New Zealand Gold Prospecting & Metal Detecting Forums Archive

The forum has moved to community.paydirt.co.nz, see you there!

This forum is now an archive to preserve the knowledge and finds posted here.

5 Pages«<2 345 >

GREENSTONE ON THE WEST COAST

gogold		Posted : Monday, 17 September 2012 11:25:49 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 5/01/2012(UTC) Posts: 217 Location: gore Thanks: 4 times Was thanked: 56 time(s) in 45 post(s)		Originally Posted by: Lammerlaw Originally Posted by: gogold Originally Posted by: simon just watched the ones news close up story on the ngai tahu guy not playing the game with ngai tahu the business unit. what bullshit. the whole story sums up the problem. this dude and his family have been doing the traditional greenstone collecting thing and carving and selling it forever. along comes the business unit and get the cops on him. why? because he's not giving them a commission on what he sells, along with joining up for their newly formed little monopoly greenstone market. fair enough not letting whiteys in in helicopters to take huge chunks. but this is not what was happening. he was simply collecting the stuff on foot. seems to be more about money than investing in their people's welfare, future, and employment. it is most certainly all about money, the sad part about it is the few people at the top are making disgustingly large amounts of money all in the name of maori people. im sure that a large percentage of these maori tribes do not even see one cent while their leaders live a life of luxury. i see now a north island tribe is trying to claim wind rights now, when is it going to end??? 1) Ngai Tahu give generous grants to their beneficiaries - they have a banking scheme whereby the young people are encourged to bank and for every dollar they bank Ngai Tahu will subsidise it dollar for dollar up to I think 100/100 per year or 200/200 per year - the oldies get a monetary gift every year, generous Educational Grants are made and every runanga and there are eighteen of them get substantial funding every year to run their projects and businesses. 2)Now you think about wind and water rights and think about them carefully - initially I thought it was a load of baloney as we should all own them - after all we are all New Zealanders BUT have we all done anything about the governments crooked offshore dealings - they are selling the power companies to offshore interests/shareholders - what does that mean? it means that offshore interests are using OUR water and OUR wind to make money! If we own the water and wind then we control the rights to the money - certain Maori tribes realised this and have done something about the rights to the water being owned by Maori - personally I think it should be all New Zealanders but better Maori control the wind and water than offshore interests. As it is right now Federated Farmers think they own the water as the well to do farmers have water rights that allow them to nearly drain the rivers without thought nor consideration for the wild life and fisheries, fishermen, boaties, picnickers and swimmers, gold fossickers and all other decent Kiwis who want a day by the river. In Early December last year I could have walked across EVERY river between Dunedin and Christchurch including the Waitaki anjd Rakaia without swimming. What is going on in this country is totally criminal. lammerlaw i think that maybe you should also think very carefully about this too... wind and water rights are alot differnt to ownership of a hydro/wind power plant, sure the government should not be selling these assets BUT they are trying to sell the facilitys/bussiness that generates power, they are not selling the RIGHTS to water or wind. If the rights to the water/wind were to say get granted to the maori then that would mean they would control it which would in effect mean that they could decide the uses of that water/wind and also who can use that resource. now think of all the implications it could have if they wanted to charge a fee to use these resources,maybe maori tribes wouldnt charge for this now but think about maybe 50,100,150 years down the track (if we havent completely destroyed our planet by then) then how much will it cost to dry my clothes outside, cup of water,shower swim etc. we are already compensating maori now for "taking from them" and it has taken 170 + years and it is still not settled and we a re still paying for that. what say in another 100 years maori then will think the maori of today were hard done by and shafted by white man the vicious circle will continue. wind and water RIGHTS belong to all new zealanders. Edited by user Monday, 17 September 2012 11:36:28 PM(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified

Lammerlaw		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:09:33 AM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,721 Thanks: 72 times Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)		gogold - BUT the government already sells the right to the water and the air - you can look at it in two different ways - I think you are looking at it one way and me another - the way I look at it is that the Maori wish to claim the air and the water to sell the rights to use it - At this point in time the Government are doing that - now I prefer it all to stay in the hands of the government totally and for it to never get into the hands of the Maori people OR any Private business or offshore interests - I am certain that offshore bankers dictate what our government decides and offshore bankers are behind these moves and this is the Maori way of attempting to prevent it...maybe elements within Maoridom are a little more astute than the populace at large and saying "Well bugger you," to the Government, "if you are going to sell what belongs to the people then we, the Maori people, claim it as ours" and lets face it - better the Moari own it than foreign bastards - and better the people of New Zealand own it than any one culture or race. Farmers and others PAY for water rights as the water use consents can be costly - if Maori own it then I have funny suspicion that the rivers would carry more water and that less would be drawn off to feed huge irrigation schemes to the benefit of a relatively few farmers make millions at the expense of the fisheries, water quality and other water users - I attend meetings to this end and have a vested interest in the protection of OUR waterways on behalf of the Maori people, fishermen, ordinary people who wish to use the rivers in their natural and pristine condition and to pass on this heritage to their children. Do you want this in New Zealand - 'Caleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, has issued a urgent call to show opposition to the state-federal plan to build a peripheral canal or tunnels at a rally on the West Steps of the State Capitol in Sacramento on Wednesday, July 25 starting at noon. Governor Jerry Brown is expected on or near July 25 to announce his plans to build two gigantic tunnels to divert Sacramento River south to corporate agribusiness and southern California, killing Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt and other species and destroying the estuary.' This is going to DESTROY the river totally over a distance of several miles...do you want that here? The source of this information is from the very tribe who lives along these waters and who had to come to New Zealand to get ova to restock their river because the Salmon had all gone...it is lucky for the Winnemen Wintu that New Zealand got its Salmon ova from there to stock our rivers and now we have returned the gift...something that no one ever thought would be necessary - such the white mans respect for the environment - yes maybe it IS better that Maori own the water. While government own the water this WILL happen as the government including Department of Constipation bow, crawl and lick the arses of Federated Farmers - if the water is sold offshore then it will be even worse - If Maori own the water then it WILL BE PROTECTED as all that is precious to Maori is dependent on water. If Maori own the wind neither them nor anyone else can charge for the wind as it is BUT they can charge power companies a royalty on the electricity generated by that wind - no more - no less...and THAT is the crux of the matter. In a sense the power companies 'own the wind' as they use it free of charge to make money! Just this minute on Television New Zealands top criminal stated 'NO ONE OWNS WATER' - this person WILL change his mind subtly when the time is right and all New Zealanders will lose. I prefer the government own the water BUT I prefer that Federated Farmers have no say in its use and that Maori have the say as to how much is drawn off as it is in Maoridoms interest and in the interest of the boaties and fishermen that there be a fair and reasonable amount of water in the streams and rivers so that during drought NO water is drawn off. Back to Greenstone??? Edited by user Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:12:17 AM(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified

