Hi there people. Last week a couple of the above reps knocked on the door, no doubt hoping to convert me to the church. The first question was, what is the major issue affecting the planet that concerns you? I could not help myself thinking, here we have a couple of greenies as well as religous people pushing their barrow.
I said global cooling and the way the powers that be, treat the food producers of the world, it is almost certain that the starvation of a few billion people is the only out come that one can conclude that these people want.
Well I could see that I gobsmacked them. So whilist I got the god is coming to save us from that, we had quite a discussion that had nothing to do with religion. More like a couple of cockies and a interested side kick at that the sale yards. Needless to say they did not ask me to church on Sunday.
Whilist we are on the subject, I see in the NZ Herald yesterday Feb 28th page A 23. Desert grave yard reveals fate of Chilies whale fossils. Dozens of whales and other mammels died a few million yrs ago only to emerge again atop a desert hill almost 1 km away from the sea. Most likely cause, toxins generated by algie blooms. I found this interesting. 1. because the sea level has obviously fallen. Why? 2. If the sea level was alot higher, then it must have been alot warmer .Why? 3. But the algie blooms would point to a high nutrient content of the water combining with higher water temps. Why? 4. There is no evidence of a humungouslylarge world human population to cause such enrichment. Confused. I am not. But if you want to believe this man made bullsit good on you. My personal view is that weather patterns are cyclical, and all this environmental stuff is more about political out comes.
Been getting a lot of negative interest from my post on Treaty Settlements in the previous pages . Mostly people sudjesting I try viagra or some other equally silly product. It is probably timely that thoese of you who are regular readers re read it. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is also worth a read. My view is that there is too much unconstitutional nonsence going on.
My Lawyer rewrote to the Ombudsmen Office 2 weeks ago asking why the Office had not made a decision on releasing the letters (3) , then Minister of Treaty Settlements Hon Margaret Wilson, wrote to the Whanganui Iwi negoitating Team. We got a letter back from the investigator saying she had been transferred and that she had forwarded it to the appropriate person assisting Dame Beverly. You may think I am making a nuisence of myself, but remember that it was not by chance that I got the idea that the pre Treaty process needed to be looked at.
Why should these letters not be made avialable to the public. After all the Tax payer is footing the bill. The process must thus be seen to be open ,transparent and publically accountable. To hide behind the Ombudsmen sudjests something untoward. There are 2 more letters including a letter from Helen Clark to Sir Archie Taiaroa, and a video presentation which the ombudsmens office will not release.
It is also my concern that it was the Queens reps who cocked up in the first instance. Why is she not footing the bill to settle the historical claims ?
I do not wish to bore you but here I go again on these N leaching limits. I got this “Stuff” from Stuff.co.nz. Off the webb. dated 22 feb. by Tom Benny Fair Fax NZ. Headed Farmers will need to change environmental thinking. New Regime. Canterbury farmers will soon have to draw up environmental plans for their farms.
Here we go again Same as Horizons Regional Councils Sustainable Land Use and Farm Stratagys. Voluntry. You voluntarily volunter to screw your bussiness. Once you voluntarily enter the programme of initatives to improve environmental outcomes the list keeps on growing. Read the fine print of the One Plan. If the required out comes are not met other measures will be required. The POP admittedly, but then council is jumping between that and the Decisions version as it please,s . But getting back to the Canterbury bit.
The plan does not tell the farmer what they can or cannot do, but does set limits on allowable nutrient losses. What is it about the physical location of their farm. Are they more worried about N or P leaching. What are the operational risks, eg stocking rates. The plan focuses on outcomes and it is up to individual farmers how they achieve them.
It states. We could write consent conditions on how to run your farm, where as if farmers can go,”as long as I reduce N or P, wether it’s destocking, applying less water, different fertilizers, what ever, it is up to me”. It’s local solutions for the local issue. Great on the face of it. And lets face it there are some minor thing that can be done and indeed are identified in the artical. But when it come to achieving limits that are impossible to achieve any other way other than to build a honking great herd home or cut your stocking rate, that breaks the bank and sends you under then that is another story. It is obvious to me that these planners have done their home work to protect the rate payer from possible legal action by land users. Lets have a good look at sec 190 of the Local Govt Act 2002. Compensation payable. Also a bit about being a nucience ,sec 191.
My point . It is all about getting the Land user to voluntarily screw themselves. No liability against the Plan. Get the drift. Then there is the Governments determination to increase Agricultural production up to 300% via irrigations in these very catchments and you can start to wonder just what the hell is going on. But one thing is for sure . The out come will be less agricultural production as we knw it. Of course you could try red currents or more ceral crops. I also understand that the returns have not been that grt. Falling land values. This will flow right through the regional economy.
Yesterday in the Herald I read NZ hits its first trade surpluse YOY for 2 yrs largely driven by ,yes Dairy . Include a few logs. Feb 28th, pg 2 bussiness sec. I have to ask the question. How is NZ going to pay its bills. These people driving these plans do not run their personal bank accounts, nor their employment agreements the way they are planning resource use.
A good way to finish is a article again from the NZ Herald 17th feb pg A20. After the winds, rain and floods comes ice. Quite appropriate.