Comments on: Peter Spencer rally a big success

By: Archer

Archer — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:41:18 +0000

websites

By: BobC

BobC — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:36:59 +0000

46Maisie Marshall:
July 9th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
i think that gun control should always be imposed at all times to reduce violence.*:~

Since gun laws are only observed (by definition) by the law-abiding, you shouldn’t expect such to reduce crime. It definitely makes crime safer, however — for the criminals.

Report this

0 0

By: Evelyn Ahmed

Evelyn Ahmed — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:30:02 +0000

i always thought that gun control should be mandatory in all places.`*

Report this

0 0

By: Maisie Marshall

Maisie Marshall — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:21:42 +0000

i think that gun control should always be imposed at all times to reduce violence.*:~

Report this

0 0

By: Laura Brisbane

Laura Brisbane — Tue, 25 May 2010 00:20:55 +0000

i don’t get it. how are the farmers being robbed of their assets by having bus inspections on long weekends?

Report this

0 0

By: Laura Annerley

Laura Annerley — Tue, 11 May 2010 01:33:53 +0000

Whatever your personal opinion, you have to admit he’s working hard. Good on you, Pete!

Report this

0 0

By: Tel

Tel — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:21:47 +0000

Peter Spencer has a debt of over $1million.

A figure not entirely uncommon for farmers. Presumably a lot of that is interest payments going back to 1980 when he bought the property.

He is looking to the government to pay him to maintain his unsustainable lifestyle. His land is marginal and will not support any further farming activities.

He is looking to be able to use the land in the same manner as it was when he bought it. It had been supporting grazing for some generations before. It became economically marginal because of a combination of regrowing trees reducing the available grass, and wild dogs coming out of the national parks.

Removing more trees will only add to the problem.

I would have thought this was something that the land owner would consider in his/her own interests. Peter seems like a guy who has done a lot of study on the details of his particular farm.

It is considered that trees are fertility donors. At least one third of a property should be covered with trees or shrub – obviously more where land is unsitable for farming ( see Peter Andrews book “Back from the Brink” ).

The “Back from the Brink” book is about salinity (I haven’t read the book but I can see that half the chapters do discuss salinity, the other half discuss biodiversity). Is there any evidence that Peter’s farm had problems with salinity, at any time? Is there any evidence that Peter intended actions that would reduce biodiversity below the level it was when the farm was first purchased?

I point out that there are a very large number of places on earth that are highly productive farms and have relatively sparse numbers of trees (the entire South of France for example). Where trees are part of successful farms they are generally either fruit trees, or lightly spread shade trees for grazing (or I guess we could count plantation forests as farms in which case the trees are selected for their wood).

Various people have pointed the high productivity of Israeli agriculture on decidedly marginal land; so grab google earth and zoom in around Nazareth (one of the well-know high intensity farming regions) and take a good look how many fields there are with no trees. These farms use irrigation, fertilizer and mechanized production systems to achieve high yields. Where grazing land is visible it has sparse trees to allow for grass regrowth. Also visible are the easily identified geometric patterns of orchards and plantations.

Report this

2 0

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:23:28 +0000

I think if we accumulate the precedents and legal cases where property rights are either abridged and/or neutralised by the government and Leftwing Movements (such as Mabo’s Native Title among others) via UN and NGOs. We can see there is a deliberate effort and goal at undermining Real Property Law and its rights in favour of government seizure and confiscation arbitrarily without compensation and drowning with legal action costs.
Once again it is better to see the Forest from the Trees in this maze of legal precedents; the government wants to railroad such precedents to get around the Australian Constitution by many means possible abolish the Landowner Classes. The effort is coherent with the UN and the ALP Ideology although done under Fabian Gradualism strategy.
This makes sense in the light of the Rudd Government non-show, but Mr Spencer fought on, he knows what’s at stake here. The legal chicanery is done to pick on the little guys first then the precedent is applied to ever larger groups of property owners.

Report this

2 0

By: Joanne Nova

Joanne Nova — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 05:32:38 +0000

From Geoffc3 by email:

” I think many are missing the point. Which is by buck passing, duck
shoving, call it what you like. Governments have locked up his land
for 30 years without compensation of any kind. All other points are
irrelevant, regardless of peter’s other circumstances. This has not
happened only in the farming industry but in various other rural/
primary industries. Geoffc3″

Report this

2 0

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:28:35 +0000

There is a very disturbing trend in having both Farmland and Ocean Fishing (whaling case by extension fisheries) to be put out of bounds to Food Production under a rafter of reasons be Global Warming (carbon sinks), Native Vegetation, Heritage Listing, Sustainable Development (resource depletion).
Is this part of trend in reducing the land and sea available for cultivation and fishing.
In the US and EU land is being put to grow ethanol crops such as Maize instead of foodstuff for human consumption, prices for ethanol are mandated and subsidised by governments to send a inaccurate market signal to farmers.

See more
Food Shortages and Climate Change

Report this

2 0