gogold		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 1:10:20 AM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 5/01/2012(UTC) Posts: 217 Location: gore Thanks: 4 times Was thanked: 56 time(s) in 45 post(s)		i agree with you that it needs to be protected somehow, but as a from a as a non maori new zealander i see it as nz losing more to the maori, and this from my point of view is no different then foriegners owning it. where is the benefit to newzealanders if maori charge a fee for the use of wind and water? as you have stated in a few of your posts on this thread the only people it will benefit would be the "Beneficiaries" of the tribe. and the result off a fee would be passed onto electricity users, so simply if maori want to charge it comes out of my pocket anyway. with the issue of irrigation i believe it has been well intruly raped and has done irreversable damage to rivers and aquifers and that in the canterbury region they are farming well beyond their means in the water department, my personal oppinion is that if you cant farm relying on nature and need to pump then dont farm there, simple. but unfortunately greed for money drives greed for water. you "have funny suspicion that the rivers would carry more water and that less would be drawn off to feed huge irrigation schemes" now i think that this is where the s**t fight will really begin as i have also have a funny suspicion that the farms top priority for irrigation from these waters will of course be the maori owned farms or the farms with maori interests. as a non maori of today and also the maori of today we had no part in the original treaty agreements, yet non maori of today are paying for it and the maori of today benefiting greatly from this. from a non moari point of veiw it seems that maori are a very greedy race, all i see is maori take take taking everything money,land,rights they want everything. funny enough the same situation that started this whole thing!! i do not see why we have to pay for mistakes our ancestors made. lammerlaw im sure you wouldnt want to go to jail because one of your ancestors got away with murder and you had to pay for their wrong doings. I think that the maori fighting these asset sales are on the right track just dont fight for maori rights they should fight for all new zealanders right, im sure if they done that they will get alot more support from the public

rgmcbrid		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:34:21 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC) Posts: 583 Location: Southland Thanks: 23 times Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)		A few comments on irrigation, which in principle I am totally in favour of; first, agriculture is a huge industry in New Zealand. A large percentage of the manufacturing and service industries are directly related (think meat works dairy factories etc). The only advantage that New Zealand has over pretty much every other country on earth is that New Zealand can grow clover year round. This is very significant in that this makes grazing livestock much less expensive here than anywhere else and New Zealand is therefore very competitive in the export markets. For example it costs about 4 times as much to feed a dairy cow grain in the US as it does to feed the same cow grass in New Zealand. Because the amount of farmland is limited, the only way to increase production is through genetics, grazing practices, fertilization, and irrigation (all of which are done). And irrigation is by far the most effective and can increase farm production in areas like Canterbury 300%? (wild guess). In dry places like the McKenzie basin it is probably more like 1000%. Increasing production in any industry means more jobs and more exports and it therefore good for everyone. That is not to say that rivers with water flowing into the ocean have no value, they do. I think the objective should be to have both. There is for example an irrigation system going in near Geraldine that will catch water from the Rangitata when it is high in the winter and store it in reservoirs to use when the river is low in summer. This will have no effect on the river and huge effect on the farms that will be irrigated. Again, this is not just benefiting the farmer it is benefiting everyone. As far as Maori ownership of water goes, we have seen what they did when they got the rights to Greenstone. Lesson learned.
		WWW

