men in black. Good luck with that.
That said, I've always expressed my views that human effluent management is a threat to the environment, especially the waterways in all their forms, so I'm with you there, that's for sure.
"intention of the diary industry to link their farmers with the All Blacks"
So what was the kissing of Ritchie McCaw all about by your tomboy mate.....
More of that anti farmer campaign you like so much.
It seems farmers are to blame for everything. Even what happens in the towns.
Soon they will be blamed for council decisions?
Given that you are with me on human effluent issues how about we team up and campaign against those awful rate payers?
Oh, she was linking alright, Towack.
Literally.
I have no anti-farmer campaign, Anonymous. I'm anti-environmental destruction.
Will farmers be blamed for council decisions? Yes, no doubt. They have been in the past and doubtless will again if it is shown that there are farmer/councillors influencing council decisions in a way that distorts democracy or benefits them financially.
Re the human effluent issues, will I team up with you and campaign? Yes, I'd be interested, but I'd rather campaign on changing behaviours to benefit the environment. Part of that would be to expose practices and historical behaviours. Part would be to offer solutions (in joke). I'm a great compost toilet advocate. You?
Anti-environmental destruction. The human condition is to pollute. We eat - we pollute, we breath - we pollute, we walk - we destroy. Without question there are efficiencies but many enviromental solutions require less people. Do you hate people so? There is no point being on the pedestal without a crowd.
I have used a lot of compost toilets and unfortuneatly they often suffer from incorrect management. I suspect if we went down that track we would have pollution of another kind. As well as the potential for more disease.
"The human condition is to pollute"
- what a fatalist you are, Anonymous. I know you've said this before and I responded then, but really, your claim lacks depth. Is a human being walking in a forest 'polluting' the atmosphere with his breath,or feeding the trees?
Are 1 million?
Come on, Anonymous, you're being slippery and not answering a fair question. Haven't you made strong claims against that sort of behaviour?
Is one?
Yes. I stand on seedlings, I deficate with heavy metals, I cause wild life to hide and not feed, i carry weed seeds on boots and gear, as much as I love it I ruin the environment I go into.
With all due respect, Anonymous, that's nonsense. I do however, have some sympathy for the 'excreting heavy metals' argument. You should stop consuming them!
Same for the weed seedson yer boots. No need to be irresponsible - scrub 'em!
With all due respect Robert it is not, every step is an impact. I lick my boots clean but can never be 100% and I know I have got it wrong in the past. And relatively speaking I am very self aware.
Perhaps your foot prints are bigger than you think.
"Every step is an impact"
Well, yes, but 'impact' is not 'pollution. Are you really arguing that human activity has an impact on the environment? If so, I agree with you, but why is that 'bad' (I'm taking that you mean 'pollution' as a 'bad thing'.)?
The point you are missing is the rate of population growth is so rapid. At year zero the was 120 million. Now we grow 1 billion every 12-15 years. Whilst there will be 1 foot print this year there will be 50 in 10 years.
So you don't really mean "as much as I love it I ruin the environment I go into", you're talking about what mankind will have done by the time the next 50 years have passed?
"Whilst there will be 1 foot print this year there will be 50 in 10 years"
I can't really argue with that, as it's not clear what you are trying to say. Humanity is certainly having a serious impact on the planet, but every impact isn't serious.
I think it is easy to be ideological. It is hard to put those ideologies into practice. 1 billion every 12-15 years need feeding. How do you balance starvation with environment improvements?
There's significant starvation right now, Anonymous. We don't 'balance' that, nor do we manage it in a humane way. The future will be, in my opinion, significantly worse. New Zealand's contribution to feeding the world will not be significant at all, nor is it now.
I hope you are kidding? That must be one of those jokes that I have missed?
So where is the food for the next billion going to come from? I am happy to take opinion. We are talking about the future after all.
The food for the next billion?
In my opinion, it won't come through the channels you are expecting. Already, political and commercial distorting results in starvation on a huge scale. Only when significant relocalisation of food production occurs will production begin to match consumption in a way that is sustainable. Cities provide a huge stumbling block to progress toward a sustainable system where food grown matches people who need food. Peak oil and the resulting unavailability of energy will shape the future of food production and the movement of primary produce throughout the world. NZ better make preparations for that.
