Uncategorized

looking for local farmer fined land clearing 5 -6 years ago

I was looking for recent report on TV  re 'Dingo' Graziers fined 110 thousand dollars for land clearing… rant on re environmental damage tree & animal species..

ha ha… no mention of the properties on rivers ruined re mining activities.. here is what I got instead…

Agenda 21 Downunder: Laws of the land create an unjust environment

Posted on

 April 10, 2011 by Dr. Ed

by John MikkelsenThe Punch

Justice may be blind, but many Australian farmers find the scales are tipped against them as they struggle to come to terms with a growing minefield of environmental regulations on top of other natural enemies.

They are not fighting the concept of land management, but the way in which their properties can be ‘locked up’ or confiscated without proper compensation. They can be prosecuted for something suddenly illegal under frequent amendments to vegetation laws which can be applied retrospectively. The farmer is virtually presumed guilty until innocence can be proven, often at great expense.

Those who live in cities and urban areas might find this difficult to comprehend. The following events are more suited to a communist dictatorship but they happened in our “free country” …

A former New South Wales grazier tells of how a helicopter zoomed low over her property, startling cattle and horses, including one ridden by her teenage daughter.

She claims this was part of intimidation and threats stemming from a legal clearing permit over a small portion of the land. This conflicted with a later wilderness nomination over part of the property bordering a national park.

Eventually the family lost their costly battle to keep the place they thought was paradise and last year she gave evidence under protection to the Senate inquiry into native vegetation laws.

In her own words:

I had high conservation on my land, endangered ecological communities, threatened species, the biodiversity jack pot! 
I had a legal clearing permit that did not interfere with any of the biodiversity.

I had a productive property, good income. Then I had a Wilderness Nomination over my land. This assessment identified where my family lived and worked. It was on public display for every green extremist group to comment on – but more than that – to physically threaten my children, my spouse, to ring and threaten to burn us out in the middle of the night, out of our home, hover over our children in a helicopter and have our young daughter dragged on her horse.

Why? Because we had a legal clearing permit, but we also had a Wilderness Nomination; two legislations at loggerheads, with a family, and an environment that we looked after actively, caught in the middle.

We were forced off our property, which is now a national park. We lost $2.4 million for ‘the good of the environment’.

The property has now lost the endangered species that we looked after … the biodiversity lost, our family lost. The ill conceived laws won…

Another landholder tells a similar story:

My family have owned this land for 36 years, practicing entirely environmentally correct procedures to the point where the land is highly prized for its biodiversity. For the last nine years we have been trying to build a three-bedroom, very humble house on it. The environmentalists have decided they like the land and it’s entirely too dangerous to clear one hectare for the house, out of a total of 133 hectares.

The Land and Environment Court has now decided the clearing of the house is OK (after thousands and thousands of dollars spent on environmental studies funded by me), but they’re not sure of the environmental effect of me actually living in the house!

The threatening processes which may ‘damage the environment to the point of extinction’ are: bird watching, bushwalking, walking the dog. This is no joke. The enviro-loonies are trying to have us lock up the 132 hectares ‘in perpetuity’ in return for the house.

In the meantime, we pay rates, maintain tracks, repair fences (frequently broken because we can’t clear the fence line of trees adequately), hand weed 133 hectares … Don’t tell me this legislation is correct…

Some have received national recognition – such as Peter Spencer, who drew worldwide media attention to property rights with his 52-day Tower of Hope hunger strike. He sought compensation after 80 per cent of his property ‘Saarahnlee’ near Canberra was locked up to help Australia meet its Kyoto carbon abatement commitments.

Almost two years on, his court hearings continue.

West Australian couple, Matt and Janet Thompson, invested millions of dollars in their feedlot property before coming under siege from receivers attempting to evict them and their four young children after a long- running dispute with the Department of Environment and Conservation. This resulted in rapid foreclosure by one of the major banks, and their court hearings are also continuing.

WA farmer Maxwell Szulc, last year was jailed for 90 days for contempt after clearing 45 hectares for firebreaks on his property where he had previously held a permit to clear a much larger area. On his release, Mr Szulc said his stint in jail had strengthened his resolve to fight for landowners’ rights.