NUGGY		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 1:07:30 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 20/07/2012(UTC) Posts: 267 Location: greymouth Thanks: 85 times Was thanked: 76 time(s) in 58 post(s)		Originally Posted by: NUGGY As a jade carver who knows Bevan ( the guy on tv tonight ) I have to say things are in a bad way with the greenstone industry. Bevan has a good and sharing attitude toward the stone and is generous with passing on his knowledge and skills too. He does say what he believes and did so in the case against the helicopter pilots too. He is now being punished for giving evidence on their behalf. Ngai Tahu were given control of the stone in the pounamu vesting act, and most within the industry thought they would continue acting much as the crown had; ie selling mining consents and getting a royalty from new stone as it was taken. Perhaps even sell a gathering permit for the small stuff on well picked over areas. Instead their higher ups decided they would try to monopolise the whole industry, they are attempting to extract every cent they can from every level of the industry. Pay a registration fee, pay for the stone, pay a percentage again from every piece sold, forget it, I'd rather give up. Stone is being withheld from the carvers in an attempt to force up the price. The small amount of stone for sale on their web site appears to be very poor quality and ridiculously overpriced. They claim that all stone is either; sourced through them, imported or stolen black market jade. This is an attempt to illigitimise (to coin a word) all of the unworked stone that has been legally sold, given, found, mined from jade mining permits or just been around local family homes for generations. The quantities involved are quite large, for example just 3 miners in South Westland took out around 60 tons each of stone in just the last year of their mining licences. Westland Greenstone Ltd recently sold several tonnes they apparently didn't need. A few local families gathered stone and supplied factories for generations and still have a few tons lying around. All together this is a lot of pounamu, all totally legally obtained. Casting doubt on the legality of this stone, can only be seen as an attempt to obtain it for no outlay. It's all about the money. I guess you can take this as an example of how they would act if they ever got control of foreshore and seabed. Nuggy Or air and water! My position remains the same, regarding air and water ownership. I don't fancy my kids having to go to the Ngai-Tahu office to buy a breathing/drinking permit! Old time American Indian once said, words to the effect - men arguing over who owns the land is no different than 2 fleas arguing which owns the dog they live on. I'm pretty apolitical normally, and have often said, "all politicians are scum - don't vote for the bastards it only encourages them. Later Nuggy Edited by user Tuesday, 18 September 2012 1:11:09 PM(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified

Lammerlaw		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 1:14:23 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,721 Thanks: 72 times Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)		Originally Posted by: rgmcbrid A few comments on irrigation, which in principle I am totally in favour of; first, agriculture is a huge industry in New Zealand. A large percentage of the manufacturing and service industries are directly related (think meat works dairy factories etc). The only advantage that New Zealand has over pretty much every other country on earth is that New Zealand can grow clover year round. This is very significant in that this makes grazing livestock much less expensive here than anywhere else and New Zealand is therefore very competitive in the export markets. For example it costs about 4 times as much to feed a dairy cow grain in the US as it does to feed the same cow grass in New Zealand. Because the amount of farmland is limited, the only way to increase production is through genetics, grazing practices, fertilization, and irrigation (all of which are done). And irrigation is by far the most effective and can increase farm production in areas like Canterbury 300%? (wild guess). In dry places like the McKenzie basin it is probably more like 1000%. Increasing production in any industry means more jobs and more exports and it therefore good for everyone. That is not to say that rivers with water flowing into the ocean have no value, they do. I think the objective should be to have both. There is for example an irrigation system going in near Geraldine that will catch water from the Rangitata when it is high in the winter and store it in reservoirs to use when the river is low in summer. This will have no effect on the river and huge effect on the farms that will be irrigated. Again, this is not just benefiting the farmer it is benefiting everyone. As far as Maori ownership of water goes, we have seen what they did when they got the rights to Greenstone. Lesson learned. Fonterra - you really have to be joking - Really Robert I honestly do wo ner your agenda - I am directly involved in water usage and purity - indeed I had to speak to this subject not so long ago - I have to draught a letter relating to the misuse of the environment in part of Canterbury which is actually my area of jurisdiction - next week I will be doing water surveys - let me assure you that the McKenzie basin should not be developed - create jobs - what a load of bullshit - the owners of these outfits become bigger and bigger and when they reach a certain size they LAY OFF STAFF and go mechanized - the cows more or less live in what is known in the US as feedlots - intensive farming operations all automated - the cows go get milked when they are ready sensors place the milking apparatus and where a thousand acres once supported five economic units giving an good living to five families now one person owns it and they employ one married couple. I know of, in Canterbury one farming operation which once had twenty six homes giving a living to twenty six families and is now owned entirely by two people form one familly and employs a tractor driver and a herd manager and that is all. It is a total misconception that what you suggest gives more employment and certainly not in the long run! Really? - milk your own cow/ Who? try putting a cow in your backyard - what a load of crap - sorry Robert but what you say is not correct - those who can milk their own cow...OFTEN DO because they live in a rural environment! Monopolies force prices up! Indeed you have actually contradicted yourself in relationship to something you said away earlier You are in favour of irrigation? - Once again RObert why dont you tell us about the irrigation in your home country - indeed in your homw state - I suggest you do some research into the draw of of water from the Rio Grande and the effect of that water on the new pastures it helped create after the water travelling through canals leaching the salt and minerals from the canals bedrock and lining and depositing it onto the pastures. You do some research and then ask the guys on this site if they want to see it happen here - Ask them if they want their fishing destroyed by dams and diversion canals - already the New Zealand Salmon runs are very depleted and the rivers run at a fraction of their normal or natural flow. I know that you will be well aware of what more people are not aware of and that is the fact that high capacity underground pumps are draining the Aquifers and thus contributing to the depletion of the rivers themselves. You also know Robert that in irrigation there is huge water wastage through evaporation and unused water ponding in paddocks, road sides and ditches - dont believe me? keep your eyes wide open travelling between Oamaru and Makikihi. Dont believe me - Go and have a look at the unused water which should have continued flowing down the Waitaki River emptying into the Waihao river down stream from the railway bridge...wasted. I have just received and read the first results form the first survey we did into water quality from projects such as you advocate - the water is dangerously unhealthy as a result of being used to irrigate farms and draining off into the waterways carrying pesticides, herbicides and affluent - since the year 1975 and bed of the Waihao river below Willowbridge Creek to its mouth as turned from apristine gravel bed into a mud bed with constant Algal growth rotting, sinking into the bottom turning into a putrid grey mud and producing methane - good on you Robert for advocating that we New Zealanders destroy our country because what you suggest is indeed doing so - why are you advocating this? Tell us Robert - where would you get rid of hundreds of ton of cow crap from just one farm? treat it? How? what is the by product? the by product is nutrient rich and helps pastures grow and grow - and in the rivers...go look for yourself. You know and I know that what you suggest and advocate benefits only the wealthy and greedy and Not THE POPULACE AT LARGE. Why do you advocate all this. You statements are so seriously flawed as to be a joke - What is wrong with continuing mixed farming on and Canterbury Plains - more environmentally friendly - MORE JOBS because of tractor driving and tilling the soil, shearing, cropping etc and just as good an income. Our environment cannot sustain the methods of farming you advocate. As for the McKenzie country - if you want to ruin a country and alter it to the degree you suggest then I would love to know how much support you would get from good old New Zealanders. Personally I say to leave it as it is - ruin the goold old US of A if you want and sell the country to the tourists - they dont want to come and see feedlots spoiling the view of Mount Cook when they can see feedlots spoiling the view back home!

