Section 2: Defining lower intensity farming for the purpose of an exception
1. Do you consider stocking rate (ie, SU/ha) is an appropriate measure to define lower intensity farming or do you recommend a different approach?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
A different approach
Please explain your answer here
Stocking rate is simply not relevant.
2. What do you think is the appropriate stocking rate threshold (in SU/ha) for the definition of lower intensity farming?
Please explain your answer here
See above.
3. Do you think there should be different stocking rate thresholds for beef cattle and deer, or one threshold for all stock types?
Please explain your answer here
See above.
4. Is there any other information that you think we should consider in relation to developing an exception for lower intensity farming?
Please write your answer here
Absolutely disagree with the whole concept
5. Do you consider that there are any situations where an exception for lower intensity farming should not apply, and the map should continue to apply?
Please explain your answer here
Only of any relevance if it has been established by definite scientific validation that there is a problem with a waterway from a farming activity.
6. Do you have any views on how those specific situations should be identified?
Please write your answer here
See above.
7. Is there information that is readily available to farmers and councils to support the implementation of an exception based on stocking rates?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Unsure
How is/should this information be used or shared by farmers and councils?
Need to start with long term data collection from significant waterways.
Section 3: Using certified freshwater farm plans
8. Do you consider that certified freshwater farm plans should be used as the basis for an exception, or an alternative, to the map and associated requirements to exclude stock?
Please explain your answer here
This is a Marxist approach to a problem that is ill defined.
9. Is there any other information that you think we should consider?
Please write your answer here
Definitely. How about establishing if there is actually a problem for a start.
Section 4: Stock exclusion for natural wetlands
10. Do you consider that an exception for lower intensity farming systems, or the alternative approach using certified freshwater farm plans, should apply more broadly to natural wetlands?
Please explain your answer here
Again there needs to be a lot more scientific scrutiny applied before we contemplate posing such a ridiculous question.
11. Are there any situations where any exception, or the alternative approach using certified freshwater farm plans, should not apply?
Please write your answer here
See above.
12. Is there any other information that you think we should we consider in relation to wetlands within lower intensity farming systems?
Please write your answer here
Absolutely. See above.
Section 5: Other issues
13. Do you consider the definition of a permanent fence is too prescriptive, and that other fence types should be included?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please explain your answer here
Absolutely. It is far from scientifically validated whether any of this is required.
14. Do you agree that amendments to the stock exclusion regulations should clarify that the map and associated requirements to exclude stock do not apply on slopes that are greater than 10 degrees?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Ticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Unsure
Please explain your answer here
This whole idea of drawing a line under a measurement figure of 10 degrees is so corrupt that it should be sent to the courts for a judicial review in which case it would certainly be exposed for the absolute lie it is.
15. Are you aware of any other issues with the stock exclusion regulations that should be addressed? And if so, why?
Please write your answer here
If the people in the government departments that dream this sort of rubbish up stopped to ponder what the economy would look like if we stopped agriculture exports (as they are trying their best to do) then this regulatory nightmare would surely disappear.
Provide general feedback
Any general feedback on the consultation
Add your comments, ideas, and feedback here
As above. A complete regulation nightmare based on a totally inadequate scientific platform.
The whole theatre needs a complete rework.
No problem in implementing valid techniques to mitigate an identified problem.
Farmers need to be responsible for their externalities but a broad brush approach like this which is being implemented is both inequitable and very harmful to our most productive sector which surprise surprise the whole economy depends on.
The whole theatre needs a complete rework.
No problem in implementing valid techniques to mitigate an identified problem.
Farmers need to be responsible for their externalities but a broad brush approach like this which is being implemented is both inequitable and very harmful to our most productive sector which surprise surprise the whole economy depends on.