by frog
A frog-friend from a village near the Tukituki River can remember swimming in the river regularly as a child, but he says that the last time he visited (to take his nieces and nephews for a swim) it was pretty disgusting and had obviously become a lot more polluted in the intervening years.
Yesterday, Tom Belford at the Baybuzz blog posted some gross photos of algae blooms in the Tukituki River at the moment. He writes: “In case you thought the Tukituki has been getting cleaned up, here are some recent photos to set you straight. ”
The slime is associated with low flows due to over-allocation of the water during summer drought flows, plus too much “nutrient” primarily from agricultural run-off and town sewage. With climate change predicted to reduce the flow in Hawke’s Bay rivers even further, it has never been more urgent to manage this river sustainably.
We’ve known about the Tukituki’s plight for a long time – and the reputation of one of New Zealand’s most renowned trout fishery has been degraded. NIWA scientist Kit Rutherford recently gave the Hawkes’s Bay Regional Council a rocket over their management of the Tukituki, after Russel Norman said similar last year. Baybuzz says that “the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has some promising plans afoot to get on with the clean-up”, but that real action seems to be slow in coming. He encourages readers to send a photo to their local Councillor. Frog suggests readers should also write a quick submission on your local Councils’ plans, where-ever you live, calling on them to set a goal of making such rivers swimmable again in their plans.
Nationwide progress would be so much easier if our Government would pass a national standard to require all rivers and lakes to be suitable for swimming, and require a timetable for the clean-up of the many that do not meet this standard at present. So perhaps an email to your local National MP? If you’re in Hawke’s Bay, email Craig Foss and Chris Tremain about the Tukituki today.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, April 20th, 2009
Tags: , agriculture, sewage, tukituki, water quality
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
That conference Locke was so keen on us attending? Looks like it is a racist farce, once again:
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the West of using the Holocaust as a “pretext” for aggression against Palestinians, prompting walkouts by every European Union country at a UN conference on racism….That prompted the walkout by some 40 diplomats from Britain and France and other European Union countries. The Europeans had threatened to leave the conference if it descended into anti-Semitism or other rhetoric harshly critical of Israel, which marred the U.N.’s last conference on racism eight years ago in South Africa.”
Good call, John Key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree BP, I also wish Key had put a stop to Chadwick attending this conference as well…http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0904/S00222.htm
A conference on “Gender and Disaster Conference” is so stupid it is laughable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hilarious.
Perhaps they will insist all women in NZ take a “How To Climb A Tree” course? Or all men in coastal areas will stop fishing and look after children, whilst the women go out in the boats each day?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s more about the aftermath of disasters by the sounds, but no one’s too interested in that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good work on the slime though frog and frog-friend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Big Bro – while you’re on the air… you’ll have seen that the Government (National Act etc…) are to GO AHEAD with live sheep exports. You claimed that the Greens were lying on this issue and demanded an apology from them. Are you still of the same mind, Big Bruv.? Are you still supporting the Government on the live sheep shipments? Big Bruv?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
I claimed that YOU were lying.
Got a link to your latest claim?
The difference between you and me Greenfly is that I can and do criticise the National party and even the Act party when they have a policy that I disagree with, where as you are simply another of the mindless Green communists who do not dare speak out against the plans or orders of the leadership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Saudi Arabia needs live sheep for religios rites during the annual pilgrimage – Haj
Saudi Arabia has the money to pay for the ‘goods’ required
Saudi Arabia will accept CIF, FOB or DTY (delivered to the yard) provision
New Zealand needs to sell sheep as meat, and/or wool and/or live animals to pay its bills and way in the world
We should sell live sheep, DTY, to the Saudis
qed
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, Bro – do you criticise ‘the National and even the Act party for their plans’ to export live sheep?
Simple enough question, I’d have thought. Looking foward to a straight answer.
(your ‘mindless Green communists’ dribble, makes you sound bitter and twisted btw)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
strings – ‘and/or’ live animals?
If it’s ‘or’, then let’s sell those other products (meat, wool) that doesn’t suffer during a long sea journey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The sad thing is, even if the river gets cleaned up, ‘cleaned up’ probably means treating the symptom by removing the algae, and not the underlying cause – which is that pollution makes its way into the river and changes the balance of the ecosystem to one in which the algal blooms thrive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks to StephenR and A1kmm for actually commenting on the post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Frog – we erred but there is no general thread to rustle-tussel in!
Here in the south, the Feds and surprisingly, Fish and Game are rising to the defence of the dairy industry and pointing their farmy and fishy fingers at towns and human sewerage, claiming that ‘things were worse, back in the days of suppurating septic tanks’ which might well be true, but no excuse at all. It all began when a tourist , an Englishman who has fished in southern rivers for every year for a over a decade, wrote to the editor to say that the rivers this year are in the worst condition ever! Locals are incensed!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The real underlying question is ….Who owns the river?….if its “Publicly owned” then theres the reason its polluted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# James Says:
April 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
The real underlying question is ….Who owns the river?….if its “Publicly owned” then theres the reason its polluted.
