Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Buy land to stop dairy spread

Avatar photo
A headline in a South Island newspaper recently suggested an irrigation decision was an act of environmental vandalism.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

No, it wasn’t al Qaeda taking anthrax to Auckland, Boko Haram releasing ebola at the Crusaders headquarters or even Islamic State taking foot and mouth to Feilding.

This environmental terrorism was irrigation.

I know many farmers who irrigate and I know Andrew Curtis from Irrigation New Zealand. No one remotely inspires me as having any terrorist leanings at all. In fact, exactly the opposite, more peace over passion.

South Canterbury Salmon Anglers Association spokesman Phil de Joux was complaining about an increased irrigation take from the Rangitata River, a mere 10 cubic metres a second when the river flow is above 132 cumsecs.

De Joux described the increased water take as environmental terrorism for the sake of a few dollars and the newspaper gave him headlines.

There are several interesting facts that are ignored by salmon fishers.

The first is that the Rangitata is under a water conservation order that ensures the preservation as far as possible of the water body’s natural state.

Second, the Environment Canterbury commissioners found the increased water take will have minor or less than minor effects on salmon fishing, salmon passage, water-based recreation, aquatic macroinvertebrates, aquatic bird habitat or the braided quality of the river. 

Further, when the Rangitata flow is above 132 cumsecs it’s unfishable.

Those are the facts.

The salmon fishers are only slightly ahead of the perennial whingers from Fish and Game who described the increased irrigation take as a slap in the face. Then, in the realm of rampant hyperbole Fish and Game, said it was a real setback for the environment.

They don’t say how it’s a setback but they’re inevitably unworried as they have the headline. Whether there are any facts involved is incidental.

The lesson for primary industries is that you are to be commended for solid, factual argument but be aware groups like the salmon fishers and Fish and Game don’t give a fig about fact.

Which brings me to the Mackenzie country.

I’ve been fishing the Mackenzie for longer than I care to remember and love the place. The issue is that 20 years ago no-one was remotely interested in it, covered as it was by the invasive weed hieracium and rabbits.

Around that time there was an application to introduce myxamatosis, which was declined because dead rabbits would encourage stoats and weasels, which would threaten the iconic black stilt.

So a rabbit-inspired desert was fine as long as the stilt survived.

That rabbit virus then fell down from the sky and eradicated the rabbits, thus restoring the landscape, is to be commended. 

Now we have rampant protests from Greenpeace wanting the Mackenzie to stay the way it is. I was going to say was but that would involve first forest then desert.

An excellent article by Annette Scott in Farmers Weekly of July 9 tells us the situation in the Mackenzie. 

Basically, the farmer has spent millions of dollars getting consents, is incredibly conservation minded and has a farming plan that will enhance the environment.

The farmer has jumped through more hoops than you’d see at a circus and is ready to make the land productive.

Sadly, it isn’t that easy. 

Dairy giant Fonterra prefers not to see dairy expansion in the Mackenzie.

They’re not qualified to make that call and it seems to me they’re just positioning themselves for the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act debate at the expense of their shareholders.

Then there’s the anti-farming protesters at Greenpeace who, while willing to chain themselves to machinery, have been unwilling to talk to the farmer about the issues involved.

That says they’re not interested in factual discussion. It’s just about grabbing headlines at any price like the salmon fishers and Fish and Game.

The issue for me is really simple.

The farmer is obeying the rules.

He bought the land fairly and squarely.

He spent vast sums of money going through an excessively complex bureaucratic process to get consents to farm, be it through irrigation or anything else.

He has done exactly what is required according to the laws of the country. In fact, I’d argue even more than that. The farmer didn’t have to initiate the major conservation projects he did.

Also, the regeneration of the Mackenzie to where it is today is thanks to farmers’ environmental commitment and investment. No-one else did it.

That makes the Greenpeace protest anti-legitimate land ownership, anti-democracy and democratic process and illegal. They certainly can’t argue from any factual base but then that hasn’t worried them in the past.

It also shows their overall modus operandi as being non-factual anti-farmer hysteria.

My answer to the problem is very simple. If the land in its current state is so valuable to Greenpeace they should buy it.

No-one is stopping them.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading