Wednesday Write-In: Attack on farmers 'insensitive'

Attack on farmers 'insensitive'
I don't recall reading a more disgusting piece of journalism than the column "Left Hook" by Bruce Bisset, in Hawke's Bay Today, on Monday, May 9.
He launched a vicious denunciation of the farmers hit by the recent rain bomb, while having the temerity to say he didn't mean to appear to be kicking a man when he's down.
Well Bruce, that is exactly what you were doing.
These people are shattered emotionally, as they see their life's work, and their families future, washed away by a freak event in a matter of hours.
I know many of the farmers affected, and I can tell Bruce Bisset that they are the salt of the earth, people who have given their lives to care for the land, and not neglect it.
Much conservation planting has taken place over the coastal hills over many years, but to suggest that anyone could have planned for such a freak event is naive.
But to attack them at a time like this is heartless and insensitive.
He concludes by asking why government is paying out financial assistance to these people, who are so blinkered. Well I am not aware of any direct financial assistance available to them, unlike Bruce's constituents from the left, who are paid to have babies, sit around on the dole, and smoke dope.
If any government assistance was available, I could not think of a better use for it than getting these farms producing again.
David Petersen, Waipukurau
Get ducks in a row
Liz Earth has had her annual rail against duck hunting and, as usual, fills her letter (May 7) with falsehoods.
The NZ Gamebird Habitat Trust (NZGHT), distributed $112,182 last year, and has distributed $1,115,585 in total since its inception towards wetland conservation. No other organisation makes anywhere near as great a contribution to wetland conservation that benefits all wildlife dependant on that habitat. Gamebird hunters, alone, contribute funds to the NZGHT. Ms Earth might like to contribute as well: PO Box 13141, Wellington.
Bag limits are set to limit the harvest by hunters. These are made following recommendations from professional staff. The birds are counted by Fish & Game each year before these recommendations are made.
The use of lead shot is permitted for pheasant, chukkor and quail, which do not dabble like ducks. The use of lead shot, within 200m of open water, is prohibited.
Fish & Game is the only organisation that has an interest in the game birds. There's no point in looking to DoC; - they just recently removed Canada Geese from the game schedule, meaning farmers etc can kill the birds whenever and wherever they like.
Brad Parkes, Napier
Westshore erosion
On May 3, Ross Allan raised a question concerning NCC solutions for erosion at Westshore Beach. Should the HBRC contribute to the proposed breakwater and beach profiling projects?
The technical answer is no but the logical answer is yes. In my opinion, the HBRC should pay the lot along with the escalating cost of nourishment plus refund the NCC ratepayer the many millions spent since 1987. This opinion is shared by a few current councillors, most past councillors, most Westshore residents, and endorsed by consulting engineers in over 80 reports.
The two crucial exceptions are Paul Komar from Oregon, USA, and the mayor of Napier. Mr Komar determined the port is not responsible for erosion and Barbara Arnott accepted his conclusions. Councillors who supported the mayor failed to recognise or understand the many contradictions and critical omissions in his report. The HBRC and the port company were the major sponsors of this often discredited report.
Several major structures that impeded the transport of coastal sediment were not considered. The interruption to the natural flow of beach replenishment by the deepened shipping channel was discounted. Mr Komar determined gravel does not pass the breakwater even though the channel requires regular dredging.
Without a full explanation, Paul Komar concluded that the principle cause of the unforeseen erosion was "the diminishing benefits of the 1931 Earthquake". Westshore was a spit before 1931 and continued in a state of accretion until the port commenced their major projects. The timing of irreversible erosion and work to accommodate larger container and "roll on roll off" ships was not just coincidental. The mayor's statement "the beach as a sandy expanse in the 1970s, was a blip" is disputed by Napier residents.
In November 2005, the CEO of the port stated "The port has never denied that it has an impact on Westshore" but conveniently adds "the Komar Report has exonerated the port company". The HBRC has jurisdiction over the seabed up to the MHWS level, the precise area that has, and still is contributing to erosion. HBRC should be liable for all costs on behalf of their 100 per cent owned company, the Port of Napier Ltd.
The Komar Report curiously summarised "it's time to put aside blame on the port breakwater" which allowed the HBRC to embrace this report as a prudent investment. The NCC made an inept decision to adopt the entire Komar Report and unwittingly burdened the ratepayer with ongoing costs and a huge liability. A severe offshore storm, similar to 1974 will highlight the blunder and expose the financial risk.
The HBRC will give the NCC consent to build a $2 million breakwater designed to fix 10 per cent of their mess. The NCC engineers should stop it, I tried to get discussion on a better solution but in the end, the "surfies" will shut down this ill conceived project that destroys a natural reef.
Larry Dallimore, Westshore