Lammerlaw		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 1:19:10 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,721 Thanks: 72 times Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)		Originally Posted by: rgmcbrid A few comments on irrigation, which in principle I am totally in favour of; first, agriculture is a huge industry in New Zealand. A large percentage of the manufacturing and service industries are directly related (think meat works dairy factories etc). The only advantage that New Zealand has over pretty much every other country on earth is that New Zealand can grow clover year round. This is very significant in that this makes grazing livestock much less expensive here than anywhere else and New Zealand is therefore very competitive in the export markets. For example it costs about 4 times as much to feed a dairy cow grain in the US as it does to feed the same cow grass in New Zealand. Because the amount of farmland is limited, the only way to increase production is through genetics, grazing practices, fertilization, and irrigation (all of which are done). And irrigation is by far the most effective and can increase farm production in areas like Canterbury 300%? (wild guess). In dry places like the McKenzie basin it is probably more like 1000%. Increasing production in any industry means more jobs and more exports and it therefore good for everyone. That is not to say that rivers with water flowing into the ocean have no value, they do. I think the objective should be to have both. There is for example an irrigation system going in near Geraldine that will catch water from the Rangitata when it is high in the winter and store it in reservoirs to use when the river is low in summer. This will have no effect on the river and huge effect on the farms that will be irrigated. Again, this is not just benefiting the farmer it is benefiting everyone. As far as Maori ownership of water goes, we have seen what they did when they got the rights to Greenstone. Lesson learned. Fonterra - you really have to be joking - Really Robert I honestly do wodner your agenda - I am directly involved in water usage and purity - indeed I had to speak to this subject not so long ago - I have to draught a letter relating to the misuse of the environment in part of Canterbury which is actually my area of jurisdiction - next week I will be doing water surveys - let me assure you that the McKenzie basin should not be developed - create jobs - what a load of bullshit - the owners of these outfits become bigger and bigger and when they reach a certain size they LAY OFF STAFF and go mechanized and computerized - the cows more or less live in what is known in the US as feedlots - intensive farming operations all automated - the cows go get milked when they are ready sensors place the milking apparatus and where a thousand acres once supported five economic units giving an good living to five families now one person owns it and they employ one married couple. I know of, in Canterbury one farming operation which once had twenty six homes giving a living to twenty six families and is now owned entirely by two people form one familly and employs a tractor driver and a herd manager and that is all. It is a total misconception that what you suggest gives more employment and certainly not in the long run! Really? - milk your own cow/ Who? try putting a cow in your backyard - what a load of crap - sorry Robert but what you say is not correct - those who can milk their own cow...OFTEN DO because they live in a rural environment! Monopolies force prices up! Indeed you have actually contradicted yourself in relationship to something you said away earlier You are in favour of irrigation? - Once again Robert why dont you tell us about the irrigation in your home country - indeed in your homw state - I suggest you do some research into the draw of of water from the Rio Grande and the effect of that water on the new pastures it helped create after the water travelling through canals leaching the salt and minerals from the canals bedrock and lining and depositing it onto the pastures. You do some research and then ask the guys on this site if they want to see it happen here - Ask them if they want their fishing destroyed by dams and diversion canals - already the New Zealand Salmon runs are very depleted and the rivers run at a fraction of their normal or natural flow. I know that you will be well aware of what more people are not aware of and that is the fact that high capacity underground pumps are draining the Aquifers and thus contributing to the depletion of the rivers themselves. You also know Robert that in irrigation there is huge water wastage through evaporation and unused water ponding in paddocks, road sides and ditches - dont believe me? keep your eyes wide open travelling between Oamaru and Makikihi. Dont believe me - Go and have a look at the unused water which should have continued flowing down the Waitaki River emptying into the Waihao river down stream from the railway bridge...wasted. I have just received and read the first results form the first survey we did into water quality from projects such as you advocate - the water is dangerously unhealthy as a result of being used to irrigate farms and draining off into the waterways carrying pesticides, herbicides and affluent - since the year 1975 and bed of the Waihao river below Willowbridge Creek to its mouth as turned from apristine gravel bed into a mud bed with constant Algal growth rotting, sinking into the bottom turning into a putrid grey mud and producing methane - good on you Robert for advocating that we New Zealanders destroy our country because what you suggest is indeed doing so - why are you advocating this? Tell us Robert - where would you get rid of hundreds of ton of cow crap from just one farm? treat it? How? what is the by product? the by product is nutrient rich and helps pastures grow and grow - and in the rivers...go look for yourself. You know and I know that what you suggest and advocate benefits only the wealthy and greedy and Not THE POPULACE AT LARGE. Why do you advocate all this. You statements are so seriously flawed as to be a joke - What is wrong with continuing mixed farming on and Canterbury Plains - more environmentally friendly - MORE JOBS because of tractor driving and tilling the soil, shearing, cropping etc and just as good an income. Our environment cannot sustain the methods of farming you advocate. As for the McKenzie country - if you want to ruin a country and alter it to the degree you suggest then I would love to know how much support you would get from good old New Zealanders. Personally I say to leave it as it is - ruin the goold old US of A if you want and sell the country to the tourists - they dont want to come and see feedlots spoiling the view of Mount Cook when they can see feedlots spoiling the view back home!

