Apparently the Queensland LNP are continuing property purchase talks with the owners of 3 cattle stations in far South-West Queensland, for yet more millions.
Several questions are immediately obvious:
- Where is the money coming from to purchase these cattle stations. Some of it wouldn’t be from taxes paid by remaining cattle station owners, by any chance, would it?
- Where is the money going to come from to look after these large tracts of land, in perpetuity. Money to pay for feral animal and weed management, fire management, fencing and waters, etc. (Yes large cattle stations turned into National Parks usually do keep their man-made water supplies, because conservationists tacitly acknowledge that the introduction of year-round reliable water supply is beneficial for many native species.)
- In far northern coastal regions, what will the government do to help protect our coastline, in the absence of full-time, permanent residents?
But above all; how is it that:
- Conservationists repeatedly claim livestock grazing devastates native flora and fauna.
- Cattle stations that have been grazed by cattle for more than 100 years, are deemed “environmentally significant” and worth spending millions of dollars on to purchase.
Aren’t those two views contradictory?
Time after time, a private conservation body has purchased a cattle station with a big media song and dance about how rundown it is, how detrimental cattle have been to the environment, and how wonderful the new owners are, etc. Then within 1-2 years a media release appears, printed word-for-word without any questions from journalists. This glowing “advertorial” invariably trumpets the discovery of a new native species and the presence of healthy populations of a particular species or two previously thought absent from the area, or on the endangered list.
So where did this sudden plethora of native animals come from, so suddently? Were they happily co-existing all along, or did they walk, crawl or fly in from surrounding cattle stations? Did they hatch out of tiny eggs dormant in the sand for a century or two? NOBODY APPEARS TO BE ASKING!
Sometimes the land chosen for a National Park is picked primarily because it’s not good livestock grazing country. The Staaten River National Park is a prime example. So what’s the problem with this? If land is very poor grazing country, quite often it’s of relatively low value in terms of conservation – because the native flora and fauna are likely to be less prolific. In other words, it’s fairly pointless. On other occasions a large cattle station is purchased, because a relatively small part of it is deemed to be of special significance. Riversleigh Station is a classic example. The Queensland Government could have bought the section containing fossils and left the remainder of Riversleigh operating as a profitable cattle station. But no, conservationists demanded that the whole station was bought (subsequently, tonnes of rock were dynamited and loaded onto trucks and sent south to a university. So much for conservation, and the claim that cattle were damaging the fossils).
Surely are far more effective strategy is to assist cattle station owners, running a cattle station containing some land deemed to be of exceptional conservation value, manage it for the public good. Particularly special or sensitive areas can be fenced off, and managed without livestock, beside the land that runs cattle. Researchers, scientists and the public can enter the area of special conservation significance and the land owner can oversee the management of it all, with the assistance of specialist staff, as necessary. This has many benefits:
- Priceless, long-term local knowledge of the climate, flora and fauna and floods (eg especially valuable flood knowledge in Queensland’s Channel Country) etc is not lost; it continues to be passed on to the next generation of inhabitants who have their hearts in the surrounding region, which they often grew up in.
- Continuity – the family who have spent many years there remain living there, every day of the year, year in/year out, on the job 24/7. Unlike public servants who work shifts, have far more regular days off and holidays, and are in the job relatively short-term (a few years as distinct from a lifetime). The value of the longevity of local experience cannot be overestimated.
- The cattle country that is productive remains in production, earning a living for the resident family, paying the wages of employees and contractors, being circulated through local businesses and maintaining the social fabric of the local community. And producing valuable food and export income. The business profit helps pay for conservation measures.
- Instead of several million being spent upfront on buying a large slab of land, money can be spent long-term, rebating the cost of conservation-related fencing capital works and maintenance, water-related maintenance, feral animal and weed control, fire management and maintaining a road for public access.
A win/win arrangement for all involved, surely?
Unfortunately amongst many conservationists there seems to be a burning desire to OWN land, however poor the eventual outcome. It’s time governments and genuine conservationists sat down and did the long-term sums about how much is being squandered on purchasing cattle stations, leaving the bank account virtually devoid of funds to then well manage the land in perpetuity.
A few facts:
- The majority of people living on cattle stations have a personal interest in the environment. Many are interested in the native plants and animals on their land, and interested in preservation. Most are making frequent decisions regarding native flora and fauna preservation. Unfortunately farmers themselves take this for granted, and it’s not often mentioned publiclly.
- Yes there are a handful of owners of large tracts of land who are only interested in owning land for owning’s sake, and only interest in making a $ profit at any expense. If I had my way, the only land they’d own would be a high-rise capital city CBD unit. But this is a very small number of specific people.
- Conversely, the vast majority of urban landowners are appalling land managers. Many regularly use chemicals willy-nilly to control pests and weeds, fertilise lawns and other plants with impunity, manage water use very badly, and maintain a garden containing mostly or wholly introduced plant species, or Australian plants that aren’t native to the local area (and thus of little use to local fauna). Many own cats which are free to roam 24/7, thus cleaning up any native wildlife that has the misfortune to live in town. And trees of all descriptions and age are chopped down for any reason at all, without anyone batting an eyelid. There are only a tiny number of urban councils that insist on a permit before tree clearing, whereas in the bush landowner tree clearing is strictly regulated. The NIMBY conservation hypocrisy is galling.
The NewsLtd “story” on the purchase of Bingara, Werewilka and Boorara cattle stations is a classic example of totally unbiased pro lock-up-up-the-land reporting, in fact it reads just like a word-for-word private conservation group’s media release. One owner says he’s only been running 750 breeders on his land; and it states much of the land is ungrazed. “Environment reporter” Brian Williams states with breathy excitement that purchase of these three cattle stations would allow tourists to drive on a circuit. So, Queensland/Federal taxpayers are going to cough up more than $4 million, upfront, so that a relative handful of tourists can do a lap around one of the remotest parts of Australia? If there isn’t already a public road running along the route mentioned, and it’s a good idea, surely it’d be more intelligent just to purchase the right to put the road in, from the current landowners, than buy the whole lot? Madness squandering of hard-earned money that could be so much more effecitvely spent!
Tags: Australian cattle stations, Australian Beef Industry, Rural properties for sale and ownership, Conservation and the environment, Image of the bush