………………
Is that the tragedy of the commons argument?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – what a ‘shallow’ argument. Privately owned streams are never polluted? What if they flow through farmland before they enter the ‘private’ zone? Do you imagine these ‘private streams’ populated by trout? Are they therefore ‘polluted’ by voracious destroyers of the native fauna?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We have quite a decent life-style here in New Zealand. It is perpetuated, for now, by the export of animal products. Creating these animal products causes an amount of pollution. Many want to stop the pollution, which entails either reducing the amount of product or expending capital and operating cash on reduction measures.
The question.
What will you give up to have this reduction
Imported food (about 40% of our food is imported)?
Motor vehicles (includes cars, trucks, trains, boats, etc..)?
Fuel?
Building materials
etc.
etc.
If the estimate that we need to increase farm spending by about 25% to eliminate farm created pollution of waterways is correct, we need to GIVE UP about $2 BILLION PER MONTH of imports. What will YOU give up??????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings – your description leading up to ‘the question’ is fair. Your list of possible solutions is not. Our desire is to have less (considerably less) pollution is reasonable and it is also reasonable that the industry that produces the pollution should be expected to find those solutions within it’s own operations. They cannot continue to externalise the costs and land them on the general public and the environment. Why are you calling on us, the people, to make sacrifices for the industry?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
While I understand and empathise with the desire to have considerably less pollution, the cost of this cannot be absorbed by an industry that in every six or seven years has one good , one bad one and five mediocre ones. Costs are, inevitably passed on to the consumer. In this case I am postulating that the consumer, in England, Australia, China, America, Chile, Sri Lanka and the rest of the world will not be able to afford it any more than we consumers in New Zealand will.
The reality is that if costs go up, prices have to as well. In today’s world that will mean that sales will go down, as there is no real shortage of product; ours sells well because of its price:quality relationship, change that and we will sell less.
As a country, we are already spending more than we earn. I seem to remember Russell posting about the nasty state of our balance of payments recently and the consequences of it not being balanced pdq. As we spend more foreign currency than we earn, we have to buy currency with fiat money (the NZ Dollar) to pay for it. If we earn even less foreign currency through exports, we will have to buy more to pay for our imports. This will lead to a ‘marking down’ of our currency, as people see that we really can’t afford things anyway. This, inevitably, will lead to our having to import less.
Having to import less, means that we, the people, will have to do without things that we currently acquire from overseas. Ergo – the question, what would YOU give up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ok, I’ll nibble at the BluePeter’s bait…. (Pity this forum doesn’t have Avatar’s… perhaps then I could get this
http://www.nancyscollectibles.com/trollbabywbear1.jpg image out of my head when ever I see the “BluePeter” username.)
I like original sources….
Here is what Ahmadinejad said.
Interesting take on the problem that. Is Israel racist?
I honestly don’t know.
Hmm. Well, are all Palestinians full voting citizens of Israel with full freedom of movement and de facto equal rights before the police, courts and the Law? Yes / no?
If the answer is “No” we need to remember in The Bad Old South Africa all non-whites were full voting citizens with equal rights… etc.etc. in mickey mouse “homelands” non-viable mini-states with all the good land carved out of them.
So in that case can somebody explain to me what is the difference between Israel and Ye Bad Olde South Africa.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
strings – I think you’ve asked the wrong person, as I am actively ‘giving things up’ and don’t subscribe anyway to your claim that the ‘industry’ can’t be expected to make the changes required to protect the environment. If the industry every six or seven years has one good , one bad one and five mediocre ones then the industry needs to take a long, hard look art itself and stop externalising its risks. Onto us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – what a ’shallow’ argument. Privately owned streams are never polluted?”
No….but the polluter can be identified and held to account.Publicly owned…? Forget it…..its usually the State itself that fouls things up.
“What if they flow through farmland before they enter the ‘private’ zone?”
And farmland is not “private” why Greenfly…?
” Do you imagine these ‘private streams’ populated by trout? Are they therefore ‘polluted’ by voracious destroyers of the native fauna?”
All solved by identifing an owner and respecting private property rights.
Go have a look at the issue of prostitution on “public streets” in South Auckland to see the conflict that inevertibly arises when land is commonly “owned”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Carter Says:
April 21st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
> I like original sources….
> Here is what Ahmadinejad said.
Ahmadinejad has said some pretty dodgy things in the past, but I actually can’t see anything wrong with what he said here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Where did that 25% increase in farm expenditure to fix the pollution estimate come from? One of the main causes is grazing too close to the rivers. A few fences and a slight reduction in grazable land will fix it. Why would this add 25% to the farm costs?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Add to farm costs? It’s a no-brainer to work out that the farmer has paid to apply those nutrients that are now running off down the river. That, to me, is stupid economics. A combination of correct nutrient budgeting and riparian planting/protection would go a long way to improving the water and the profit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – And farmland is not “private” why Greenfly…?
could be Landcorp I suppose ..
I’d like to Go have a look at the issue of prostitution on “public streets” in South Auckland to see the conflict that inevertibly arises when land is commonly “owned”.
would I clearly see that prostitution is the inevitable result of publicly owned streets? What are you proposing? Ending prostitution by privatising our roads, avenues and streets? Good god man!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“would I clearly see that prostitution is the inevitable result of publicly owned streets? What are you proposing? Ending prostitution by privatising our roads, avenues and streets? Good god man!”
Sigh!…..The “problem” of Street prostitution is entirely due to the existence of publiclly owned land….prostitutes are members of the public too….so must have the exact equal right to use the street as any other member of the public…and thats where conflicts arise.Local shop owners etc who dislike the pros and the damage and litter from their activities are rendered powerless to prevent it by having the prossies moved on by the police.You don’t get prostitution in private shopping malls because the shopkeepers DO have the ownership right to prevent them from soliciting.Allow shop keepers to own the street frontage in a boduy corporate arrangment and its all good.No more street prostitution in those areas.Everyone else can go about there lawful business knowing that they only have to respect the property right of the shop keeper….thats just and proper.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JAmes, you do talk rubbish at times!
If I own the pavement in front of my shop, AND you own the shop on my right (and its pavement,) AND I own the shop on the right of you and its pavement, I can park a van in front of your shop, put barriers (on my land) between my shops and yours, and quite quickly put you out of business, then pick up your shop property for a song and expand to occupy all three shops!
That’s one result of they type of idiocy you are promoting?!?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – aren’t prostitutes ‘going about their lawful business’?
While you might feel that business is ‘awful’ your ‘gated community’ solutions smack of privilege.
Were I a pimp, I’d buy the store beside yours, footpath and all and encourage my girls to lure your customers onto our patch and ply their popular trade with impunity. Who, btw, should own the roadway? Bags me!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James,
Forgive me if im wrong but are prostitutes not attempting to do business on these streets? Do not most counsels, i know mine does, require the purchase of extremly expensive permits to operate a business on the street, e.g., a hotdog stall and even buskers are made to carry permits for busking in a given area. Therefore, if the prostitutes are plying their trade without the purchase of a permit then there is nothing legal about it and they have no right or entitlement to offer their services there in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought they were advertising their business on the street and ‘doing it’ somewhere else!
Never having used one though, I might be wrong! Do they do it there, in front of the shop window? The mind boggles!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Christ you people are one trick idiots…
“James – aren’t prostitutes ‘going about their lawful business’?
While you might feel that business is ‘awful’ your ‘gated community’ solutions smack of privilege.”
Prostitutes have every right to be prostitutes…but have no right to violate the property rights of others….I have no issue with prossies plying their trade….indeed I used to drive escorts in my younger years…good coin.
My point was about the conflict that ensues with public ownership and how it can be easliy resolved with private ownership….Public ownership is a bogus socialist crock and doesn’t work.
“Were I a pimp, I’d buy the store beside yours, footpath and all and encourage my girls to lure your customers onto our patch and ply their popular trade with impunity. Who, btw, should own the roadway? Bags me!”
The road owning company…thats who.Or the shop keepers on that street.In suburbs it can be body corporates etc…the possiblilites are vast…and return control to the people concerned.Sure…buy the shop and do what you will….but the rest of the free market will adjust and you will face the consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James,
“Forgive me if im wrong but are prostitutes not attempting to do business on these streets? Do not most counsels, i know mine does, require the purchase of extremly expensive permits to operate a business on the street, e.g., a hotdog stall and even buskers are made to carry permits for busking in a given area. Therefore, if the prostitutes are plying their trade without the purchase of a permit then there is nothing legal about it and they have no right or entitlement to offer their services there in the first place.”
I would do away with permits…they are just a rort to bring in revenue to fund big council waste.
The right of the prostitute to offer their services to consenting others is just that…a right…and no permits are required to exercise a right.No one elses rights are violated by the trade….they maybe by the flow on effects of litter and vandalism etc but those are seperate things..With private propery rights extended to streets ,footpaths etc the ‘problem” of Street protitution is easily solved…they have to either aquire their own property (brothel) to work from or go where someone allows them to ply their trade…simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“JAmes, you do talk rubbish at times!