Interesting points. Let's take an extreme view. If we disbanded all the cities would we be more or less efficient in making food? Would we use less energy?
Disband the cities?
How?
I'm not an all or nothing guy. I think the solution lies with a moderated approach - cities that grow some of the food it's citizens need, rural land with more people living on it. The separation of food producing land from dwelling areas is causing huge problems. Integration is the answer; crops in the cities, people on the farmland.
Some times imagining the extreme is a good way to test a philosophy.
I agree that more integration is good but free market and all that. Such a outcome would take generations. People are starving now. We need solutions now. The simple solution is more supply. The challenge is environmental balance. The difficult is environmental improvement.
Some times imagining the extreme is a good way to test a philosophy.
It also makes a mockery of very good systems that require a moderate approach.
I agree that more integration is good but free market and all that.
"The free market and all that" - excuse me while I don't genuflect!
Such a outcome would take generations. People are starving now. We need solutions now.
Those who are starving need solutions, not us. The simple solution is more supply.
So you think, but you are speaking from self interest, as a supplier. The solution is enablement. Those who are starving should have access to locally produced food. Give a man a fish etc.
The challenge is environmental balance.
The challenge is political and ideological.
The difficult is environmental improvement.
Improvement? Very good, but what about repair? Our environment is already very degraded. Increasing production of say, milk, needs more than just slowing the rate of decline. We are already over the line. best practice will only delay evential ruination if intensification, driven by your 'market' continues as it is. Our rivers are not in good enough condition now. More industry must first take us back to where the quality of the water is at least below the limits that are already in place.
It also makes a mockery of very good systems that require a moderate approach.
It can some times constrew the evidence I agree. Lets take the most modertate approach we can. Life style blocks in NZ. Often considered the biggest threat to New Zealands total ouput. There is no way like style blocks in NZ (on average) are anywhere near the efficiency of larger scale farms.
"The free market and all that" - excuse me while I don't genuflect!
You are excused. Go and Genuflect.
So you think, but you are speaking from self interest, as a supplier. The solution is enablement. Those who are starving should have access to locally produced food. Give a man a fish etc.
Self interest as a supplier???? Why would you say such a thing ???? I supply what? Just like you, as an environmentalist, I want to see the progression of the enviroment above starving people.
The challenge is political and ideological. The challenge is Ideological. Agree. The challenge is political? Who are you kidding???? The biggest improvement to NZ food production was when the Government reduced their involvement (subsidies) in the 80s. The greatest control of the food shortage lies in the hands of the farmers. The same people you are trying to alienate.
Improvement? Very good, but what about repair?
Improvement-repair- Poootatoe potaaatoe.
Our environment is already very degraded. But still one of the best in the world.
Increasing production of say, milk, needs more than just slowing the rate of decline. I dont understand this.
We are already over the line. You have been over the line for a long time.
best practice will only delay evential ruination if intensification, driven by your 'market' continues as it is. Please repeat this when you try to promote your 'Farm management plans'.
Our rivers are not in good enough condition now. Good enough for what? Tell your shoulder councillor that he should not kiack in rivers, it is not good enough.
More industry must first take us back to where the quality of the water is at least below the limits that are already in place. I dont understand this statement.
The lifestyle-block model isn't one I propose. They are...'lifestyle' orientated and those casual days are gone. Food production is a serious business but the present model of growing in one area to sell to another, is seriously flawed.
You are a milk supplier. You have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Most farmers are in the same position and will argue to preserve their advantage.
Again, you wrongly claim that I'm 'trying to alienate farmers'. You bore me and my readers with your drone. I believe you are seeking to drive a wedge between farmers and me. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You don't understand the distinction between improving the state of the present environment, in relation to increased use, and the far greater need to move the slide back to a point where conditions were much better. I won't belabour the difference, having explained it once. I'll just note that you fail to understand, Poootatoe potaaatoe
"Our rivers are not in good enough condition now. Good enough for what?"
Drinking from. Swimming in. Or do you deny this?
"Tell your shoulder councillor that he should not kiack in rivers, it is not good enough."
You're getting tetchy, anonymous dairy farmer. My "shoulder councillor" doesn't need to be 'told' anything by me. He understands the situation perfectly.