rgmcbrid		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 3:19:12 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC) Posts: 583 Location: Southland Thanks: 23 times Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)		Lammerlaw, Huh, I thought you would have gone on a rant about my not trusting the Maoris with water and Air. Which by the way I am proud to say was on topic. I am mentioning it again so that I can say this post is on topic as well. Regardless I am still going to give your rant 3 stars for passion and volume. I am intimately aware of how irrigation works all over the US. For starters, the Rio Grand is about 1000 miles away from my home state, you are probably thinking of the Colorado River. Technically speaking this is completely inaccurate: “water travelling through canals leaching the salt and minerals from the canals bedrock and lining and depositing it onto the pastures” as is much of what you say. I could write a volume explaining salt and irrigation in the Western US, but I don’t really feel like it and since it isn’t applicable to New Zealand which isn’t a desert and never was an inland sea so it isn’t relevant anyway. I am also intimately well aware of how farming systems work, nutrient management being a large part of my job. As I said in the post above in New Zealand it is much cheaper to graze dairy cows on pasture than it is to feed them in a barn (robotic or otherwise). Why are we even talking about this? This is also irrelevant. Note that any livestock can be grazed on irrigated pasture, not just Fonterra cows. Irrigation is also used to grow crops besides pasture. So why are we talking about Fonterra? I seem to spend a great deal of time responding to inaccurate off subject details rather than the broad overall subject. As far as being detrimental to the environment, yes there are concerns with irrigation as there are with everything. As with most things it comes down to management, if you do a good job irrigating the effect on the environment is negligible. Actually irrigated pasture is a hell of a lot friendlier to the environment in Canterbury than the dryland cropping that preceded it. And I didn’t say that I endorsed irrigation in the McKenzie Basin, I used it as an example of what could be gained from irrigation. Although if there is water available I see no problem with it, a huge swath of it is already irrigated and that isn’t hurting anything but the rabbit population. New Zealand farming, including the irrigated parts, is about as clean and green as it gets anywhere in the world. Kiwis should be proud of their agriculture and associated industries, not treating them like a red headed step child. I felt the most fascinating part of your post was the part where you suggested that 26 families living on a farm producing 1/3 as much dryland farming would be economically superior to one family producing 3 times as much under irrigation. This could only be true if you put a very high value on misery and suffering. Eagerly looking forward to your next post.
		WWW

icemaneli		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 4:01:53 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Flake Groups: Registered Joined: 5/09/2012(UTC) Posts: 19 Location: Darfield Thanks: 1 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)		I think both of you are so far separated in your opinions that this thread is never going to end. rgmcbird you say that irrigation is not detrimental if managed correctly. Can you define what exactly is good management because current current water management in Canterbury is far from it. I live in the 'Red Zone' for water consents where the water table (unconfined aquifer) has dropped so far that no more consents are supposed to be granted and yet a few months ago our dairy farming neighbours managed to get a consent for 150 L/s take, or something ridiculous like that even after every consent holder in a 5km radius disagreed. Good management? I think not. On top of that you say "you do a good job irrigating the effect on the environment is negligible", what constitutes a good job irrigating, flooding your paddocks or trying to conserve water?. In any case its not the water being used to irrigate that contaminates streams and groundwater its the chemical alteration of the water as it peculates down though the soil profile leaching soluble minerals into solution. So whether you are using a lot or a little water its ultimately what's on/in the paddocks that determines the draining water quality. increasing irrigation just increases run-off and thus more alteration. The McKenzie basin has recently been denied any further intensification as has been developed down near Omarama so for the time being its off the table, out of the question. I do agree that the new Ragitata irrigation scheme is a step in the right direction, essentially a scaled down version of the original central plains water scheme. Although even the fact that water would be taken in flood (i assume so) this still may have an effect on the rivers fluvial action. Depending on how much water is drawn into the lakes during flood the sediment deposition downstream will likely increase, and as you may know that with braided rivers, if confined the sediment build up will (not may) eventually cause a shift in the rivers course. This would of course happen naturally anyway but decreasing the energy of the environment down stream could make this processes more frequent. just as an example to prove im not just making this stuff up the lower Wiamakariri constantly has to be quarried and there are 10s of km of stop banks just so that it doesnt change course and flow down through parts of Christchurch where if left unattended would likely currently be.

