Ah, David!

"In response to David Rose's "Grassroots" column in last week's issue, I'm disappointed that a senior representative of Federated Farmers continues to backpedal on efforts to improve water quality in Southland. The scientific reports that underpinned the State of the Environment Report and the project to improve the water quality in the Waituna Lagoon were reviewed by independent scientists from NIWA, Otago University, DairyNZ, Opus, DOC, Fish and Game, among others. Data from monitoring in the Waituna Creek shows nitrogen levels at that site have increased over the last 10 years. David has stated that Federated Farmers' own reviewer, Tom Heller, found "shonky" flow adjustments that "corrupted the data", but those words aren't in his report. Mr Heller actually concluded that, aside from a couple of gaps, Environment Southland's: "water quality and environmental monitoring programme to date appears to be wholly suitable." Next month our Council will consider introducing a rule requiring new conversions to dairying to obtain a consent, so we can be sure new dairy farms will have minimal environmental impact. Applicants will need a farm plan that shows appropriate provision is made for nutrient budgeting, drainage and effluent disposal. David refers to the Federated Farmers delegation which spoke to our Councillors in December. The record shows that his fellow representative Doug Fraser said that the new dairy conversion provisions could have a positive outcome if "practical farmers" were involved with developing the new rule, alongside Environment Southland staff. This being so, it's hard to understand why the Federated Farmers elected farmers last week walked away from the working group that is framing up the new requirements. I'm often contacted by farmers wanting to discuss environmental issues. Many of them show more understanding of water quality problems than their representatives on Federated Farmers.

Ali Timms 

Chairman 

Environment Southland"

Ouch!

Feel those petals wilt, Mr Rose!

Rose sees red

Federated Farmers spokesperson David Rose makes some interesting claims in the Hot Topic column of last week's Fiordland Advocate. He levels his aim at 'some' councillors of Environment Southland and makes unsubstantiated claims about their ability to do the job they are elected for, and trained to do. Councillors, I can reliable inform you, undergo professional development to enable them to make good decisions, judgements that are informed by evidence and tempered with fair decision making process. The training is rigorous and time consuming, and results in a recognised high standard of unbiased decision-making, to the extent that training can do.
David Rose appears not to accept this and claims that some councillors 'want to act on emotion, not science' when deliberating on the problems Southland faces as a result of farming. He talks of Waituna and the serious issues the lagoon faces and how Environment Southland councillors plan to deal with those and the wider Southland issue of intensification of farming. Rose clearly favours some members of our council and says that 'part of the council wants to work with the community on a factual science-informed response', but goes on the smear the 'others' who are 'want to act on emotion, not science' and even worse it seems, to Rose anyway, these errant councillors who don't want to work with the community, who don't want to 'act on science', the emotional decision-makers, want to do it NOW! And what they want to do is MAKE RULES! This, it seems, is very bad, according to Rose's way of thinking.
How Mr Rose knows these details of councilor thinking is a puzzle. Has he been a fly on the wall at our meetings? Mr Rose has not been sitting in the public seating area during council meetings, so far as I have noticed, so he must be relying on second-hand opinion. He's very confident of his sources then, so willing is he to go public with his opinions.
Mr Rose makes another interesting claim. He says, "Federated Farmers have lobbied hard to have a process where farmers' input will be sought while considering the changes ." This puzzles me also. I've not been subject to hard lobbying from the Federated Farmers, either in the boardroom or in private so I'm wondering who has? Mr Rose may well have been lobbying other councillors, but I've seen neither hide nor hair of him. I'll ask tomorrow, who it is that's had the pleasure of his lobbying and I'm guessing, that of his brothers in arms. 
I often hear about the need for all parties involved in the management of Southland's resources to work collaboratively, sing from the same song-sheet and get together around the same table. Federated Farmers' Mr Rose, who should know better, seems determined to take pot-shots from afar, create division and mistrust and subvert the good-faith process. A cynic might wonder if Mr Rose is simply trying to derail the process that's under way to protect Southland's environment and thereby it's economy, from harm, by delaying or even preventing the regional council from doing its job. I suspect that's something that the majority of Southlanders won't look favourably upon.

Calling the Feds!

There are many people in the community who find the tactics used by the Federated Farmers 'blunt' and 'simplistic' to put it politely. 'Bull-at-a-gate' seems to be a common summation of the approach taken by the Feds to many issues.
The comment below was made by a visitor to this blog earlier today and resulted from a post that described the Southern Branch of the Feds calling for a peer review of the science thus far collected re Waituna Lagoon. With the author's kind permission, I've dragged it out into 'front of house' to see if it resonates with other readers. If it does, or if you disagree with Piwakawaka's view, you are very welcome to put in your two cents worth.

The refusal to accept science, and to challenge it is a tactic long-used by NZ's commercial fishing industry - and this is no different from the Feds.

I have worked alongside the feds for many years through a variety of issues and topics, and the constant vitriol, attacks, lies and aggression have staggered me, and frankly, no longer surprise me. I also have many farmer friends who refuse to join them, because of their dinosaur-like attitudes to the environment. It's no wonder their membership is dropping.

So tell me, how come the Feds, with a mere 20 000 members get so much airplay and 'power', when an outfit like Forest & Bird with 70 000 members has to push hard to even be heard?