Tree Chop Campaign- Globally Significant

G'day Agmates,

National chop a tree day goes into day 5. Today up to 10,000 trees will die as an estimated 2,000 farmers chop down 5 trees each in an escalating campaign of civil disobedience.

In one of our comments today Brent from QLD tells us that The National Chop A Tree Day is a revolutionary protest and in fact globally significant because many fellow farmers and indeed property owners across the western world face similar bureaucratic takeovers brought about by the rapidly unfolding globalisation process.

We also have comments from Farmers in WA and QLD explaining they have similar axes to grind with sate legislation.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald The Total Environment Centre, which comprises a number of environment groups, described the alleged tree-chopping actions as self-destructive and urged the NSW government not to give in to environmental vandalism and blackmail.

The groups said they would demand even stronger tree protection laws as a result of these alleged actions. The Centres director Mr Geoff Angel was quick to remind NSW and Queensland governments both had promised to enforce and retain the laws at recent state elections and the groups expected them to do just that.

The Total Environment Centre was very critical of NSW Minister Koperbergs comments on ABC Radio's AM program yesterday 3-07-2007 when he said he would prefer to talk with the organisers (of the Chop day) in preference to taking strong legal action.

It is interesting to note that after this article appeared in today's (4-07-2007) SMH media sources advised Agmates that when they contacted the NSW Minister for the Environments Office, the minister had appeared to toughen his stance on how the tree chopping farmers would be dealt with.

Below we have a comment come in today from a Western Australian Farmer that is very instructive as to how the issues are impacting in every state of Australia. The last paragraph in particular is exactly what has occurred in the above scenario with the Green lobby and Minister Koperberg.

GLENN A WA FARMER said:
Agmates:
"The chop a tree campaign currently underway is no doubt born out of frustration and anger of bad legislation and more impossible regulation. We have the same issues here in WA. This type of legislation has to be interpreted, implemented and then we as law have to be seen to comply with it.

The interpretation, implementation and enforcement of WA's poor environmental legislation is counter productive for successful farm production and environmental improvement. The environmental laws here in WA are almost impossible to comply with.

In WA the environmental legislation has changed the way our property rights are dealt with.From what I've read on Agmates it appears this is the case in every state of Australia.

Farmers in Wa generally have never been better educated and never more aware of soil condition and environmental improvement before. Our fore fathers on the land were expert bushmen and knew far more than the suddenly enlightened loopys that are driving environmental legislation.

Parallel to this is the erosion of property rights, there is no protection under State and territory constitutions when environmental legislation is introduced that amounts to a takings of land and water use. Remember, property rights are human rights, our Australian Constitution does have protection under section S51xxx1.

Our cities are the largest beneficiaries of our productive efforts and the most intensive users of land. It is ironic that it is city based green fundamentalist making political deals with populist governments to enact legislation that will eventually drive good farmers, on good land off the land."

Today Agmates has been "flooded" with comments from obviously radical Green fundamentalist comments which are so off the wall that we aren't worth publishing. here is one of the printable ones to demonstrate to readers just how much these people hate farmers.

STUART IN SYDNEY said:
Agmates:
"Hi there redneck Neanderthals. Typically we see farmers, the great destroyers of our environment, showing Australia just what they think about tress. I’m sure you’d like a landscape denuded of all vegetation except for genetically modified crops.

This action just confirms for me and thousands of other city dwellers that farmers are not capable of caring for our land and in fact rejoice in its destruction and degradation. I bet you celebrated after John Hudson destroyed 700 hectares of irreplaceable wetlands on Yarrol Station. That mentality is what tells me that farmers don’t a toss about the environment and have no understanding of modern land management procedures. You just want to keep farming like we live in England, as no doubt your families “have done for generations” as you are all so fond of telling us.

So what about responsibility for salinity, helping to kill the great barrier reef through fertiliser runoff, producing crops like cotton and rice that have place in this country, and stealing water from wetlands.

What I see in these photo’s is a vandal at work on a tree, not “woody weed” as you have so conveniently labelled it.

Still, I can’t see you rural dwellers ever caring at all about the environment. All you’ve ever cared about is the continuation of Agrarian Sociaism where you can socialise your losses and capitalise your profits all provided for by Australian tax payers. You are not a protected species, you are in business – but of course you see yourselves in terms of some mythology of the “outback” which of course is total BS, but it suits you to trot it out and claim you need special treatment.

If I ever had any sympathy for farmers, it’s gone totally now. I hope they fine and gaol the lot of you."

Agmates comment: Stuart thank you for your comment even though it is full of exaggerations and untruths. Face it Stuart, your a green fundamentalist - you hate farmers, just as Islamic fundamentalist hate westerners and Nazis (Fundamentalists) hate Jews, no amount of logic, reason of fact is going to change your beliefs.