"More industry must first take us back to where the quality of the water is at least below the limits that are already in place. I dont understand this statement."
It was clumsily-put.The farming industry is intensifying aggressively. "It" plans to improve its game as it swells. First, it needs to repair the damage its players have done up til now if it seeks credibility. Waituna is the best example.
Wow, and here I was thinking that dairy farmers sold milk for money, it turns out (according to anon) that they only do it to save the world!!
This shouldn't be called the dairy industry any longer, it should be called the saviour industry!!
It is so heartening to know that when the arse drops out of this commodity market (and it most certainly will) that our saviours will continue to labour away to feed the poorest people in other countries. Will they be able to afford v8 falcons and Holdens any longer? no, but they will continue, it has, after all, never been just about the money.
So what is the model you promote? Around the world smaller farm models that have tried to deliver to local markets have failed to compare to the NZ model in terms of energy use. The UK used food miles to promote local food as being more sustainable. Research has shown that they use a lot more energy to produce their products even when considering transport.
Link for evidence. http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/documents/2328_rr285_s13389.pdf
Internationally NZ farmers are revered for their efficiency.
Why do you keep insisting that I am a dairy farmer? I know it suits your arguement to label me in such a way but what are you basing this on what? If you are suggesting bias we all know you can't throw stones about bias. Your bias is written all over your blogs and your councillor peers know all about it.
I am sorry that you are getting bored. I get bored with your attack on Farmers. I suspect your readers do too. You should be ashamed of yourself. If there is any wedge being driven it is by your own hand.
Sure some of our rivers contain some concerns. But there have been some improvements too. Improvements while your fearful intensification has been happening.
What is "intensifying agressively"?
*Well said, Shunda. The 'I'm feeding the world' meme is a self-serving one, in my view.
" Anonymous said...
So what is the model you promote?
It would take some time to explore, Anonymous. Perhaps I'll post specifically on it. It's different from the existing model and involves a more efficient land use practice, in which biodiversity features large. Biodiversity, you might note, is in very short supply where ever diary farming flourishes.
Around the world smaller farm models that have tried to deliver to local markets have failed to compare to the NZ model in terms of energy use.
Dairy farming in New Zealand is very energy hungry and almost none of that energy is derived from the farm itself. I regard that as very unsustainable. I note your great interest in dairying, Anonymous, despite your attempts to seem not to be directly involved with the industry. Curious...
The UK used food miles to promote local food as being more sustainable. Research has shown that they use a lot more energy to produce their products even when considering transport.
Just because the UK producers are extremely inefficient, doesn't mean we are efficient enough, Anon.
Link for evidence. http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/documents/2328_rr285_s13389.pdf
Internationally NZ farmers are revered for their efficiency.
Why do you keep insisting that I am a dairy farmer? I know it suits your arguement to label me in such a way but what are you basing this on what?
Well, okay, Anonymous, come clean - are you or are you not a diary farmer, or at least someone in the sector? You've fudged the question several times, making you seem duplicitous. Come clean and I'll let it rest. If not, I'll continue to use my gut-feeling and say that you are.
If you are suggesting bias we all know you can't throw stones about bias. Your bias is written all over your blogs and your councillor peers know all about it.
As explained before, ad nauseum, Councillors are allowed a bias - think for a moment about the two Councillors who are Federated farmer members, are you suggesting they don't have a bias? It's how you handle your bias that is important. Local Government representatives have explored this aspect of Councillor behaviour, Anon, and have given clear decisions about it. I am entirely comfortable that I am operating within allowable limits. I'm not so sure about our Fed Farmer representatives, but you might talk with them to see how they are separating their 'interests' from their decision making. Their bias, having paid to be part of the federation, could be construed as more concerning than mine :-)
I am sorry that you are getting bored. I get bored with your attack on Farmers.
Nonsense. I'm attacking no -ne but the Government, as is my right.
I suspect your readers do too. You should be ashamed of yourself. If there is any wedge being driven it is by your own hand.
Pfffttt
Sure some of our rivers contain some concerns.
What?
But there have been some improvements too. Improvements while your fearful intensification has been happening.
Those improvements have not occured at at rate that brings back the drinkability and swimability of the rivers, have they, Anonymous?