If I own the pavement in front of my shop, AND you own the shop on my right (and its pavement,) AND I own the shop on the right of you and its pavement, I can park a van in front of your shop, put barriers (on my land) between my shops and yours, and quite quickly put you out of business, then pick up your shop property for a song and expand to occupy all three shops!
Ahhh just how do you get to park your vehical in front of my shop? I’ll have your arse towed away….;-)…But its moot anyway as you would fail in the long term as the market would reject your methods of business and you would go under.You forget that in a free market people have choice…and there is such a thing as a social sanction….people will discriminate against you and you will suffer…..(see the Turkish cafe owner incident with the Isreali women) therefore you fantasy is unlikely to ever eventuate….unless you are really that dumb….and in a free markety you have the right to be as dumb as you like…but not to make people slaves to your dumbness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Christ you people are one trick idiots…
Yeah James, I get ya
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Christ you people are one trick idiots…
Yeah James, I get ya
”
I actually missed that pun…..nice spot!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder
How did we get from algae bloom to turning tricks?
AH well. Free word association in there somewhere I guess. lmfao
Anyway, unless there is a no parking zone I’ll just drive up, put the handbrake on, turn off the engine, put the clamp boot on front and back wheels (makes it impossible to tow away), lock the doors and go for a latte, eh!
Did I tell you my two shops were his and hers brothels? No! Oh, sorry about that; they are (-_-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings,
Dont know, ive never solicited such services, but judging by the mess of condoms on the streets and down the alleys that was shown on the news the other night one would assume there doing atleast a small part of their business there.
James,
Yes, here people have a right to do what they want with their bodies, within reason. A woman may sleep with whatever man she likes, be it for love, money, pleasure, or something else entirly. What she may not do is do it anywhere; she may not have sex in a cafe that does not allow it, she may not have sex on a publicly viewable belcony (though i dont personally think that should be the case), she may not have sex on the street. The point is that it does violate property rights if she does it on or around a private property without permission or on public property where in doing so she exposes the community (the owners) to unwanted detirance.
I am sure that if the streets and pavements were privatly owned then the owners would allow, for certain fee, non-competing companies or prostitutes to use that pavement and the effects would roll over and violate the property rights of other surrounding property owners. A councel charging for permits is no different than a private body charging prostitutes to use the pavement for monetry gain.
Heres where some rightwingers go wrong, you go on and on about individual property rights but you ignore the property rights of the collective. permits are perfectly acceptable; its public property, its owned by the community and if you are a member fo the community you can use those commons for free, but if you want to extract profit from use of the commons then you owe the community a fee for said use. You right wingers seem to be all for private bodies charging but you get up in arms about any charging by collectivly owned bodies charging (eg having to pay for polution or any other degradation fo the commons)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“James,
Yes, here people have a right to do what they want with their bodies, within reason. A woman may sleep with whatever man she likes, be it for love, money, pleasure, or something else entirly. What she may not do is do it anywhere; she may not have sex in a cafe that does not allow it, she may not have sex on a publicly viewable belcony (though i dont personally think that should be the case), she may not have sex on the street. The point is that it does violate property rights if she does it on or around a private property without permission or on public property where in doing so she exposes the community (the owners) to unwanted detirance.”
No argument from me with 99% of that…
“I am sure that if the streets and pavements were privatly owned then the owners would allow, for certain fee, non-competing companies or prostitutes to use that pavement and the effects would roll over and violate the property rights of other surrounding property owners. A councel charging for permits is no different than a private body charging prostitutes to use the pavement for monetry gain.”
It may happen…but that social sanction thing comes into play again….if the areas full of sex shops etc then it makes some sort of sense…but if its kiddies toy stores and Christian bookshops Im not holding my breath.
“Heres where some rightwingers go wrong, you go on and on about individual property rights but you ignore the property rights of the collective. permits are perfectly acceptable; its public property, its owned by the community and if you are a member fo the community you can use those commons for free, but if you want to extract profit from use of the commons then you owe the community a fee for said use. You right wingers seem to be all for private bodies charging but you get up in arms about any charging by collectivly owned bodies charging (eg having to pay for polution or any other degradation fo the commons)”
Thats where you lefties go wrong…theres no such thing as the “collective or society”…only individuals….because only individuals exist..therefore only individuals have rights.All collectives based on man are abstractions…not concrete realities.Sure people can consentually interact for mutral gain (the libertarian position)and thats good and right because we each have a lot to gain from our fellow man in trade etc but no collective entity is created…its still just individuals.And when individuals seperate the collective abstraction fades like mist….Public property is really owned by the state..not the people in the form of the “public”….How much say and control do we have over ‘public” property?, diddly squat.How much over private property…? Total…if our rights are respected and protected.
The greater the expanse of public property the more poorer and dispossed we all are…unless you are a socialist politician
if we all “own” it then no one actually owns it….and we get the tragedy of the commons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)