Your taking it all too literally and missing my point.
Im commenting about the hypocrisy of man and his need to blame everything but himself for everything he has done wrong to this planet.
But while were at it. It seems some people spend more time talking about tramping than tramping hahaha.
And human beings also are still doing burn-offs on leased pastoral land which contribute to erosion and destroy habitats and god knows what else. I saw a burn-off on Gladstone Station 5 years ago just so some manky merinos could gave a bit of extra spring grass to munch on. Meantime the adjoining station owned by the same elderly couple, was overrun with goats. But they were kept there as sport for allies of these people, including the local constabulary. It was the pits.
My link should of been clearer but forest and bird seem to have an ultimate aim of locking up the forests purely for the birds. They themselves acknowledge though that it will probably never happen even if they are Docs biggest lobby group.
The reality is everything anything does has an impact on everything else. A farmer cuts down one tree and thinks the birds will leave rather than risk death but in pring there might of been 5 or 6 nests there and even in winter thats space gone for 5 or 6 nests. Farmer builds a new cow shed to produce nice profitable milk. He even builds all the effluent disposal to the best possible standards but still he increases the nutrients going into the waterways effectively poisoning the river. Milk is pretty much keeping NZ running at the moment but it is one of the most polluting farming methods around. Its also one of the most water greedy and that water comes either directly or indirectly from our rivers. Look how many obviously used to be much bigger than they are today. To get the water in some areas they build huge irrigation schemes with rapids swallowing lakes. Pity about the blue duck. Canturbury is now mostly dairy but 30 years ago there was hardly a cow there. It was pirme grain country but dairy pays better. The system should recognise that what grows with minimum habitat modification is what should be grown but that will never happen.
The big reality is that the Earth is quite capable of supporting 2 billion people and we exceed that at our peril.
Last year, the United States grew enough crops to feed 11 billion people. Most of it was used to feed animals in CAFO's (confined animal feeding operations) and produce biofuel.
Organic farming in developed countries produces 92% of what can be produced conventionally but in the developing world, this efficiency rises to 182%.
oops, getting off-topic. How did that happen?
This post has been edited by the author on 1 February 2015 at 00:13.
Problem is producing all that food is at the expense of "less valuable" plants and animals
The day is coming when apart from humans the only plants and animals in existence will be those we can use. Of course we will have about 12 billion people by then. Imagine Wellington as a city of 2 million and Auckland 10 million.
The council want to increase the population of Christchurch to 2 million people by 2050, that would absolutely awful!
Christo, its bad enough now and we only have 400 000 people living here.
I ask: where is the water coming from for all these new bodies? It is hot and dry in Canterbury and supposed to get more so.
So we can have more people but we wont have enough water for them all.