rgmcbrid		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 4:53:55 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC) Posts: 583 Location: Southland Thanks: 23 times Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)		Icemaneli, Very refreshing to read your well written post. I don't think Lammerlaw and I will agree either, mostly just for sport at this point. Proper irrigation management (on the farm) involves many things, primarily only putting on as much water as is needed to saturate the root zone, and doing so at a rate that it can infiltrate the soil. If you have ponding or runoff you are doing it wrong. If you are losing water below the root zone you are doing it wrong. And doing it wrong wastes not only water but money. Pumping heaps of water isn’t cheap. The concerns with runoff are sediment, the phosphorus attached to the sediment, and bugs (like e. coli) from animal waste. Canterbury is fairly flat so you would not expect much in the way of soil erosion even with runoff. The main concern with losing water into the water table is nitrate. Phosphorus and nitrogen in large amounts can cause algae which can die off all at once and while decomposing can create low oxygen conditions that can kill fish etc. This is generally a problem in large water bodies that flush very slowly. Lake Ellesmere would be a candidate for concern, the rivers really wouldn’t. Also of concern is high nitrate levels in drinking water, although I have never heard of such a thing in Canterbury and it wouldn’t have anything to do with irrigation per say. Leaching into the water table is more a result of rain than irrigation because sometimes it comes in big doses when it isn’t needed. Canterbury is a heap of layer upon layer of sediments which makes for very complicated hydrology with multiple water tables. Some aquifers in some areas are as you say poor candidates for irrigation. Trivia: the area between the Rakia and the Ashburton used to be referred to as the ‘Rakia Desert’ because early settlers could not find groundwater and therefore all farms had to have river access for the stock. If irrigating is drying up the neighbours wells that seems like a no brainer and that the council screwed everyone. What you are talking about there is political management and I have no advice in that department. I will say though that stopping irrigation because regulators suck is a very poor solution to the problem. Sick Lammerlaw on them, he seems to be working in the area already. My understanding is that the holding ponds near Geraldine will be filled with water high in sediment, but that it will settle and the water coming out of the ponds will be relatively clear. But again, that water should never reach surface waters anyway. The ponds will likely have to be cleaned out eventually like the canal from the Rangitata to the Rakia is. Edited by user Tuesday, 18 September 2012 4:55:40 PM(UTC) \| Reason: claification
		WWW

icemaneli		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 6:16:05 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Flake Groups: Registered Joined: 5/09/2012(UTC) Posts: 19 Location: Darfield Thanks: 1 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)		Yep, i figured when you meant management you were referring to actual irrigation usage by the land owner which as you pointed out is all about enough and not to much. Yes local water management is a council/ ECAN issue and they appear to be totally corrupt. Just to correct you a little, not all of the Canterbury plains have confined aquifers, it is restricted to near sea (10-20km) where transgression/regression sequences due to changing sea level have layered coarse permeable out wash gravels and fine grained impermeable marine sediments effectively creating a cap rock. This is why in places (New Brighton) there are flowing freshwater artesian wells. however most of the inland plains are simply unconfined aquifers whose top is referred to as the water table. Good point about sediment in the storage lakes, most hydro dams have a special gate which is opened periodically to flush out sediment near the dam itself but i guess in these lakes one day they will just have to dredge them out.

