Journal of an Expedition into the Interior of Tropical Australia In Search of a Route from Sydney to the Gulf of Carpentaria (1848) by Lt. Col. Sir Thomas Livingstone Mitchell Kt. D.C.L. (1792-1855)
Surveyor-General of New South Wales

20th December, Goobang Creek Alectown NSW: ‘Reaching a hill laid down on my former survey, and from which I recognised Mount Laidley, I returned directly to the camp. We had encamped near those very springs mentioned as seen on my former journey, but instead of being limpid and surrounded by verdant grass, as they had been then, they were now trodden by cattle into muddy holes, where the poor natives had been endeavouring to protect a small portion from the cattle’s feet, and keep it pure, by laying over it trees they had cut down for the purpose. The change produced in the aspect of this formerly happy secluded valley, by the intrusion of cattle and the white man, was by no means favourable, and I could easily conceive how I, had I been an aboriginal native, should have felt and regretted that change.’

Mitchell proceeds down the river & finds to hard to find sufficent, unfouled, water holes.

4th January, Lower Bogan River: ‘We had crossed the neutral ground between the savage and the squatter. The advanced posts of an army are not better kept, and humiliating proofs that the white man had given way, were visible in the remains of dairies burnt down, stockyards in ruins, untrodden roads. We hoped to find within the territory of the native, ponds of clear water, unsoiled by cattle, and a surface on which we might track our own stray animals, without their being confused by the traces of others.’

Gee wiz, Paul, part of my riparian zone hasn’t been grazed since 1942 but when the pools in that part turn bright yellow/brown after rain it has nothing to do with what the stock have been doing elsewhere. It has everything to do with the run off of poor quality road base from the unpaved council road which now discharges directly into the creek.

I did not claim that cattle did zero harm to riparian zones. What I clearly said was that most modification by livestock is in the first decade of them being introduced. So when people like Janama go around playing “spot the cattle damage” they are usually looking at an historical modification which has been maintained by subsequent generations.

And as for your fenced riparian zones, perhaps you could tell us what area of land is involved and what area your farm is. And then you could also tell us how much native forest you have so we can work out the total ecological contribution you actually make.

What I usually find is that the folks who big note their riparian contributions are the ones with riparian zones comprising less than 5% of their property and hardly a stick anywhere else on the place. They then have the gall to suggest that folks with 30% to 70% forest cover should also be fencing off riparian zones that account for another 25% of their farm.

So how about some hard numbers, Paul?

Perhaps you should start a thread about something a little more credible, such as the existence or otherwise of fairies at the bottom of the garden

Lets face it, Janama, you are doing a standard shonk job. You take photos in the immediate aftermath of a one in twenty year flood. That flood has washed away a lot of the sediment that has built up over many years of smaller floods. As such larger events have done for millions of years.

So how about some google co-ords?

I also went 1km further upstream to show you a section of the same river where cattle didn’t access the creek, on either side of the bank.

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/river4.jpg

yet this section of river was impacted by the same flood. Note how the banks are still holding together and there is NO indication of erosion. Even the trees have remained rooted in the ground.

whereas where cattle did have access to the river

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/river5.jpg

the bank was badly damaged and eroded and the trees had been either washed away or had been removed.

I also pointed out that, on a grander scale, all rivers benefit by having NO cattle access

http://tinyurl.com/ksrbmq

you have replied to none of the latter points and just reverted to your typical abuse.

Now – I admit that I am not a farmer but then again neither are you. The difference is I live near to the river I photographed and reside in the country where on a daily basis I observe the actions of cattle on the environment. You on the other hand live in the the city and only spend the occasional weekend in an area overgrown with weeds that doesn’t run cattle any more.

The problem for you is that a good many readers do actually have a reasonable grasp of riverine geography. Perhaps your lack of it is a failing of the NZ education system, or maybe it is just your own failing. Readers can certainly contrast the simplistic interpretation you put on your own photo with the detailed, specific and verifiable interpretation provided by myself.

They can also observe the way you changed your position when you were shown to be wrong. First it was grazing pressure but then you retreated to a claim of direct hoof damage on a scale that would require regular traffic by a few hundred cattle at this single point along more than a kilometre of easily accessible river bank.

But you never substantiated your claim because even you could figure out that such an easily accessed river bank was no cause for cattle to concentrate on only one access point, as your theory demanded. You and your so-called experts forget that cattle will only be at a density of 1 animal/hectare. And that means that a square kilometre of land will only have 100 head. And if those 100 head have access to one kilometre of creek bank then, on the balance of probability only 5 animals will front up to each 50 metres of creek bank for a drink.

You showed us a photo of more than 100 metres of creek bank and expect us to believe that the hooves of 10 calm, unhurried animals made that much difference.

It was Aldous Huxley who said,

“to believe some things one must be an intellectual, ordinary men would never be so silly”.

Ordinary men and women have no trouble seeing right through your specious arguments, Janama. They don’t need google to find them a download of common sense.

or

take the word of Ian Mott, ex dairy farmer/accountant/employment agent from Main Arm/Brisbane, who runs a prickle farm on the weekends.