Agriculture sue isn't what it used to be. Once many wheat & sheep farms had free range pigs although we never knew the term free range. It was a handy sideline and a great disposal item for getting rid of freshly dead sheep or lambs, seconds wheat or sheep offal left over from a rations slaughter. Things changed and the unmentionable stuff would hit the fan were those practices widespread again.
In it opportunities arose as that door closed.
Thing is with Agriculture, as tough and as tight as it is something hasn't changed.
There is still a future for farming, it is, as always, a matter of who has a future in farming.
Old timers will recall "Get Big or Get Out" which was misinterpreted by many as a clarion call to be as big as you possible could or sell up. Essentially many tried to get big and ended up doing both.
It resulted (along with other contributing causes) in us seeing a term in the Farms For Sale adverts that yelled "Economy of Scale". It still pops up now & then and is still heralded as some sort of financial safe harbour. What does it mean? It means, pick what you think is a good or great yearly earner for a person...$100,000 taxable, $500,000? Is half a million a good yearly taxable income for one owner? It means the farm is so big, you can achieve that huge taxable income after costs, but it doesn't mention ROI or Return on Investment. That is also kinda important and whilst you can ignore it for a long time, you can't ignore it forever. If its an ROI of .5% then your half a million a year is as bad as a huge loss, its poor use of your net worth and it means you're so risky close to a complete wipe out and losing everything if your equity isn't 100%.
I also recall the phrase "Crop to a profit, not to a Yield" and still today many farmers still talk yields, tonnes/hectare. Yes its a polite public number but it doesn't really reflect profitability. In the old language I recall some farmers were making good profitable returns on "7 bags an acre" and some in better country were needing 13 bags to break even. Now most years they made similar margins to the 7 bag guys but they had a heap more flopped out on the block at risk with the 7 bag guys with less tied up in machinery and had very high equity. Some of the 7 bag set were seduced by the higher yield prospects and got bigger. Some kept a constant eye upon the other metrics and stretched their turnover and maintained or increased their margins/ROI and did very well. Some made huge jumps in dollar turnovers, took their equity down to dangerous levels with huge borrowings into more land and high cost machinery. Some got big, some got out, some did both.
Opportunities - Yes they exist. They always will but you have to hunt them down and select with a discerning eye. In essence, nothing has changed. When buying investment homes I once read "Look at 100 houses, narrow it down to 20 & return for a 2nd and 3rd look to get a more detailed assessment, then scratch it down to 10, put an offer in on 5 of them, negotiate hard on 3 of them & buy one, the best deal of the lot" - seemed like a lot of work for one house but it was just being very thorough to get the very best earner.
Opportunities are the same, dream up a 100 ideas and whittle them right down. That's what innovative people do when they're investing their own money. If you get down to 5 maybe one is a pearler maybe the other top 4 will end up being pearlers years later when things change.
Without doubt, the 2 most effective and most important tools or pieces of equipment you can have on a farm are quite simply your brain and your calculator.
Asset classes - I'm told there have only ever been 3 and there will always only ever be 3.
Property
Shares
Cash
A good accountant told me once to balance it out and have fair proportions of each, don't specialise on one only. When asked what was a "fair" ratio he said it'll vary and it'll also change with circumstances. But aim at 1/3rd if you can.
Connected to that in a separate conversation a lady from Jerramungup I met once was talking about farming and I asked her "I grow grain and wheat, what sort of business do I have?"
She thoughtfully said "Well you're in the textile and food business I guess, you're a farmer, you're in Agriculture"
I said "I disagree, I make my living from wheat & sheep, that's my day to day living but the biggest asset I have is the land. I'm in the real estate business. If I own a rental its the same, I might make a living being a land lord but essentially I'm in the real estate business"
It clicked with her and resonated. Its something farmers should think about deeply. Where is their net worth spread? All in the farming business with 4% in cash, 20% in cash or...?
Can you imagine having $5million in a farm, $5million in shares and $5million in cash? Ahhh personally I can't, but if I were on a broad acre farm still THAT would be the aim. It would take a long time getting there, it would take some innovative and at times brave decision making but time does help.
If you did make that magic mix at that magic level it doesn't take a lot to realise you now have an awful lot of passive income at your disposal. 2 of the asset classes, shares and cash, can be moved and converted fairly easily, fairly quickly, especially compared to property. In any case increasing your equity is a big aim, so is increasing your margins, your profitability.
And some people still chase big yields, big turnovers and ignore the fundamentals.
Its worth stating I think the more off farm income you have the better and I never understood why governments didn't try to encourage or reward those who did aim to build off farm income. If ever there was a rewarding way to drought proof the farm that's it.
Many farmers will never get there, but I think the lofty idea of having a minimum of 1/3rd of your income coming from off farm is a good idea. In any case, making every post a winner is essential but if its all work, hard graft and stress...you're doing it wrong.
Interesting to see how many people have dreams without plans.
Monday, 18 January 2016
Saturday, 16 January 2016
Concession Permit Scheme
Why is it so difficult, is no one pushing for it?
A cheaper form of licencing for motor vehicles that are older and driven less. In South Australia they have a scheme where you have 90 days in which to drive your nominated vehicle, but you have to keep a log book.
In short, the car is licenced for 90 days of the year. If you get pulled over, you pull out your log book for the police to inspect and you're fine to go. Simple.
In Victoria you'll sometimes see number plates with red background and white lettering that usually have SR and numbers or H and numbers. Its their limited use permit scheme. The VicRoads website has a good deal of detail on it including the odd part about crossing state borders. I was told it has changed but at as I type (Jan 17th 2016)the website states that the plates are recognised in every state of Australia, except W.A.
To drive to WA the owner will have to contact the Licencing Department and arrange a club permit and that a fee may apply.
In an age of interstate harmonisation of legislation, this one's a no go. With the ASRF Nationals approaching fast entrants need to be aware of the limitations of SR & H plates out of Victoria. If they don't get the permit they will be deemed to be driving an unregistered/unlicensed motor vehicle. I'm thinking all your 3rd party gone and very possibly all insurance gone for not having complied with the law. If you're heading to WA, check with the ASRF and don't be relaxed check with the WA Dept of Transport.
And now... New South Wales is having a go at it.
Now one of the barriers to gathering support for such a scheme here has been from some rodders. Some who said look if you push for that we'll lose all rego for hot rods.
I get what they're saying, I just have no idea what that's based upon and how likely that is. Their contention is vehicles under the National Street Rod Guidelines would be deregistered if we pushed for a limited use log book scheme.
Now if you look up the Guidelines, go to the index and you'll find a section listed as the scope and introduction. You'll soon see that passing the guidelines is not guarantee of getting rego. You'll find that the guidelines are actually a guidelines of achieved roadworthiness. In that regard the system is working well and I wouldn't want to see it abolished.
Thing is NSW is introducing a 2 year trial for cars 30 years and older. First stage is historic cars in standard form. Second stage is modified cars. Modified cars will include any vehicle that passes NSRG. So any registered hot rod can jump over to the club system.
It hasn't been determined if this means and end to yearly inspections for hot rods. That may continue.
It does put a lot more responsibility upon clubs to administer their members vehicles to ensure they're all complying with the rules...which is very fair enough.
Could it mean the TAC in WA might lose the ability to gain constant stream of inspections each month? Not sure. In this case the fiduciary duty the ASRF has is to the members and if there's more benefit to the member by keeping the inspections, so be it. If there's more benefit for their members to push for a dropping of inspections so be it. They cannot decide that they need to protect an income stream and therefore keep inspections. Early days of an option not even on the table here. The department may require inspections. We'll just have to see what NSW does.
In any case, the only barrier to WA taking up such a scheme is lack of push and old guard with anti change syndrome. That and bureaucrats because its quite obvious no such barriers exist in NSW.
Benefits? Well you insurance and costs are for days you actually drive it, not whilst its parked. You might be able to negotiate a lower premium because more of the year is same as laid up insurance.
Now if you own 3 eligible cars things just got even better. For the price of one normal rego fee you could have 4 or more cars on the permit scheme and realistically, if you have that many cars you can't use up all your combined days anyway. You'd be mad if you didn't take the option...of you're just inclined to give the government more money than its entitled to.
And that's the other thing...its optional. If your hot rod is your every day commute to work, stay with 365 day rego. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
Here, check this video and hopefully ASRF reps will start pushing for this in the states with no scheme like (we think) Tasmania, WA, Queensland, ACT & the NT.
That'd be nice. Here's the video of the NSW Transport minister explaining the trial in Parliament.
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registr ... video.html
A cheaper form of licencing for motor vehicles that are older and driven less. In South Australia they have a scheme where you have 90 days in which to drive your nominated vehicle, but you have to keep a log book.
In short, the car is licenced for 90 days of the year. If you get pulled over, you pull out your log book for the police to inspect and you're fine to go. Simple.
In Victoria you'll sometimes see number plates with red background and white lettering that usually have SR and numbers or H and numbers. Its their limited use permit scheme. The VicRoads website has a good deal of detail on it including the odd part about crossing state borders. I was told it has changed but at as I type (Jan 17th 2016)the website states that the plates are recognised in every state of Australia, except W.A.
To drive to WA the owner will have to contact the Licencing Department and arrange a club permit and that a fee may apply.
In an age of interstate harmonisation of legislation, this one's a no go. With the ASRF Nationals approaching fast entrants need to be aware of the limitations of SR & H plates out of Victoria. If they don't get the permit they will be deemed to be driving an unregistered/unlicensed motor vehicle. I'm thinking all your 3rd party gone and very possibly all insurance gone for not having complied with the law. If you're heading to WA, check with the ASRF and don't be relaxed check with the WA Dept of Transport.
And now... New South Wales is having a go at it.
Now one of the barriers to gathering support for such a scheme here has been from some rodders. Some who said look if you push for that we'll lose all rego for hot rods.
I get what they're saying, I just have no idea what that's based upon and how likely that is. Their contention is vehicles under the National Street Rod Guidelines would be deregistered if we pushed for a limited use log book scheme.
Now if you look up the Guidelines, go to the index and you'll find a section listed as the scope and introduction. You'll soon see that passing the guidelines is not guarantee of getting rego. You'll find that the guidelines are actually a guidelines of achieved roadworthiness. In that regard the system is working well and I wouldn't want to see it abolished.
Thing is NSW is introducing a 2 year trial for cars 30 years and older. First stage is historic cars in standard form. Second stage is modified cars. Modified cars will include any vehicle that passes NSRG. So any registered hot rod can jump over to the club system.
It hasn't been determined if this means and end to yearly inspections for hot rods. That may continue.
It does put a lot more responsibility upon clubs to administer their members vehicles to ensure they're all complying with the rules...which is very fair enough.
Could it mean the TAC in WA might lose the ability to gain constant stream of inspections each month? Not sure. In this case the fiduciary duty the ASRF has is to the members and if there's more benefit to the member by keeping the inspections, so be it. If there's more benefit for their members to push for a dropping of inspections so be it. They cannot decide that they need to protect an income stream and therefore keep inspections. Early days of an option not even on the table here. The department may require inspections. We'll just have to see what NSW does.
In any case, the only barrier to WA taking up such a scheme is lack of push and old guard with anti change syndrome. That and bureaucrats because its quite obvious no such barriers exist in NSW.
Benefits? Well you insurance and costs are for days you actually drive it, not whilst its parked. You might be able to negotiate a lower premium because more of the year is same as laid up insurance.
Now if you own 3 eligible cars things just got even better. For the price of one normal rego fee you could have 4 or more cars on the permit scheme and realistically, if you have that many cars you can't use up all your combined days anyway. You'd be mad if you didn't take the option...of you're just inclined to give the government more money than its entitled to.
And that's the other thing...its optional. If your hot rod is your every day commute to work, stay with 365 day rego. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
Here, check this video and hopefully ASRF reps will start pushing for this in the states with no scheme like (we think) Tasmania, WA, Queensland, ACT & the NT.
That'd be nice. Here's the video of the NSW Transport minister explaining the trial in Parliament.
http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registr ... video.html
Tuesday, 12 January 2016
GM or GM Free Grain or something else?