What is "intensifying agressively"?
Pretending to be ignorant of the meaning of that expression does you no credit, Anonymous. Shunda, for example, knows full-well. You can fool some of the people some of the time...
Shunda,
I never said "only do it to save the world". Sure it could be a convenient coincidence. But we still have to give farmers the credit for it.
The inconvenient coincidence is that reducing food production is most like to lead to the death of people. I often wonder if many environmentalists consider this concept.
Robert,
I will be interested to see your model when you promote it. And I will be looking to see evidence of proof of concept in scale internationally or locally. Until then it simply remains a claim without detail and evidence.
"What are the concerns that rivers contain?" Pretending to be ignorant does you no credit. But for the sake of a blog comment... Councillors with kayacks :)
Keep using your gut feeling. Ignore the fact that you dont know and are simply wildly speculating. I expect nothing less from a councillor than to ignore facts and base descisions on speculation:)
Rate of improvement... What is a rapid enough rate of improvement for you Robert?
"I expect nothing less from a councillor than to ignore facts and base descisions on speculation"
That's a damning admission, Anonymous Dairy Guy. If that's your expectation, I'd be a fool to try to engage in discussion of any depth at all with you and will simply speculate, as is your expectation.
I imagine there's little else we can learn from each other. Disappointing, but there you go. My gut feeling tells me it's for the best.
Anonymous Dairy guy? Are you talking to me? Assumptions from an assuming councillor.
And it is a damning habit you have there councillor. That expectation has been learned from experience in this blog site. Needless to say, human beings are supposed to be an intelligent analytical species and I am hoping that it is not too late for you to change your improper ways. Yes I still expect more from you. Stick around you might learn a thing or two from me.
Dairy Guy - yes, it's you I'm addressing, who else might it be?
You've left a blank as to your name and occupation, purposefully, despite invitations to front-up, so I have no compunction in offering my best-guess as to what you do. Dairy farmer. It's obvious. I'll stick to my assumption in the absence of any forthrightness from you and may even assume more. I'm thinking 'rich dairy farmer', or 'rich dairy farmer with an axe to grind'. Retired very rich dairy farmer with time on his hands and a fixation on harassing a local body Councillor! It's a lot to write each time, but I can copy and paste.
"Rate of improvement... What is a rapid enough rate of improvement for you Robert?"
How about we adopt the measures used by tangata whenua around water quality and meet those before we intensify land use where that affects rivers, lakes, lagoons, wetlands et al?
That'd be fair , RRDG?
You incesant need to identify my occupation show great weakness. It shows a desperate attempt to weaken my position by suggesting some bias.
Quite frankly I consider a pathetic attempt and I am wondering if it shows a level of desperation?
Again if you do label me I will simply question where the evidence of such labelling comes from. You dont like to base decisions on evidence dont you?
Sure lets bring some culture into the mix. Shall we ask Te Ao Marama how their rate of rate of improvement is going to happen around their proposed dairy farm? That should clarify any local iwi issues.
Sorry about the spelling and grammar mistakes...
Actually I will rewrite it because the grammar is terrible.
Your incesant need to identify my occupation shows great weakness. It shows a desperate attempt to weaken my position by suggesting some bias.
Quite frankly I consider it a pathetic attempt and I am wondering if it shows a level of desperation?
Again if you do label me I will simply question where the evidence of such labelling comes from. You dont like to base decisions on evidence do you?
Sure lets bring some culture into the mix. Shall we ask Te Ao Marama how their rate of rate of improvement is going to happen around their proposed dairy farm? That should clarify any local iwi issues.
Again sorry about that. It was written in a rush. Still not great but at least now it is readible.
Your incessant avoidance of identifying yourself is funny to watch. I don't care who you are or what you do, but will happily prod you for your self-chosen anonynimity - you'll just have to take it, Mr Afraid to Come Out of the Shadows..