Lammerlaw		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 7:32:15 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,721 Thanks: 72 times Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)		Originally Posted by: rgmcbrid Lammerlaw, Huh, I thought you would have gone on a rant about my not trusting the Maoris with water and Air. Which by the way I am proud to say was on topic. I am mentioning it again so that I can say this post is on topic as well. Regardless I am still going to give your rant 3 stars for passion and volume. I am intimately aware of how irrigation works all over the US. For starters, the Rio Grand is about 1000 miles away from my home state, you are probably thinking of the Colorado River. Technically speaking this is completely inaccurate: “water travelling through canals leaching the salt and minerals from the canals bedrock and lining and depositing it onto the pastures” as is much of what you say. I could write a volume explaining salt and irrigation in the Western US, but I don’t really feel like it and since it isn’t applicable to New Zealand which isn’t a desert and never was an inland sea so it isn’t relevant anyway. I am also intimately well aware of how farming systems work, nutrient management being a large part of my job. As I said in the post above in New Zealand it is much cheaper to graze dairy cows on pasture than it is to feed them in a barn (robotic or otherwise). Why are we even talking about this? This is also irrelevant. Note that any livestock can be grazed on irrigated pasture, not just Fonterra cows. Irrigation is also used to grow crops besides pasture. So why are we talking about Fonterra? I seem to spend a great deal of time responding to inaccurate off subject details rather than the broad overall subject. As far as being detrimental to the environment, yes there are concerns with irrigation as there are with everything. As with most things it comes down to management, if you do a good job irrigating the effect on the environment is negligible. Actually irrigated pasture is a hell of a lot friendlier to the environment in Canterbury than the dryland cropping that preceded it. And I didn’t say that I endorsed irrigation in the McKenzie Basin, I used it as an example of what could be gained from irrigation. Although if there is water available I see no problem with it, a huge swath of it is already irrigated and that isn’t hurting anything but the rabbit population. New Zealand farming, including the irrigated parts, is about as clean and green as it gets anywhere in the world. Kiwis should be proud of their agriculture and associated industries, not treating them like a red headed step child. I felt the most fascinating part of your post was the part where you suggested that 26 families living on a farm producing 1/3 as much dryland farming would be economically superior to one family producing 3 times as much under irrigation. This could only be true if you put a very high value on misery and suffering. Eagerly looking forward to your next post. To be quite honest Robert if I rant then you are the king of ranters in my humble opinion - the 'interesting part' as you call it did comprised a Maori reserve consisting of 20 homes - the one my family is from - they did supplement their income with other occupations and largely leased the land out to third parties - they also took a handsome harvest of fish from the river which can no longer be done due to the draw off from the river for irrigation purposes and the detrimental affect it has on fishing. he lower section of this river I have described above - all due to farming. For those who advocate intensive farming I suggest you do some research into the affects of such practices on our waterways - From the period 1800BC through to the era of European settlement it the amount of sediment build up in Lake Waihola was 1 metre - 100cms - since European settlement the build up has increases another 30 cms! Robert your comment ' Huh, I thought you would have gone on a rant about my not trusting the Maoris with water and Air. Which by the way I am proud to say was on topic. I am mentioning it again so that I can say this post is on topic as well. Regardless I am still going to give your rant 3 stars for passion and volume.' - your comment re 'rant' was a childish and personal attack. You are every bit as bad as I am and I for sure am not perfect. Your said away back there that you were not going to contribute further but you made a liar of yourself and did so. Yes I tangle myself up in some of the things I say but you also do it as anyone who reads these tirades between you and I should agree. I also cannot understand why you advocate the things you do when they are detrimental to the good of all ordinary everyday New Zealanders - I shall now leave YOU to have the wlast word and I keep my word when I say I have had my last say - now YOU rant on...Happy ranting. Why are we talking about this you said - because YOU brought up Fonterra and irrigation and how marvellous it all is - remember? Edited by user Tuesday, 18 September 2012 7:55:23 PM(UTC) \| Reason: Not specified

gingerbreadman		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 9:33:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 19/07/2010(UTC) Posts: 473 Location: south of the black stump Thanks: 34 times Was thanked: 96 time(s) in 74 post(s)		I reckon they way "most"people are going about cow farming is total bollocks its only been in the last 2 or 3 years they have actually started fenceing off creeks n rivers to stop cows craping in and wrecking banks even now there some that havent . Then they drain all the wetlands,some put fert on there paddocks after every grazing it rains and all the fert n cow crap runs down there mole drains that are every where straight back into the river:( the stench of cow crapp is everywere. I no some sheep farmers that have been in court fighting there neighbour up stream many times for polluting creeks that bad they are green with shit and nothing happens no fine zip! and i can tell you from experince nothing lives in those creeks no fish,crawlies not even any eels...nothing excpt thousands of little snails that eat the slimy green stuff of the rocks. one fella i no reckons if he gets a terminal illness he,s getting a machine gun to mo the black n whites down all round the district....water quality is that bad your not even supposed to swim in most rivers...fuck the cows and irrigation fuck fonterra...you got a spear machine gun lammy:))

rgmcbrid		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 10:02:01 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC) Posts: 583 Location: Southland Thanks: 23 times Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)		Lammerlaw, This was by far your best post in this thread; it was structured, organized, and concise. It did not wander off on random tangents and only contained three personal attacks. As far as I am concerned you have greatly redeemed yourself and I am giving you full marks. As to my previous retirement, as I said I couldn’t follow what you were saying so I was quitting because it isn’t possible to converse without understanding. When I figured out where you were coming from I re-engaged the conversation not realizing I was under moral contract not to. That topic was socialism vs capitalism. The topic of irrigation is an unrelated hijack and therefore fair game. My referring to your post as a ‘rant’ was not intended to be an insult, nothing wrong with a good rant as far as I am concerned, shows a passion for the subject. If I refer to one of your posts as a diatribe then you can be insulted. I will limit my ‘last word’ to responding to this gem: Quote: I also cannot understand why you advocate the things you do when they are detrimental to the good of all ordinary everyday New Zealanders Well clearly I do not think these things are detrimental to the good of anyone, on the contrary I think they are good for the everyday New Zealander, and everyday any other nationality for that matter. I will address the main issues we discussed; socialism vs capitalism, agriculture, and irrigation. Many variations of socialism have been tried to different degrees for a long time and all have resulted in failure. From the horrors of Cambodia, to the USSR, to Cuba socialism has brought misery, corruption, and poverty. In places like Western Europe where a lighter friendlier socialism has been all the rage it has lead to social and financial ruin. Besides the obvious bankruptcy problems, the huge expense, inevitable with the socialist system, has made it so expensive to live that Europeans have stopped having children. In all western European countries the birth rate is less than the death rate, in some countries it is half. But because the government desperately needs taxpayers for funding they let in huge numbers of immigrants. In a couple of generations the indigenous cultures of Europe will be gone. Capitalism isn’t perfect by any means, but of all the systems that have been tried it is the most efficient, results in the most innovation, and is the most fair. Combined with a small decentralized government it results in the most freedom and opportunity for citizens, so I am a fan. People need resources. They need materials to make things and they need food to eat. Done well, agriculture is fairly renewable resource and provides both. Some places, like the Amazon basin are rather marginal in regard to production and sustainability. New Zealand on the other hand is blessed with climate and soils that are as good as it gets. New Zealand also has high quality professional farmers. So does it make more sense to intensively farm the most suitable places on earth or slash and burn less suitable places? Clearly it makes the most sense to make the most of the best and that why I am in favour of irrigation.
		WWW