Our next comment is from Julliete.
JULLIETE said:
Agmates:
"I think this is a terribly misguided action. It will only confirm the opinions of those who believe that farmers are not fit to be in charge of the environment. Please give more thought to this damaging campaign; you are only preaching to the converted. Those of us who wish only good to farmers are dismayed and unable to support this."

Agmates Comment: Thanks for your comment Julliete and welcome to the debate. We do hope you have read Professor Ratnapalas paper "Constitutional vandalism Under Green cover" so you know why farmers are doing this.
The farmers chopping down trees are trying to bring to reasonable Australians (like yourself) attention how they are being suppressed by unfair, unworkable and unaustralian vegetation management Legislation's in each state. This legislation is forcing farmers off their land and wrecking the environment. Please keep reading to gain enlightenment as to how and why this great injustice has been perpetrated and allowed to happen.

BRENT FROM QLD said:
Agmates:
"The tree chop is a revolutionary protest, a drastic but necessary action by farmers across Australia to reclaim their common law property rights from tyrannical bureaucracy and its corporate bedmates.
When I was editor of the Swan Hill Guardian and North West Farmer Victoria) back in 1996-98 I ran a number of articles raising the alarm over the green land grab run by the World Wildlife Fund, ACF and others in cahoots with government departments. However, I have learned a lot more about property rights since then, thanks to the internet.
In fact this protest is globally significant because many fellow farmers and indeed property owners across the western world face similar bureaucratic takeovers brought about by the rapidly unfolding globalisation process. Can I recommend two on-line US radio stations - gcnlive.com and rbnlive.com - that bring much relevant information in this fight against the forces of unchecked corporate bureaucracies."

ALEX DAVIDSON said:
Agmates:
"Peter Spencer is on the right track with his analogy about someone taking 3/4 of your house and property.

Imagine buying a 4 bedroom home, then one day the government comes along and tells you to stop using 3 of your bedrooms. They tell you it's "in the public interest" because there are homeless people wandering the streets who need somewhere to sleep.

Not only do you no longer have the use of those bedrooms for say, your children, but when you come to sell, you’re faced with selling it as a 1 bedroom house that provides free accommodation for the homeless, instead of a private 4 bedroom home.

No-one would accept that without a fight.

Yet this is precisely what is happening to owners of freehold land affected by the native vegetation legislation. They are being forced to give up an activity which produces income – primary production – and instead engage in an activity which produces no income – carbon sinking. This is the type of stuff we used to read about happening in communist Russia or China. It completely undermines and overrides the concept of private ownership, and has no place in a country founded on principles of freedom and justice.

Those who piously suggest that landholders should reason with the government are being patronising or foolish or both. Thanks to the enormous tax revenues they help themselves to each year, governments have now become so powerful that they are no longer our servants, but our masters, expecting us to meekly obey every edict they issue, no matter how unjust or how insidiously it undermines our freedom. They no longer listen to reason, but to might – the might of popular opinion informed only by talkback radio or the popular media, or the might of money. Principles and justice mean nothing to them.

It is long past time for us to reclaim ownership over our own lives and property. That includes trees."


ONE TIME FEE SIMPLE OWNER IN QLD said
Agmates,
"You are only scratching the surface of the problem of removal of land rights in Australia. The Qld government has assumed sovereign control of all land in Queensland. They can register an interest in any title in Qld, city and country alike.
If and when they do this, the "owner" will have a piece of property you cannot sell, develop or do anything with(without government approval to do so).
While the high court of Australia has ruled in several cases that the Qld government cannot assume sovereignty, the Qld government thumbs its nose at the High Court. The Federal Government should be ashamed for not instituting legislation to protect Fee Simple rights.
You have my full support Agmates. The other labour states progress down the same
track as Qld while the National and Liberal government sit back and do nothing!!
This action reminds me of the suffragettes risking imprisonment and worse, to just achieve voting rights.
For the rest of Australia that think chopping down trees is not acceptable, please sit back and wait until your Fee Simple property is controlled totally by Government bureaucrats who have no concern about whether your property is worth what it was or not, or whether it is sustainable. I encourage you to be apathetic and loose you rights to the land and houses you have sweated your guts out to own. For those that don't believe me check with your legal representatives and ask them what Statutory Fee Simple is in Qld and what the difference is between this and Fee Simple.
Once you have confirmation it will be much easier for you to decide how to vote at the next Federal election."