You are making a foolish mistake in your thinking, Rich but Frightened Cow Man, and I'm happy to explain that to you. If I was blogging as Councillor Guyton speaking on behalf of the Council, and declared as much on this blog's header, you'd be quite right in claiming that I was in breach of the Council's Code of Conduct. However, as is patently obvious and repeatedly stated, I am not. These are my own opinions and as such, not subject to Council niceties. If I tease you here for your timorous anonymity, it's as an ordinary member of the public that I do it. If you were to take your oft-repeated claim that whatever I say here is subject to the Council's Code of Conduct, you'd have to apply it to every Councillor and their every word spoken or written in a public place. This would mean that statements in the ES boardroom would have to be completely free of bias. They aren't. Should I complain to the chair? The Ombudsman? Some of those farmers on the Council say very 'weighted' things, as do I. Would you like me to demonstrate? How about those Councillors who attend Federated Farmers meetings and speak with farmers? How could that be un-biased? I suspect it's far from it. You? Should I be laying a complaint? You've certainly got me thinking, Anonymous Shadowy-Guy!
Oh Dear.... Deleting my comments now. More breaching of that code of conduct. Lucky I copy my comments before I publish them. I will re-publish.
It is funnier to watch your attempts to identify my occupation. Like my occupation matters? And Rich? Where did you get that from. And if you like you can call me Anonymous. Calling names is not an endearing quality of a Councillor.
The error is on your behalf. You keep saying that it is ok for you say what ever you like as long as it is recognised as your opinion. I agree that when you hold a view that is contrary to that of the Council you need to state it as your own opinion. What I have said and keep saying is your Code of conduct has specific requirements for you and your relationship with the public at all times. For your information I have posted the Code of Conduct clause that relates to your relationship with the public.
3. Relationship with public
Members will conduct their dealings with the public recognising that effective Council decision making depends on productive relationships between elected members and the community at large.
A Members must act in a manner that encourages and values community
involvement in local democracy.
B Members must be available to listen to community views and concerns.
C Members must strive to understand different points of view within the
community.
D The views of members of the public must be accorded respect with
members listening to, and deliberating on, concerns carefully and patiently.
When dealing with members of public, members must:
E be honest, fair and equitable;
F behave in a courteous and sensitive manner and not discriminate against any
person;
G avoid promising things the member cannot deliver;
H avoid aggressive or abusive behaviour.
This individual blog by itself represents a huge breach of that Code of Conduct. And that is before it is consider in context of the rest of your blogging campaign against dairy farmers.
Also I have noted a rapid increase in the number of downloads of the 'Local Governance Statement'. I wonder why that is?
I read carefully each and every one of those clauses, Anonymous dairy guy, and am satisfied that I have complied scrupulously with them all. You think differently, but I care not one whit.
You bang on about my blog being 'a huge breach of that Code of Conduct' but I don't rate your opinion on that matter at all either.
As for 'downloads of the 'Local Governance Statement', I'm delighted that so many people are taking an interest in issues of local government. It shows just how valuable my blog has been to the discourse. Thank you for showing such an interest yourself.
"Anonymous said...
Oh Dear.... Deleting my comments now. More breaching of that code of conduct. Lucky I copy my comments before I publish them. I will re-publish."
Now this is interesting. I know with absolute certainty that I have not deleted your comment, so can challenge you with utter confidence on this point. This sounds to me as though you are harassing me, Anonymous and so I'm considering my next move.Harassment of a member of the public is unpleasant enough, but harassment of a Councillor would be regarded, in my view, very poorly by the public, my fellow Councillors and members of your own executive, should I be correct with my guesses as to which group you belong to, be they Federated Farmers, DairyNZ, Fonterra or whoever. You'll be aware, of course, that each of your comments comes with a url tag and can therefore be assigned to its source. I can view those at with a click of the mouse-pad, collate those and present them to show that your harassment has been intense and at which point it began, and that's a date that would prove to be damning, I'm sure you will see, if you give it some thought.
If I might say so, Anonymous, you are being very silly and the territory you are now playing in, perilous.
It is possible that I am wrong about deleting posts? But I posted it twice and it appeared twice before it disappeared. If I am wrong then I apologise.
Harrassment? I am simply here posting on a blog. If my prescence has offended I apologise. I have always offered to exit blogging at your request. I am not sure how you could consider I am harrassing you when such an offer has been presented and you have repeatively declined it. Again I will offer it. If my presence is offending please say the word. I would hate to comment and not be welcome.
Robert,
I have spent some time this afternoon thinking and it has suddenly become apparent to me that I am not welcome here.