under the bedrock		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 10:03:57 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 6/07/2011(UTC) Posts: 116 Location: invercargill Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 13 post(s)		money talks if theres a quick buck in it it doesnt matter what the consequences are.the elite and their puppets have no guilt. money talks

oroplata		Posted : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 10:55:55 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered, Moderators Joined: 16/06/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,040 Location: Christchurch Thanks: 23 times Was thanked: 211 time(s) in 152 post(s)		The biggest problem with pure capitalism (aside from the current massive global fraud due to "money-driven democracy") is that it demands constant growth. Constant growth demands extracting more and more from the same fixed resources (to the point that you damage the environment) and demands the continuous lowering of overheads. But then you end up with more workers than need employment, so you either throw them on the scrapheap and they end up have to turn to crime to survive, or you have to inject socialism into capitalism and have a %age of the population sucking off the govt teat. I prefer an ethical form of capitalism where the profit margin isn't the #1 objective. Where if you're employing 1000 people and making 10% p.a., you don't fire half of them just to improve it to 11% p.a. This is an interesting thread, you guys just have to try a bit harder to not start insulting each other!
		WWW

icemaneli		Posted : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 12:22:33 AM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Flake Groups: Registered Joined: 5/09/2012(UTC) Posts: 19 Location: Darfield Thanks: 1 times Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)		Oroplata; your on the money mate. I said earlier something like this and i totally agree that a growth based economy is unsustainable, and yes at some point even without job losses the amount of people trying to find employment is going to steadily increase in accordance with a growing population. Really what's wrong with a very small profit margin, instead of constantly striving for more sales or productivity or whatever; focus your efforts into what you do on the weekend and just cruise at work. I know some people are incapable of this, and that without them the gigantic advances in technology in the last hundred years would not be here yet but when the products of their labour start damaging the environment and affecting the way we live its time to cut back.

rgmcbrid		Posted : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 1:52:35 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC) Posts: 583 Location: Southland Thanks: 23 times Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)		I am going to agree and disagree with you guys; ‘pure capitalism’ is like a hungry tiger, and if you turn it loose it will eventually end up eating you. The primary role of government is to set and enforce the rules of society, including commerce. In this regard it is the government’s responsibility to prevent monopolies, price fixing, false advertising and to maintain intellectual property rights etc. That is they need to keep the tiger in the cage. When there is a failure in the banking or housing sector or whatever, that is not a failure of capitalism, that is a failure of the government to set and enforce the rules. Capitalism does require growth. It tends to lead to growth because of improved efficiency and innovation. Cell phones keep getting better and cheaper so people keep buying a new one. But in principle growth is not necessary. The key concept that people seem to miss is that exchanges are mutually beneficial. There is not a winner and a loser. If you are a gold miner in the mountains and I am a fisherman on the coast we can exchange fish for gold and we both profit because it is a savings for me not to have to go up to the mountains (which would cut into my fishing time) and it is a savings for you because you do not have to go fishing (which would cut into your mining). We can both do what we are good at and both make a profit. We do not need to grow our enterprises; we can go on trading with each other and profiting indefinitely. I think what you need to consider also is that (besides having an increasing population and therefore increased consumption) as one company is getting bigger another company is getting smaller. For example the steel industry in Korea in modern times has gotten huge while at the same time in the US it has completely disappeared. As far as profits go, it is self regulating. If you are making a huge profit rest assured others will jump in and undercut you. And profits are not as high as you think; in the oil industry for example the profit margin is actually pretty low. They are just such huge companies that it sounds like a lot of money (which it is). But the US government makes a lot more in taxes off the oil sales than the oil companies make in profits. And businesses like farms look like they are making a lot of money but if you consider how much capitol is tied up in the assets, it is not that spectacular. If it were everyone would want to be a sheep farmer and the price of farms would go up and the profit would come back down.
		WWW

Lammerlaw		Posted : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 6:10:12 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,721 Thanks: 72 times Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)		To all of you fellows - listen carefully what others say but judge by what YOU see and what you experience in this the modern capitalistic society - sweet talkers who can talk the leg off an iron cooking pot have brought this country to where it is now - an oppressed state where you cant wipe your arse without needing a consent...in triplicate! Those who talk sweetly and yet cannot answer the questions you pose are often the wolf in sheeps clothing...twist words, misrepresent what is said and speak eloquently so that the multitude are mislead - I have to admit that Stalin had something after all!

oroplata		Posted : Tuesday, 6 November 2012 9:46:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Gold Ingot Groups: Registered, Moderators Joined: 16/06/2011(UTC) Posts: 1,040 Location: Christchurch Thanks: 23 times Was thanked: 211 time(s) in 152 post(s)		Boo! Hiss! http://www.stuff.co.nz/b...akes-over-F-P-Appliances
		WWW

5 Pages«<2 345 >