Not uncommon for a topic to get so polarising, where views are formed and so tightly held by the individuals on respective sides that change is hardly likely. Is a solution possible. Yes. But we'd need intervention from progressive thinking, lateral thinking problem solvers. Sounds easy but you need more than impartial hired thinkers rolling into town and solving the problem. You need them and you then need all other stakeholders involved coming front and centre with the least amount of bias and looking at the problems, looking at the levels of solution they'd need to be happy.
One of the first parts is... Is GM Bad For You? Here's why we'd need a relatively impartial and independent person or persons to sit over the facts first and make a range of recommendations. Why? Because 10 minutes of Dr Google can find you great volumes of "evidential scientific facts" to suit which ever side you're from. A lot of it needs filtering out so we can determine a few things. Lets just use cereals for debate's sake.
1) What harm is expected from consuming GM cereals
2) How likely is this with what doses?
3) Do we have any independent data?
I ask this because imagine we have 3 piles of wheat. A tonne of GM wheat, a tonne of GM Free wheat and a tonne of 50/50 GM/GM Free wheat. Now set about making processed products from them. Make a range of products from the 3 piles of grain. Now we have sample data points to assess. Now we have all 3 types of each product ready to be tested. Test away.
See what is differing between them, is there a detectable difference?
If so what is the difference and how will that affect people who consume it?
Is it harmful and how harmful is it?
If we get no detectable difference or an extremely low level of difference and an exceedingly low chance of negative outcome for a consumer we have the problem half solved.
For one, the level of harm being negligible we know straight away cross contamination isn't such a big deal and if its non detectable in differences, we know we can have 30-50% contamination before it makes any difference. Segregation at the wheat bin just got a lot easier. Neighbours with only a fence and two firebreaks between the GM and the Non GM crop haven't got a huge problem anymore either. They ensure they harvest their seed as far from the firebreak as possible and both will be likely to be seeding & therefore harvesting pure crops each year.
Now grains will vary and sad to say some may not be compatible next door with just a pair of scarifier breaks between them. Some may have big discernable differences. But until its tested we won't know. Its to be assumed that the negative affect will be because a genetic modification causes some harmful compound to be present in the grain. What is it and can it be engineered out? More questions with small prospects of answers with proper independent government regulated science
The sad court case between two neighbouring farmers in Kojonup should never have happened, it should never have been allowed to happen. An independent political party that represents rural & regional Western Australians should have stepped in and facilitated a solution. Instead it went through costly loss of income for one, then costly court appearances for both.
Now a GM Free cropper is not going to plant his or her crop anywhere near the neighbours GM crop, whether its safe to do so, has huge tolerances of contamination allowed or anything. They just won't.
Now you can virtually substitute GM & GM Free for Certified Organic and Traditional non organic.
In this debate, one of the problems I've heard bandied about (again with maybe-science attached) is the chemical exposure from herbicides and insecticides. I've never sprayed for nematodes so I'll just put that aside. Herbicides are pre emergent and post emergent. They have dose levels of LD50, the dose required to kill 50% of a rat population. There are also half lives of various chemicals. Depending what other chemicals they come into contact with. Chances are no one is going to be killed. Negative Health Affects? Well again, we need some comparative science with a 50:50 blend involved. Plants that have their leaves formed and their grain unformed do not store chemicals then send it for final storage in the grain.
Some of the organic eaters remind me of gluten free eaters, most of whom are not Celiac. Most think they're getting a health benefit. If so is it detectable, observable and of significance or is it just felt that organic is better. Some organic grain processed into breakfast cereal is joked to have the same nutritional value of the packaging. Again, not enough solid independent facts, verified, test and sorted by independent person/s.
If only one smart person was told "You, go fix this. If some of it can't be fixed, work out a plan B"
It would be so good if certain GM/GM Free grains can have their contamination levels raised 10 fold (number plucking from air) the court case would have gone differently, someone may have kept their GM accreditation, no income might have been loss and the only difference between the 2 crops is an operational one.
Department of Agriculture WA would have 30 years ago had the budget flex to go seek out solutions. It had the staff, equipment, resources, know how and ability to do trials. We could have got an answer. The department is now at best a regulatory agency or an advisory stop off point. It needs to rebuild and be a part of the science. We need some tough bruisers & fighters who're keen to return rural & regional research to its previous long lost highs. Until that happens we have more chances of court cases and high court appeals to resolve issues that should never have ended up in litigation.
Now yep is the answer...the question did I make a lot of big bold fluid like assumptions?
Isn't everyone in the GM debate. Until we get some independent panel to assess and fund research there'll be pseudo science preventing progress and hiding that which is actually 100% safe.
One of the first parts is... Is GM Bad For You? Here's why we'd need a relatively impartial and independent person or persons to sit over the facts first and make a range of recommendations. Why? Because 10 minutes of Dr Google can find you great volumes of "evidential scientific facts" to suit which ever side you're from. A lot of it needs filtering out so we can determine a few things. Lets just use cereals for debate's sake.
1) What harm is expected from consuming GM cereals
2) How likely is this with what doses?
3) Do we have any independent data?
I ask this because imagine we have 3 piles of wheat. A tonne of GM wheat, a tonne of GM Free wheat and a tonne of 50/50 GM/GM Free wheat. Now set about making processed products from them. Make a range of products from the 3 piles of grain. Now we have sample data points to assess. Now we have all 3 types of each product ready to be tested. Test away.
See what is differing between them, is there a detectable difference?
If so what is the difference and how will that affect people who consume it?
Is it harmful and how harmful is it?
If we get no detectable difference or an extremely low level of difference and an exceedingly low chance of negative outcome for a consumer we have the problem half solved.
For one, the level of harm being negligible we know straight away cross contamination isn't such a big deal and if its non detectable in differences, we know we can have 30-50% contamination before it makes any difference. Segregation at the wheat bin just got a lot easier. Neighbours with only a fence and two firebreaks between the GM and the Non GM crop haven't got a huge problem anymore either. They ensure they harvest their seed as far from the firebreak as possible and both will be likely to be seeding & therefore harvesting pure crops each year.
Now grains will vary and sad to say some may not be compatible next door with just a pair of scarifier breaks between them. Some may have big discernable differences. But until its tested we won't know. Its to be assumed that the negative affect will be because a genetic modification causes some harmful compound to be present in the grain. What is it and can it be engineered out? More questions with small prospects of answers with proper independent government regulated science
The sad court case between two neighbouring farmers in Kojonup should never have happened, it should never have been allowed to happen. An independent political party that represents rural & regional Western Australians should have stepped in and facilitated a solution. Instead it went through costly loss of income for one, then costly court appearances for both.
Now a GM Free cropper is not going to plant his or her crop anywhere near the neighbours GM crop, whether its safe to do so, has huge tolerances of contamination allowed or anything. They just won't.
Now you can virtually substitute GM & GM Free for Certified Organic and Traditional non organic.
In this debate, one of the problems I've heard bandied about (again with maybe-science attached) is the chemical exposure from herbicides and insecticides. I've never sprayed for nematodes so I'll just put that aside. Herbicides are pre emergent and post emergent. They have dose levels of LD50, the dose required to kill 50% of a rat population. There are also half lives of various chemicals. Depending what other chemicals they come into contact with. Chances are no one is going to be killed. Negative Health Affects? Well again, we need some comparative science with a 50:50 blend involved. Plants that have their leaves formed and their grain unformed do not store chemicals then send it for final storage in the grain.
Some of the organic eaters remind me of gluten free eaters, most of whom are not Celiac. Most think they're getting a health benefit. If so is it detectable, observable and of significance or is it just felt that organic is better. Some organic grain processed into breakfast cereal is joked to have the same nutritional value of the packaging. Again, not enough solid independent facts, verified, test and sorted by independent person/s.
If only one smart person was told "You, go fix this. If some of it can't be fixed, work out a plan B"
It would be so good if certain GM/GM Free grains can have their contamination levels raised 10 fold (number plucking from air) the court case would have gone differently, someone may have kept their GM accreditation, no income might have been loss and the only difference between the 2 crops is an operational one.
Department of Agriculture WA would have 30 years ago had the budget flex to go seek out solutions. It had the staff, equipment, resources, know how and ability to do trials. We could have got an answer. The department is now at best a regulatory agency or an advisory stop off point. It needs to rebuild and be a part of the science. We need some tough bruisers & fighters who're keen to return rural & regional research to its previous long lost highs. Until that happens we have more chances of court cases and high court appeals to resolve issues that should never have ended up in litigation.
Now yep is the answer...the question did I make a lot of big bold fluid like assumptions?
Isn't everyone in the GM debate. Until we get some independent panel to assess and fund research there'll be pseudo science preventing progress and hiding that which is actually 100% safe.
Saturday, 2 January 2016
Animal Rights/Vegan Extremism
I came across this and frankly I was stunned. https://armoryoftherevolution.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/lets-start-shooting-animal-killers/
We see a half eloquent person sort of write a letter to a judge they haven't met yet explaining why its justifiable to take up arms against people who are involved in the consumption of meat.
It failed the Goodwin's Law test very early in the piece by drawing comparisons between his position with the non connected Nazi reign of terror. I always think its pretty disgusting and low when this happens and its the lowest trick in the book to find something of decidedly low point in human history and connect it to something unconnected to try and bolster a failing argument. Too many people died in WW2, on both sides. When the war was over it was obvious there were no winners just millions of dead, millions of grieving and decades of rebuilding immense destruction. Why try & connect that with my mornings bacon & eggs on toast with rich strong coffee with milk?
But there's a few basic points of contention that cause this persons manifesto to implode without hitting deeper detail that causes it's increased spiral to Moron-town. So I will skip over and ignore the long drivel about "animal holocaust" etc and start nearly half way down with something slightly less moronic.
We see a half eloquent person sort of write a letter to a judge they haven't met yet explaining why its justifiable to take up arms against people who are involved in the consumption of meat.
It failed the Goodwin's Law test very early in the piece by drawing comparisons between his position with the non connected Nazi reign of terror. I always think its pretty disgusting and low when this happens and its the lowest trick in the book to find something of decidedly low point in human history and connect it to something unconnected to try and bolster a failing argument. Too many people died in WW2, on both sides. When the war was over it was obvious there were no winners just millions of dead, millions of grieving and decades of rebuilding immense destruction. Why try & connect that with my mornings bacon & eggs on toast with rich strong coffee with milk?
But there's a few basic points of contention that cause this persons manifesto to implode without hitting deeper detail that causes it's increased spiral to Moron-town. So I will skip over and ignore the long drivel about "animal holocaust" etc and start nearly half way down with something slightly less moronic.
- "Even those who struggle with math must come to the realization that veganism cannot displace carnism when we are recruiting fewer vegans than carnists are having children."
Its at this point the fear should be beginning to elevate. As an early sign, even if you missed all the distasteful offensive comparisons with a genocidal regime that one sentence gives you a grave clue as to what is ahead, and its not good. Its already turning to numbers, not reason. - The term "Animal Rights" is used. Animal welfare I get, stop cruelty to animals, that being the deliberate and malicious act of senseless pain and suffering. There's no need for it, it can actually make food production more difficult, less productive and doesn't add to profit. There's no need to beat or mistreat an animal because an food animal will be more productive in a shorter time if its treated well, fed and watered well and has the lowest stress levels possible. Here's where the fork in the road begins, Animal Welfare is the path that wishes to eliminate all un-necessary suffering to the animal, whatever its final destination is. If its roaming the wild, in a house as a companion animal, someone's pony that gets ridden in sport/recreation activities or whether its destined for the dinner plate, Animal Welfare is the discipline that tries to reduce stress, pain, discomfort and keep the animal in the best condition whatever the use or destination. Animal Rights elevates the animal to equal with humans and sometimes above that. Whenever I see "Animal Rights" mentioned I know its about the evil empire or at least a group who wish it were an empire.
- The opposition of the concept of animals as property. OK, another sign of degraded logic but each to their own. The way to change that is via the legislature. Get the laws changed. There is no attempt to do that anywhere, no inclination to even try. It will fail by numbers and it will fail by logic. Hence I guess the next step is a call to arms and a call to cause violence to those of a differing view. Assuming they were actually successful at killing everyone who eats meat, well that's mass murder, genocide and the majority of the planet would need to be killed. Its a mind boggling thought bubble on every single level, from every single angle but the first angle is, kill those with a differing view. When did that ever become a way to do things?
- Animal Holocaust - Sorry, I can't even begin to answer that without being disgusted at the thought of comparisons with the genocide unleashed upon the Jews and many other minority groups. Nope, comparison invalid and offensive on every level.
- Is this wholesale slaughter of humans who eat meat to be extended to all carnivores or just human carnivores? Lion eats the antelope...kill the lion and all other lions who are vegan? The shark eats the salmon, kill all sharks oh and kill all the salmon because they eat squid and other small fish and keep killing down the food chain till you reach a vegan/herbivore victim and save them? Thing is, if you only kill humans and claim all the other "sentient beings" are just doing what nature does, well isn't that "Speciesism".
- Capitalism? Oh apparently this is the big problem that causes animal cruelty. Short of turning off his computer, giving away all his possessions and walking off to live in a cave to live of gathered foods amongst the vegetation, the author is relying upon capitalism. He wants to destroy the actual system he's a part of. Odd.
- Socialism ? Those societies murder half the number of animals? Says who, apparently the Armory author does apparently the socialists remove the profit factor from Agriculture. They will join the animal rights revolution. Hmmmm....ok...
Ahh, no, fail, epic, epic fail. - Murder ? There is not a criminal code nor legislation anywhere in the world that has criminal charges for "murder of animals". The term is moronic. Yep you can kill and animal both legally and unlawfully but there is no murder charge. Only thing charged is the language with emotion to overcome a lack of reason, logic, fact or shred of validity.
- Morality? Hinted at but odd killing humans who kill animals is ok. Not legally it isn't so all that's left is a moral defence. I know of know genuine worldview that is acceptable to mainstream society who'd be ok with the genocide of humans who are convicted of the charge of being involved in the production and/or consumption of food from animal sources. Which moral code allows this?
Sunday, 11 October 2015
The Adler Ban - Another Angle
So what basically happened? We're told in the advent and aftermath of the Lindt Café siege in Martin Place it was decided that the federal government would ban the Adler 110 Lever Action Shotgun.
There's more to slap under the microscope here. A lot more. But the helicopter view of it all says it was very poor governance by a group of political leaders who didn't know what they were talking about. Worse still how many fell in behind it. I've complained before that whilst we have a number of good politicians we are missing great statesmen, great legislators and visionary leaders who can identify & champion good infrastructure projects with over the horizon benefits. We're pretty much bereft of vision and understanding in some of the halls of power.
But specifically the Adler. What specifics?
Well to my knowledge there has never been a siege or mass killing in this country with a lever action firearm of any sort let alone a 12 gauge. A 12 gauge that with some ammunition has an effective or accurate range of 50 meteres.
Its not new technology. Refined yes, but lever actions have been around since roughly mid 1860s. That's 150 years.
High capacity? Well here's the really odd part. Prior to the promotional campaign of the Adler there were lever action shotguns in Australia. There were & are lever actions legally owned right now in Australia with 7+1 just like the Adler. Most rifles can have a 10 shot magazines. Many shooters in revolver clubs use a Smith & Wesson Model 617. Its a .22 revolver with a 10 shot cylinder. Capacity is a bit dubious.
High firing rate, well yes that's true but it depends exactly on what you compare it with. No faster than the S&W 617. Now if you compare it with most bolt action, or pull bolt actioned rifles its probably quite slow. With the lever action you're firing one shell at a time til empty, then you're reloading the magazine, one shell at a time, til full then again, manually cycling the firearm to shoot one shot at a time. With detachable magazines in a rifle, you would not only be slower with the Adler, in some cases the Adler is a veritable snail. Enter any magazine fed firearm, with 4 magazines or a revolver with a speed loader and fire off 24 rounds through it as fast as you possibly can. Now get your time and compare it to firing 20 rounds through an Adler. It can easily be 5 times slow because a magazine change is a lot quicker than manually reloading 8 rounds in an Adler...one at a time. (We won't mention how accuracy suffers at a high firing rate)
So what caused the uproar and what are some of the other outcomes it can produce?
I suspect the Nioa team knew they had a sales gem on their hands. As I understand it they worked with the Turkish company Adler to develop, produce and market a lever action firearm that easily fell within the current legislation or rather regulations to allow it to run a 7+1 capacity. How was it going to compete with what wasn't a hugely popular style of firearm? Well it needed to be able to fire 8 rounds but it needed to have a competitive advantage over is competitors and so it had to be a very very tough durable and reliable gun. So with the cameras rolling they "torture tested" 2 Adlers with the 2 different barrel lengths and as fast as they could, they fired 5000 shotgun rounds through each one. It ran like water down a drain pipe...perfectly. After that footage was released & went near on viral, the job was done. The sales pitch was delivered. Pig shooters and others who need good reliable follow up shots with a few spare rounds in reserve saw the potential...especially when it didn't miss a beat like its competitors probably would.
Had this firearm been released without fan fare, it would have sold in slow reasonable amounts, built its own reputation over time and eventually sold the same amount as the video test did. Timing was poor considering the Lindt Café had happened even though that firearm wasn't a lever action, wasn't a licenced firearm and it was bought off the black market by a deranged psychotic as was the case with Port Arthur Massacre.
Here's the outcome we want to highlight though.
The Federal Government had no way at all of banning the Adler 110 Lever Action Shotgun sale, none. It complied with all firearms regulations in Australian states and territories. Firearms are a state matter not federal. The Federal Government could not intervene at all. They couldn't ban the sale of the Adler nor any other 7+1 lever action firearm in gun shops, but they could ban the importation.
This is still the case now. You could, if there were some in Australia, legally buy, own and use them...the barrier is the import ban.
Some will disagree but this is a glaring case of "SOVEREIGN OVER REACH" by the federal government. It wasn't illegal, the government broke no law but they used what little they had to force their will upon the states. One of the aims of Federation was to protect the sovereign rights of the states. Now it seems the ban is there until more is learnt or known and the NFA is finalised.
There is no technical reason to ban the Adler. Its old technology, its not rapid fire or is depending on what you compare it with but certainly isn't rapid fire compared to many other legal firearms we have. Its not about high capacity because many legal firearms have greater capacity and aren't regarded as overly dangerous to the community. It also is a firearm that had nothing to do with Martin Place or Port Arthur.
What we can say is this over reaction was ill conceived, poorly understood and made some people look like fools. There was no consultation and without the Nioa torture test it would probably would have come in untouched, unchallenged and got the thumbs up. But this over reaction as poorly dreamt up by people asleep or drunk at the wheel as it is, should never have gotten as far as it has. The system is very flawed when poor decision making like this becomes unlegislated policy.
The system is not just flawed, it could be dangerously broken because we've witnessed Sovereign Over Reach where the Feds are enforcing their will upon the states. There are a number of good politicians who see this for what it is, dumber than bait and dangerous. The Shooters & Fishers Party haven't missed a beat. Nor have the Victorian Nationals who slammed this back in late July when things started over reaching. There are some federal MPs & Senators that are onto this too and making good noises about the stupidity of it all.
Ahhh not so good in Western Australia where the Nationals vow to continue "to balance the rights of lawful shooters with community safety". That's the sum total of their policy, seriously not a public word more on the matter. Feel well represented by intelligent law makers? Not one word for or against, no opposition to Sovereign Over reach by the Federal Government. No comments like their Victorian counterparts saying the import ban should be lifted and its should remain classed as Class A firearm because its not new, not high capacity, not rapid fire and each round has to be manually cycled. Victorian Nats all over this and were at the beginning at late July.
WA Nationals are out to lunch, complying with Liberal wishes and 3 of them are keeping their cabinet seats that grant them an extra $130,000 per year in the pay packet.
Poor over reaction to a badly misunderstood item and supporting Sovereign Over Reach by a different government in a different parliament. Complain loudly. The decent elected representatives in WA may have trouble hearing you over the din created at the Liberals and Nationals banging around in the lucrative trough.
There's more to slap under the microscope here. A lot more. But the helicopter view of it all says it was very poor governance by a group of political leaders who didn't know what they were talking about. Worse still how many fell in behind it. I've complained before that whilst we have a number of good politicians we are missing great statesmen, great legislators and visionary leaders who can identify & champion good infrastructure projects with over the horizon benefits. We're pretty much bereft of vision and understanding in some of the halls of power.
But specifically the Adler. What specifics?
Well to my knowledge there has never been a siege or mass killing in this country with a lever action firearm of any sort let alone a 12 gauge. A 12 gauge that with some ammunition has an effective or accurate range of 50 meteres.
Its not new technology. Refined yes, but lever actions have been around since roughly mid 1860s. That's 150 years.
High capacity? Well here's the really odd part. Prior to the promotional campaign of the Adler there were lever action shotguns in Australia. There were & are lever actions legally owned right now in Australia with 7+1 just like the Adler. Most rifles can have a 10 shot magazines. Many shooters in revolver clubs use a Smith & Wesson Model 617. Its a .22 revolver with a 10 shot cylinder. Capacity is a bit dubious.
High firing rate, well yes that's true but it depends exactly on what you compare it with. No faster than the S&W 617. Now if you compare it with most bolt action, or pull bolt actioned rifles its probably quite slow. With the lever action you're firing one shell at a time til empty, then you're reloading the magazine, one shell at a time, til full then again, manually cycling the firearm to shoot one shot at a time. With detachable magazines in a rifle, you would not only be slower with the Adler, in some cases the Adler is a veritable snail. Enter any magazine fed firearm, with 4 magazines or a revolver with a speed loader and fire off 24 rounds through it as fast as you possibly can. Now get your time and compare it to firing 20 rounds through an Adler. It can easily be 5 times slow because a magazine change is a lot quicker than manually reloading 8 rounds in an Adler...one at a time. (We won't mention how accuracy suffers at a high firing rate)
So what caused the uproar and what are some of the other outcomes it can produce?
I suspect the Nioa team knew they had a sales gem on their hands. As I understand it they worked with the Turkish company Adler to develop, produce and market a lever action firearm that easily fell within the current legislation or rather regulations to allow it to run a 7+1 capacity. How was it going to compete with what wasn't a hugely popular style of firearm? Well it needed to be able to fire 8 rounds but it needed to have a competitive advantage over is competitors and so it had to be a very very tough durable and reliable gun. So with the cameras rolling they "torture tested" 2 Adlers with the 2 different barrel lengths and as fast as they could, they fired 5000 shotgun rounds through each one. It ran like water down a drain pipe...perfectly. After that footage was released & went near on viral, the job was done. The sales pitch was delivered. Pig shooters and others who need good reliable follow up shots with a few spare rounds in reserve saw the potential...especially when it didn't miss a beat like its competitors probably would.
Had this firearm been released without fan fare, it would have sold in slow reasonable amounts, built its own reputation over time and eventually sold the same amount as the video test did. Timing was poor considering the Lindt Café had happened even though that firearm wasn't a lever action, wasn't a licenced firearm and it was bought off the black market by a deranged psychotic as was the case with Port Arthur Massacre.
Here's the outcome we want to highlight though.
The Federal Government had no way at all of banning the Adler 110 Lever Action Shotgun sale, none. It complied with all firearms regulations in Australian states and territories. Firearms are a state matter not federal. The Federal Government could not intervene at all. They couldn't ban the sale of the Adler nor any other 7+1 lever action firearm in gun shops, but they could ban the importation.
This is still the case now. You could, if there were some in Australia, legally buy, own and use them...the barrier is the import ban.
Some will disagree but this is a glaring case of "SOVEREIGN OVER REACH" by the federal government. It wasn't illegal, the government broke no law but they used what little they had to force their will upon the states. One of the aims of Federation was to protect the sovereign rights of the states. Now it seems the ban is there until more is learnt or known and the NFA is finalised.
There is no technical reason to ban the Adler. Its old technology, its not rapid fire or is depending on what you compare it with but certainly isn't rapid fire compared to many other legal firearms we have. Its not about high capacity because many legal firearms have greater capacity and aren't regarded as overly dangerous to the community. It also is a firearm that had nothing to do with Martin Place or Port Arthur.
What we can say is this over reaction was ill conceived, poorly understood and made some people look like fools. There was no consultation and without the Nioa torture test it would probably would have come in untouched, unchallenged and got the thumbs up. But this over reaction as poorly dreamt up by people asleep or drunk at the wheel as it is, should never have gotten as far as it has. The system is very flawed when poor decision making like this becomes unlegislated policy.
The system is not just flawed, it could be dangerously broken because we've witnessed Sovereign Over Reach where the Feds are enforcing their will upon the states. There are a number of good politicians who see this for what it is, dumber than bait and dangerous. The Shooters & Fishers Party haven't missed a beat. Nor have the Victorian Nationals who slammed this back in late July when things started over reaching. There are some federal MPs & Senators that are onto this too and making good noises about the stupidity of it all.
Ahhh not so good in Western Australia where the Nationals vow to continue "to balance the rights of lawful shooters with community safety". That's the sum total of their policy, seriously not a public word more on the matter. Feel well represented by intelligent law makers? Not one word for or against, no opposition to Sovereign Over reach by the Federal Government. No comments like their Victorian counterparts saying the import ban should be lifted and its should remain classed as Class A firearm because its not new, not high capacity, not rapid fire and each round has to be manually cycled. Victorian Nats all over this and were at the beginning at late July.
WA Nationals are out to lunch, complying with Liberal wishes and 3 of them are keeping their cabinet seats that grant them an extra $130,000 per year in the pay packet.
Poor over reaction to a badly misunderstood item and supporting Sovereign Over Reach by a different government in a different parliament. Complain loudly. The decent elected representatives in WA may have trouble hearing you over the din created at the Liberals and Nationals banging around in the lucrative trough.
Poor response to an issue that didn't exist and net result is Sovereign Over Reach.
Remember that term. It's coming for you.
Remember that term. It's coming for you.
Monday, 24 August 2015
Cattle Live Exports and the blind followers of the Vegan Cult.
On the 23rd of August 2015, the ABC Radio station "ABC 720AM" posted the photo below on their FaceBook page. It was accompanied with the following interesting explainer.
Did you know...in the 1880 cattle were shipped from Kimberley pastoral stations to abattoirs in North Coogee, but the jetty for the ships wasn't quite long enough, so the cattle were driven off the boats and forced to swim ashore....
Then the replies flowed in regarding it being disgusting, cruel etc. Cows of course can swim quite ok, some of them can swim better than some of us. Funny how people from crowded Soy Latte quaffing cake houses in leafy suburbs can negatively judge the actions of people from 135 years ago as if the standards and the equipment from today were available back then. I'd expect (yes I'm guessing) the crew had to deliver the load and they had to go off the ship somehow.
Then of course it moves onto "SENTIENT BEINGS" and how their rights were infringed. The whole thread climaxed with the invented claim (among others) that we need to evolve because these days "we don't need to eat meat"
I'm not actually sure which is more staggering. The level of absurdity within the claim or the ability of educated people to swallow it up without even thinking deeply, seriously and all the while deftly side stepping facts, logic and common sense.
Saying we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to eat meat is parallel and equal in stupidity as claiming that we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to enter the ocean and splash around. Peer reviewed scientific study papers please.
If you don't want to swim in the water don't go in the water. Simple.
As for food, same-same. Its your body so you can choose to fuel your body any way you want. Eat a balance diet or go vegetarian or vegan or what ever but do you have to enforce your cult moral laws on all others in Australia?
No meat eater I know is upset or trying to guilt people into dropping their evil immoral vegan ways?
Why? Because no one cares, its your body, fuel it your way. There is no moral law broken by eating meat. No guilt to be had. Heck you can eat triple decker bourbon and coke sandwiches 20 times a day if you want to, wouldn't advise it but if you too silly to stick to a balanced diet that's your choice and no one has the right to impose guilt upon anyone.
As we've said before, "SENTIENT BEING" is a term from philosophy, not science. What definition we can apply to the sentient being is they can feel and experience things, react to stimuli. With that in mind, please remember that bacteria, nematodes, earth worms and many other soil fauna qualify as "sentient" and therefore the number of individuals with rights are being killed in their millions just to produce a kilo of apples, kilo of celery or kilo of any other vegetable or fruit.
Then of course it moves onto "SENTIENT BEINGS" and how their rights were infringed. The whole thread climaxed with the invented claim (among others) that we need to evolve because these days "we don't need to eat meat"
I'm not actually sure which is more staggering. The level of absurdity within the claim or the ability of educated people to swallow it up without even thinking deeply, seriously and all the while deftly side stepping facts, logic and common sense.
Saying we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to eat meat is parallel and equal in stupidity as claiming that we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to enter the ocean and splash around. Peer reviewed scientific study papers please.
If you don't want to swim in the water don't go in the water. Simple.
As for food, same-same. Its your body so you can choose to fuel your body any way you want. Eat a balance diet or go vegetarian or vegan or what ever but do you have to enforce your cult moral laws on all others in Australia?
No meat eater I know is upset or trying to guilt people into dropping their evil immoral vegan ways?
Why? Because no one cares, its your body, fuel it your way. There is no moral law broken by eating meat. No guilt to be had. Heck you can eat triple decker bourbon and coke sandwiches 20 times a day if you want to, wouldn't advise it but if you too silly to stick to a balanced diet that's your choice and no one has the right to impose guilt upon anyone.
As we've said before, "SENTIENT BEING" is a term from philosophy, not science. What definition we can apply to the sentient being is they can feel and experience things, react to stimuli. With that in mind, please remember that bacteria, nematodes, earth worms and many other soil fauna qualify as "sentient" and therefore the number of individuals with rights are being killed in their millions just to produce a kilo of apples, kilo of celery or kilo of any other vegetable or fruit.
Irony much?
Never ever seen a doctor say we need to stop eating meat, seen them say we need to reduce sugars and processed foods and get back to proper portions of a balanced diet but nothing about we need to evolve (mentally I assume) and don't "need" to eat meat.
Its very very sad to see educated people in a 1st world country falling for cult like rubbish that is devoid of science, logic and common sense. They're unaware they're following cult propaganda and deeply believe they're pushing a noble and morally superior cause.
Now if Christians knocked on their door to try & spread the Good Word you know they'd be the hypocrites champions of their cult and blow a fuse and the intrusion of intolerance and bigotry.
Its very very sad to see educated people in a 1st world country falling for cult like rubbish that is devoid of science, logic and common sense. They're unaware they're following cult propaganda and deeply believe they're pushing a noble and morally superior cause.
Now if Christians knocked on their door to try & spread the Good Word you know they'd be the hypocrites champions of their cult and blow a fuse and the intrusion of intolerance and bigotry.
Irony too much.
Friday, 21 August 2015
New Proposed Electoral Boundary Changes - Problems & Solutions
When the cry is "One Vote = One Value" and things get changed we end up with regular reviews of Electoral Boundaries. Nothing sinister to be seen. It can however cause an extra burden on some MPs which in turn actually reduces a person's effective representation in Parliament.
One vote one value on the head count yes. In reality on the ground and on the Parliament floor no. How can one MP service all that area effectively? That's close to 900,000 square kilometres of environment issues to hover over. That's 900,000 square kilometres of industry to hover over. Then there's overblown problems of delivering education, policing, health, electricity, water and many state based social services. Where somehow the far flung constituents have an equal vote to the residents of the electorate of Cottesloe but on the ground the people of the remote area suffer.
The disparity and inequity is every bit as mammoth as the size and remoteness that causes it.
One Vote is One Value only in the seat arrangements in Parliament on a per capita basis.
No public transport in Onslow, Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Wiluna. You can drive a cab all around the Cottesloe electorate far cheaper than you can drive you own car 1% of the way around the North West Central boundary.
Here's a picture with current boundaries on the left & proposed new boundaries on the right. ( http://www.boundaries.wa.gov.au/ )
There's smaller less obvious changes to the seat of Albany & Wagin which are going to have serious negative impacts as well but with the maps you can see the obvious negative impacts. Three already large, overly large electorates will become 2 behemoth size electorates. The electorate of North West Central will be over 1500 kms in length from east to west. Rough count shows 13 Shires will be in the electorate. One of them being the Shire of Wiluna is 950kms from Perth and over 185,000 square kilometres on its own. Onslow also in the new big electorate, 1100+kms from Perth and 1600kms from the furtherest part of its own electorate. How is this smart?
One vote one value on the head count yes. In reality on the ground and on the Parliament floor no. How can one MP service all that area effectively? That's close to 900,000 square kilometres of environment issues to hover over. That's 900,000 square kilometres of industry to hover over. Then there's overblown problems of delivering education, policing, health, electricity, water and many state based social services. Where somehow the far flung constituents have an equal vote to the residents of the electorate of Cottesloe but on the ground the people of the remote area suffer.
The cost of getting services to all the people of North West Central is one thing, the range of services is not equal to the electorate of Cottesloe who also enjoy many more amenities from the tax payers purse and only covers 38 square kilometres opposed to the proposed North West Central's 900,000 square kilometres.
The disparity and inequity is every bit as mammoth as the size and remoteness that causes it.
One Vote is One Value only in the seat arrangements in Parliament on a per capita basis.
No public transport in Onslow, Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Wiluna. You can drive a cab all around the Cottesloe electorate far cheaper than you can drive you own car 1% of the way around the North West Central boundary.
ONE VOTE ONE VALUE ? NOT BY A LONG SHOT
So yes there is a set of solutions on offer. Offer no service in the electorate of Cottesloe that cannot be offered in the electorate of North West Central to an equal or greater standard. Great solution but won't be introduced. We all know that.
Maybe the only solution we need is a smart solution. But it will require lateral thinking and on those grounds many won't get their head around it. It would face opposition but it would raise the standard of effective representation of the far flung people of the proposed new North West Central and yet maintain the metro area's cherished One Vote One Value aspect.
The large electorates maintain one vote in the seat of parliament they occupy but the bigger electorates have 2 or more MPs elected working as a team, representing their constituents more equitably than they currently can. Yes electors on election day elected not a candidate but elected 2 or 3 candidate team of MPs who collectively have only one vote.
That or we see MPs rotated so the Premier for example has to spend one term as the members for Eyre etc. No another nice thought that would never happen.
Imagine 2 or 3 MPs covering the proposed new North West Central all from the same elected party. Gets it down to around 300,000 square kilometres each, still far greater than Colin Barnett's 38 square kilometres but a vast improvement and allows the MP to have only 4 shire councils to liaise with instead of 13+.
Maybe the only solution we need is a smart solution. But it will require lateral thinking and on those grounds many won't get their head around it. It would face opposition but it would raise the standard of effective representation of the far flung people of the proposed new North West Central and yet maintain the metro area's cherished One Vote One Value aspect.
The large electorates maintain one vote in the seat of parliament they occupy but the bigger electorates have 2 or more MPs elected working as a team, representing their constituents more equitably than they currently can. Yes electors on election day elected not a candidate but elected 2 or 3 candidate team of MPs who collectively have only one vote.
That or we see MPs rotated so the Premier for example has to spend one term as the members for Eyre etc. No another nice thought that would never happen.
Imagine 2 or 3 MPs covering the proposed new North West Central all from the same elected party. Gets it down to around 300,000 square kilometres each, still far greater than Colin Barnett's 38 square kilometres but a vast improvement and allows the MP to have only 4 shire councils to liaise with instead of 13+.
Tell me it can't be done & I know I'm talking to a barrier to equity in representation in the Western Australian Parliament.
If you're on social or not, copy the link, spread the concept and maybe, just maybe a political party will see the merit & run with it
If you're on social or not, copy the link, spread the concept and maybe, just maybe a political party will see the merit & run with it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)