Again I will apologise Robert, if I have offended you with my opinions. Opinions...., just like you I have them. I thought this was a good place to convey those opinions but nobody likes to be accused of "harrassing". Also you know as well as I know that there is irony in me blogging. I am therefore hanging up my blogging shoes. I have noted that Shunda is back but I can reasure you I will not be. Perhaps a little like Shunda I have things to do. I will be working close to midnight most nights of this week to keep up.
I do wish you and your other readers all the best with their endeavours. And I hope that some of the links to other sites and reports have been useful to you and others.
If I may beg to offer you words of encouragement I would say keep working on a sustainable Southland and where possible try to look forward rather than back. I think a sustainable Southland requires all people to work together and sometimes dwelling on the past makes it hard to move forward.
I believe that councillors have a relatively thankless job and I can appreciate the hard work you all put in.
This is my last and only exit post. Being accused of "harrassing" has offended my sense of sensibility. It has always been my goal (perhaps also called an agenda) to exist here in a moral form, work towards a better relationship between the council and farmers, as well as attempt to add balance. But my own pride is more important to me than those individual things. And certainly more important than any blog site.
My final act of morality is one of politeness to the dairy industry. Robert you have been facing a townie with little affiliation to the dairy industry (all townies have a little). If i can be accused of anything it is reading too much. It has bothered me somewhat that dairy farmers have copped flack for my presence here. But there you have it. Exposed!
I will keep an eye peeled for any response for a day then I am out. Removed from favourites...
Goodluck, Robert, Shunda, Towack, Suz, Paranormal. Sorry but I can't wish the same to cows4me and Whio.
Not sure what I would say to other Anonomii. I dont know you. Tread lightly as each step leaves an impact... Poetic? Almost.
Anonymous
You are a better man than I. Many's the time I've signed off for good from some blog or other where I've over-played my hand, only to return cap in hand, a week or so later. I do like to be part of the dialogue, albeit a provocative part. Yours is a very poignant au revoir and I appreciate you candidness. Clearly, our debates became too involved and some internal flaw grew to become an impediment to communication. For my part, I apologise for inflaming you through the use of hyperbole, my intention was to counter something I think you couldn't see, though several commenters and 'lurkers' here who emailed me with suggestions as to how I might manage your anonymous comments, could - I'll not try to frame that for you, as I've already made it pretty clear.
I accept your declaration of non-involvement with the dairy industry. You did say that you were not one of the crew clamouring for my head in the foyer of ES, and I did believe you. That narrows the field down considerably to other submitters on the day my driving skills were mentioned :-) I'll eventually work out who you are. I'd like it very much if we could get together for a coffee or a beer and talk these things through. Expressing subtle ideas through this medium is almost impossible and it's very, very easy to misconstrue, as I'm sure you discovered. We'd get on well, I reckon. For all the sniping we ended up doing, I appreciated your considerable commitment to putting forward your views. Your time certainly wasn't wasted, as I did consider each of your points, weighing them against my own views. At times I had to play a strong hand in order to quash directions you were going in, but that's part of managing a 'think-aloud' blog like this. I slipped up a couple of times, as only you know, and I'm not too pleased with that, but you might consider that the most valuable lesson you served me.
Your assertion that you were not welcome here is quite wrong, as was my name-calling. Anonymity is a bug-bear for bloggers, and as Armchair Critic pointed out, the bloggers Code of Conduct suggests removing the anonymous option. I like to leave it be.
I'd like to withdraw my 'charge' of harassing and call it 'pressuring' instead and hope that eases your discomfort. Your opinions were certainly worth presenting, Anonymous Townie, though I felt you were levering to a particular end - my own over-sensitive sense of self-preservation made me fight a little harder than I needed to, it transpires.
You've declared that you won't return after tomorrow, even for a look, so I'll play tricky-buggers and promise that I'm going to write a post sometime in the next week or so that features your presence here and reveals some interesting aspects of our wrangle that you won't have known about. That should make you break your resolve and keep an eye on this blog - is that cunning, or what?
:-)
My email address, in case you ever want to fire a shot across my bow, is guy10@actrix.co.nz
Batten down the hatches, Busy Townie, looks like we're in for a rough night here in the Deep South.
Rob
Post a Comment