The topic of clearing for fire control stirred much debate in the wake of Victoria’s disastrous Black Saturday bushfires, with many claiming the destruction and death toll on humans and animals was worsened by environmental laws.

Landowner Liam Sheahan was fined $50,000 for clearing a firebreak which he believes saved his family’s life. The Age reported the Sheahans’ 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy. Do Victoria’s native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

The burning issue of fires spreading from national parks onto neighbouring properties has also been raised in NSW and other states. In Queensland, some farmers claimed the build up of undergrowth and debris which they were prevented from clearing in dry creek beds had worsened the flood situation, destroying fences and contributing to the fatal ‘inland tsumani” which swept through the fertile Lockyer Valley.

Disputes over land issues are a familiar theme for central Queensland grazier Ron Bahnisch, chairman of national advocacy group Property Rights Australia. His organisation has supported many cases where the landholder has not blatantly breached vegetation laws and it believes there is a good chance of winning.

He said the administration of Vegetation Acts in Queensland and NSW had stripped suspected clearing offenders of all normal civil rights.

“The arrogance of government witnesses in these cases stems to some extent from the comprehensive executive and judiciary powers given them by the relevant Acts. It is a case of, quoting Henry the Eighth, ‘The law is in my mouth’. If it is not legal today, it will be tomorrow, passed with retrospective effect,”

Mr Bahnisch said. Some of these cases have aroused much discussion on the PRA group site at Just Grounds where the call is “Stand your Ground”.

The situation cries out for a sensible balance of landholders’ rights, and sustainable environmental controls, if we value quality Australian food and valuable export income.

The two should not be at war./

—  I  did not add a comment even though it looks like word press format – something else…

this may be what I heard…Adrian Taylor | 15th July 2010

A CONTRACTOR who cleared the equivalent of 930 rugby pitches of endangered remnant vegetation without a permit has been fined $20,000 in Rockhampton Magistrates Court.

Donald Charles Edmistone, who pleaded guilty to clearing native vegetation on a property at Dingo, was hit with the biggest fine yet handed to a contractor for the offence.

Magistrate John McGrath heard Edmistone used a bulldozer to clear 465 hectares of land and was paid $73,000 by the owner of Orange Grove for the work. The contractor claimed he believed a permit had been obtained. The owner is facing a separate prosecution under the Integrated Planning Act and Sustainable Planning Act and will appear before Rockhampton Magistrates Court next month.

The property, about 150 kilometres west of Rockhampton, may well have been a habitat for endangered animal species which lived in the vegetation that was destroyed.

Reuben Carlos, the director of litigation for the Department of Environment and Resource Management, welcomed the punishment and said it would act as a deterrent to other contractors.

“Contractors have a responsibility to check whether permits to clear land are required and if so whether the landholder has obtained those permits.

“They must make sure the property owner has gone through the proper channels before any clearing is carried out,” he said.

The court was told Edmistone had co-operated with investigators from DERM and had immediately admitted his liability.

“The department is determined to protect Queensland’s vegetation and prosecute those who do the wrong thing,” said Mr Carlos. He advised landholders who are considering clearing their land to consult the relevant local government, the department and appropriate Federal departments before carrying out any work.

Contractors have a responsibility to check whether permits to clear land are required.''

The department is determined to protect Queensland’s vegetation

[ note the map.. slap bang on River! –  like no one will care… search comes up.. only authorised 'search'  to discover what is really going on!]

Another on in local Blackwater Herald  called the ''Stanmore McKenzie Project.''

NOW I SEARCH WITH 
'BING'    getting somewhere..

P  click on map & wow.. scroll  down & you see east of Blackwater, north of Rail Line…  just about where Bluff Old workings. ''NEW CAMBRIA''   where there is drilling going on now & there is evidence of road deteriation –  no charges made until they go into production, then local council/s can bill them for road wear & tear.. some  law!

this is enough to digest in one letter, eh?
Pamela Ida

Advertisements
Standard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s