Letters To Editor: Trees and farm management

Trees and farm management
In response to Bruce Bisset's article - "Farmers failing to learn lessons".
I would like to start with Bruce's quote "Now I freely admit I wouldn't be a farmer for quids."
Funny thing that, as Bruce feels quite free to express his opinion on something about which he is completely uneducated.
We have a native plant nursery on a sheep and beef station which was hit severely by the "Weather Bomb". We supply plants to farmers who are interested in replanting to not only preserve these rare species but also to stabilise waterways and farmland. So you can't say we aren't "listening and changing our habits".
We tried for several years to get assistance and approval from the regional council to plant alternative species (other than poplars and willows), and every time we got the response that 'we do not subsidise alternative species', so we decided to go ahead anyhow (at our own expense) and planted Italian alders, and eucalyptus.
The results from our plantings have been quite spectacular and it's certainly a good alternative to the normal subsidised poplar/willow mentality.
Finally, the council is more open to alternative species - especially after having large amounts of their willows decimated by sawfly, and now also are planting Italian alders.
We have found that the possums and pests have largely ignored these alternative species, they do not grow overly large and the areas where we have planted them are totally stable. However, we have not been immune to the effects of this "Weather Bomb", we still have extensive damage, even where poplars and willows are well established. We have a constant planting programme of trees every year and still we have been hugely affected.
I do agree to some extent - some people are just arrogant regarding planting trees, they find it a waste of time. We find they not only provide stability for the land, they also provide a great amount of shelter and shade for stock (which is also important).
A lot of farmers won't plant due to the fact they can't secure them completely from stock. A farmer often doesn't have much spare time, therefore volunteers are relied upon for planting substantial amounts of vegetation.
What do you suggest to do with these "steep bare slopes"? Turn them into forest so you can sleep at night knowing we (farmers) are okay? It is impossible, impractical and severely impacting on New Zealand's economy to plant every inch of every so-called steep hill with trees. Farming is the backbone of New Zealand and just remember, 75 per cent of all overseas export earnings come from agriculture. How dare you say we are not entitled to Government financial assistance, when we do everything in our power to manage the land responsibly and ethically?
I'm sure people don't think about trees and the farmers' hard work, when they are cutting into the juicy, medium- rare eye fillet. Just remember we are not alone and there are always two sides to every story! (abridged)
Clare and Bex McNeur, Waimarama

Te Awanga angel
Re your headline, May 7, Who's Responsible For This?: My memory shoots back to the early 1930s when flooding of the Maraetotara was a part of our holiday times at Te Awanga.
Surprisingly little damage ever occurred.
In those days, houses were not built on the lower pieces of land and we seemed to have a "Guardian Angel" who opened the river mouth at the right time, (the right time being just before Mick Burdon's reclaimed piece of land flooded).
Of course all of us kids knew who the "Guardian Angel" was in real life but in case there were council spies about it was never mentioned and it was good to see somebody with enough gumption to do the job (with help of course). Good on you Mick. It's a shame the council responsible for this river can not appoint a local to do something about a flood before it happens.
Dudley Marshall, Hastings
Separate cities
Re: Hawke's Bay Amalgamation of Local Bodies
Hastings' mayor Laurence Yule doesn't appear to get it. His brainchild idea of Hawke's Bay local body amalgamation has received a chilly reaction from the Napier City Council and, if the truth be known, with the exception of the Regional Council no other local body is wildly excited either. Reinvest the feasibility study levy back into the bank and direct your energy to increasing with urgency the efficiency of the city's administration and eliminating unnecessary and time wasting cultural dogma.
Hastings City has debts of $51 million and Napier City $6 million - no wonder the latter doesn't want a bar of your administration legacy. Napier ratepayers I have spoken to without exception are vehemently opposed to any thought of amalgamation with Hastings City.
Why should Napier subscribe to the feasibility study when they know in advance the likely negative conclusion.
As a Havelock North resident for 30 years I recall the opposition to the Labour Government (at the time) enforcing the amalgamation of Havelock North with Hastings.
Why should we have wanted change from an administrative set up of 3 office staff and a Town Clerk to embrace a model top heavy with bureaucratic staff and inefficiency? My rates at the time were $550 per annum opposed to $2600 now!
Mayor Yule's vision of bureaucratic grandeur is unacceptable. A feasibility study is a wander into dream world.
Colin Beck, Havelock North