FARMER JOHN FROM NSW said
Agmates:
"As a landowner I'm reluctant to condone tree chopping to get a point across to the Governments.
However I also understand Governments in Australia believe they must control everything, and the power they have "assumed", becomes all consuming in their lives, to control the remainder of the population. To achieve this control, they select committees to formulate policy using individuals and organisations that Governments know will support their views and ideals. Anyone else with a different and usually independent view point are sidelined to expidite Government desires for power and
control of the populus.
Then this is called "wide consultation" and "community concern" even when no representative community concern exists.
Examples of supposed independent organisations include Natural Resources Management Groups, Meat and Livestock Australia, Cattle Council and all the associated peak industry bodies, funded from our taxes and levies. as a result of their funding streams they have no alternative but to support the policies of the government of the day!
We as individual landowners/producers have no control even we are told we have control.
Realistically I would like to have some trees/scrub retained on my property and have the property viable so that I can preserve some of the native vegetation that exists there. However I can only control the weeds in the non-productive scrub if the remainder of the property is viable. One would have thought that the community would want this to happen.
In reality it isn't this way. Increasing government regulation of water, operating systems, addition levies to support Government bureaucracy destroys the profitability and destroys the residual bush as a result, because the farmer can no longer afford to maintain the native vegetation without weeds etc.etc. We all know there is a weed crisis in Australia and it will consume the residual bush unless Governments start working with farmers instead of trying to beat them into submission.
The Community and Government need to wake up to the fact that, if they want native vegetation they should think about carbon credits for residual bush and financial support for this "bush", without the draconian regulations, so that the residual bush can be preserved.
To expect farmers to sign over blocks of scrub to Heritage listing without
compensation is unrealistic at best".

CONCERNED URBAN HOME OWNER said
Agmates:
"Iam looking at the Farmers fight against the Native Vegetation Laws and the State Government via the Green movement from a “City Slickers” point of view. Following the story has been hard work for me but I think that I’m getting my head around the issues that “Chop a Tree” has stirred up particularly amongst what would seem to be mostly urban and city people, most of whom have probably never left their suburb. Unfortunately I fall into that category however; I have made plans at times to travel outside my “square” but have never fulfilled this ambition.

Correct me if I am wrong but could you answer the following points, as I see it, which seem to have stirred up such a storm.

1. That the State Government, through the Green lobbyists, has made laws that effectively remove the farmer’s ability to provide the food and fibre that all peoples need to survive? The environmental movement is a noble cause but surely producing food and clothes for all of us is also a noble cause, without which we would all surely perish!

2. We were brought up to believe that Australia was a common law country. The farmers make reference that Australia may be now not a common law country, is this true?

3. If it is true, that we are now not a common law country, aren’t we supposed to have a “Bill of Rights” or a new Constitution or something that takes the place of common law?

4. Don’t the Governments have to have a referendum or something to find out if we wanted common law to be removed and not replaced?

5. The farmers are claiming that the land that they purchased is their private property and is the same as anything that is purchased and then becomes the possession of the purchaser, is this true? I would have assumed that this is indeed true otherwise nobody could own anything.

6. Are the farmers saying that by default the Government through the Native Vegetation Laws have claimed some sort of ownership to the land that the farmers have purchased?

7. If the answer to 6 is yes, has the Government paid the farmers or entered into any agreements with the farmers for this ownership that would enable co-ownership of the land?

8. By the introduction of these laws, does this now mean that the Government can claim ownership of all the land in NSW simply by introducing whatever laws they like?

9. If the answer to 8 is yes; has anyone thought to inform the banks and other lending institutions that lend money to land owners and home owners so they can buy their first homes or land in general that the State Government is actually the legal owner of the land or home and not the person who signed the mortgage agreement?

10. Could this affect City and regional land and house values if the banks indeed did become aware and nervous about who actually owned the house and land?

11. If the Government can bring in laws of this nature is it possible that they could bring in laws that forced me, with my quarter acre block and modest home, to demolish my home if it was found that it did not meet some environmental law or any other law that they can think of?

12. Could the Government bring in laws that forced me to take in borders, refugees or anybody else and that I would have to feed and cloth them without payment?

13. If it is indeed possible for the State Government to make whatever laws they like, who or what is protecting society from the Government, given that history has shown that Governments of all descriptions are continually trying to control society by whatever means possible?

These are just some of my questions that have come to mind while observing this debate. As a house and land owner myself and an “Armchair” Green I am deeply disturbed that a lot of these questions and issues that the farmers have raised have not been put to the public and debated or for the Greens to explain because hell will freeze over before I would let any of the above become true".

JOHN CORDINGLEY said
Agmates:
"I have a question for you. If the government owns all our trees the carbon is still locked up when they are pushed into a windrow, should the government be asked to remove the dead timber from our properties?"

Agmates Comment: John I think if the Govt had it's way they'd own it but want you to leave it on your land at your expense. But if you burn the windrows you are emitting carbon into the atmosphere and they'd want you to pay for it. I think?

Click Here to go to Agmates News Page

Click Here to go to the most recent published Article.

Click Here to read Head Line Story on Crikey.com 04-07-2007


We'll publish Part 3 of Professor ratnapala's paper "Constitutional Vandalism Under Green Cover" tomorrow.

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers.