This problem has been around for 50 years or more in some places. It would be much easier to overcome the problem if farmers were paid the true value of their produce. Guarding and maintaining young trees is expensive. When farmers are not allowed to earn surplus funds such needs are neglected.

The heading on "your favourite paddock tree" and the article are appropriate and very important. This is an aspect of humankind's unexpected impact onto the environment. Clearly grazing, paddocks and trees can and need to coexist. The federal government could have done better by directing the $900 handouts to farmers to help farmers take on the cost involved in fencing off parts of paddocks and to move their beasts around to let seedlings grow. This is where greenies and professors Ian Plimer and Bob Carter agree and thus we all benefit.

You mean that global warming isn't responsible after all??!! Phew!!!!

Good riddance. It was the greens, helped in no small part by the Fenner School, who have imposed blanket bans on clearing of native regrowth. By that single act they turned every single seedling into an invasive weed that poses a direct threat to the very survival of the farming entity. And paddock trees are the primary source of those weeds. So forget it fellas, the days when farmers will give you a single tree that you don't deserve or pay for, cash up front, are gone. Every native tree that dies on my place will be replaced with an exotic. And they will stay there until you restore every last one of my stolen property rights. Once bitten, twice shy, and you'll get the environment you deserve.

Ian I feel sorry for you, to be so jaded that you will threaten the very environment that provides your lifestyle just to make a point. It is sad that it has come to this but I can share your frustration. If you want something to get your teeth stuck into try this.

Under the current CPRS legislation the definition of a tree or forest stand is one that has or has the potential to reach 2m in height and 20% canopy closure. So in effect if you had regrowth on your land on 31st December 1989 that had "the potential" to reach 2m and 20% canopy closure then that land will be deemed ineligible for carbon trading. Now add to that the existing regrowth laws and the landholder will forever have a liability to manage. Add to that, that the government will be able to claim the carbon stored in the regrowth on the national account for Kyoto and you soon see that this is creating privately managed and funded national park on your farm for the inner city voters. Where the hell is your representation in parliament. The Nats won't be able to stop the CPRS and the way the rules are being written farmers are missing out on a lot of opportunities because they are not negotiating. The government is slowly stealing your land and is going to make you pay for big business emissions. Whatever you are doing about it is not working.

Ian Mott's argument is just a load of crap. As a contractor who cleared millions of acres in W.A. in the 60s and 70s, I can tell you that clearing needed to have restrictions introduced. I had numerous clients who were literally tree-haters - who did not want a single tree left - because they interfered with wide-cut cropping equipment. Farmers got me to demolish and rake up and burn any remnant trees in a paddock - because they were a "bloody nuisance". I had the ironic pleasure of watching one of these tree-haters lose over 1000 sheep in one night to a cold snap, as the freshly-shorn sheep died like flies in paddocks that never even had a bush left to shelter under. The salt encroachment problem in W.A. is directly related to total tree removal on the higher ground. Too much land has been cleared, that should never have been allowed to be cleared. Marginal areas in W.A. and QLD are typical. The researchers are right - the average lifespan of the big native trees in Australia is only around 80-150 years. I know the exact age of one Salmon gum, because an old fella told me how he chopped it back as a sucker in 1922. That tree is now a monstrous, and mature tree, and is nearing the end of its lifespan. Termites, or dry rot, or a waterlogged root system, will soon take over, and it will keel over just like our old folk do, when they get old and decrepit. More needs to be done by way of encouragement via subsidies, or tax incentives, to regenerate areas that need to be replanted, to reduce salt encroachment, sheep losses, erosion, and reduce wind speeds. The days are long gone, when arrogance in the form of attitudes that state "it's my land, and I'll do what I want with it" prevail. The land and its native vegetation, need widespread and extensive care, and that doesn't come from one persons, often biased, exclusive, and slanted attitude - the landowners. The "property rights" conferred on landowners, were never configured with any understanding of the long term effects of massive, uncontrolled clearing, by machinery that the original founders of the country could ever envisage - and by dog-in-the-manger attitudes, of people who have a poor understanding of how native vegetation interfaces with our land, our climate, and our agricultural production.

Like Ted O'Brien's comment I remember this issue on the New England Tableland in the early 1960s....basically the existing/remaining trees died of "old age". Lots of factors examined, but age was the key issue. That is not a new problem.

But the real issue is replacing these trees, and a start is needed sooner than later on all cleared agricultural and pastoral land. Many areas are doing that already, after all the "one billion trees" of the Hawke era plus Landcare works have focussed in part on these issues.

Land owners need to understand that trees do age and die, naturally. And must be replaced, naturally, or with help if need be. And often it will be better if a grove of trees is created, with some of these trees short lived to die naturally after a few years. In the eucalypt dominant lands, short lived trees might be 20-40 years life. A recreation of natural systems has a range of species and life spans. Just plant some trees!!

I feel very sorry for you Ian. Maybe you should consider meditation to release that anger. Alternatively you could follow the practises of the two farmers mentioned. You will reduce your fertiliser bill, have much better pasture and also provide biodiversity. I am sure your children and their future generations will appreciate your efforts.

A tree to climb, to sit under, to build a fort in, to relax in the midday sun under, to fuel our fires in winter with, I have planted and watered hundreds of trees for only this reason, exotic or otherwise, I cannot resist the twist of gum leaves scent. Let's have common sense, corridors, tree-lined paddocks and small groves to preserve the very essence of our environment is needed. The shelter factor for our domesticated stock is warranted, the diversity of growth and the propogation for future forests is in our hands. Everybody out there is too hardlined, everything bare or all native forest (which to really keep weed free would be impossible without constant weeding, firing etc) we would need an army to constantly work it or stock to regularly guard against the build up of exotic weeds (introduced weeds or plants of an interfering nature that have no obvious retardant) compromise, commensal conservative views with negotiation for all.

The planting of trees should be done in a sensible manner, whole farm planning including land classification should be the first step. Good farm design is critical to a successful business. If you don't have one - get one. It will let you know where to plant trees.