Tuesday, July 19, 2016

ABC non science

Philip Adams surprised himself last week  by confessing that he had never,  in all his 30 years of advocacy of conservation ; including on his farm ( No thanks from this pedant King ) never thought about fungi . How pathetic . Adams has developed  a love of truffles " He had a real scientist coralled for a while on his late night live show ---  to tell him what he wanted to know to .........
What Adams didn't know was --Fungi ( and ants ) are the key benefactors of the Left and the no sequestration Greens Forests policies.
 These are policies that don't work for CC and that have down sides for everything from soils to water quality.  Too bad if something in Nature doesn't fit the perfect theoryi.Too bad if less than half the story is told . I love fungi too"
 So what have the ABC left out in their blinkered approach to science ?  They say they  love science but they don't do science .
As GK Chesterton said,  it dangerous and limiting to love something for a reason . ABC nonscientists  love science for a reason;Their own reason/s They see it as the key to perfectibility when it is often only a key to more pedantry . A stumbling block to careers and growth -Little did Adams know that having a real soil scientist on the ABC was dangerous !!!

 Time the ABC got a new crew who know enough to know that they don't know it all !
The only way to really love something is to still love it when it tells you something you didn't want to hear.  I love fungi too!

Monday, May 23, 2016

Labor could follow Greens into limbo land

Neither Greens or Labor know when to weed the garden . Neither are they in their ignorance really sure we should even weed  the garden; A lazy lot . Both are therefore becoming so heavenly minded they are of little earthly use .   on the environment and other so called high moral ground issues .
They  talk Climate change but have only course market mechs to deal with it .They talk that minorities must come first and the rest of us pay for their indulgence .spoiling the kids and breaking up families ,
For thinking people and real eco scientists their mind and motivation implication games are the stuff of murder and suicide .
Nothing harder to deal with than the irrational argument in the powerful  esp if they want to take away your livelihood but haven't got the guts to pay you out .Come to the door with free lightglobes but with a letter to kill your livelihood. Culpable carelessness
 Neither Labor nor greens have the credibility to deal with The science briefly described below The science of weeding regeneration and renewal and recycling in soils. (Agriculture is not all bad as they suggest ) Many will have to answer one day for disrespecting the profession that feeds them 

Hamlet would be saying the same thing he said of the ignorant and sentimental parents he had ;  whose concern is not the truth ( the full truth is about weeding, regeneration, renewal and recycling)  but whose concern IS Staying in power ; who JUST  want to sit in the head seats in Canberra.
Mark BUTLER Must change their minds about chasing the Greens 

If Joel Fitzgibbon and Mark Butler had any integrity they would say to their party – “we can’t do this “.
what’s this ? you ask - Win votes in the city at this election by having another careless go at the country. Butler must recant on his pledge to have more controls on land use and land users. "The greatest evil is done in the name of the best intention " 
There is no need for more legislation to control clearing of forest to agriculture  Only a few acres of freehold forest is ever likely again to be converted to  agriculture in the future as the State legislation is tight . We know it appeals to the city at election time to spread more panic amongst the city. Fitzgibbon  could say “ We, unlike the Greens, happen to know that blokes featured on Landline mostly just want to clear wattles and overmature growth from their grazing properties . These trees are only temporary and only grow because their land is not overgrazed.”  we would be risking our integrity at the very gates of those we say we care about ( Milk at 14cents a litre)

“The farmers are looking after this grazing land ,and if they are not, their leases would be cancelled – been that way for decades .  We should be supporting this form of freehold and leasehold rangeland management, not poking our noses in with ignorance and fear like the Greens do.  These areas are natural rangeland ecosystems where grass is the dominant vegetation”. Why are the fearful trying to stop the farmers from doing what the fungi , fire and ants will do anyway .Why don’t you prosecute these animals and the elephants of Africa for sending the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere?  Don't know basics about Carbon!!
if you in the party were serious about a CC policy that works,  you would have had a  tax on city tractors yesterday . No I said,  a decade ago !  It’s not about integrity , it’s about winning votes.  Bandt would be history if the Greens had some integrity. Thankfully his electorate can occupy high ground and get around on bikes and Public transport   
If Fitzgibbon and Butler had any integrity they would say to their party” we can’t do this.”  “This what the Greens do   -win arguments on appearances like the picture of dark steam coming out of cooling towers and this  jumping in and accusing others of some abuse without studying the ecosystems and management processes involved ; and  without mentioning city tractors in cc policy.

 This is allocated managed rangeland and unless you want to buy the whole lot back you are saying they can’t control weeds and regenerate pasture like the aborigines did and do. “
If Fitzgibbon and Butler had any integrity they would say to their party,   we  don’t want any more of our agents killed on the farmers doorsteps trying  to tell the farmers  they are getting free lightbulbs but taking away their livelihood. We would be more honest to say the United Nations require us to buy back your farms and then do it – if we really believed it was such a necessary policy. “

If Fitzgibbon and Butler had any integrity they would say to their party” we can’t do this”. “We’d be no better than the Greens. The Greens would do anything to get into power –They don’t care about casting snide on a minority who appear to be doing the wrong thing but are not; It Is so easy to pick on one group and say they are ones to worry about .A CC policy that would work must involve all of us .
 If Fitzgibbon and Butler had any integrity they would say to their party” we can’t do this”   “If this is how we win elections I want no part of it.” .   
We hope the people of Australia will have some integrity in July and will say to the parties who live on snide and suspect criticism of others.
“If that is how they win elections, I want no part of it

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Lame Ducks quacking about conservation

All the bleating about the need for climate change action has gone a little soft and fluffy . One reason could be that no one dares talk openly about ACTIONS  ( carbon tax inducements , incentives )   Its just  "the need for climate change action",,,,, "the need for climate change action",.....  

I have thought of starting my own pathetic campaign  " the need for better fathers and mothers "
its not mentioned first in Bills campaign .....but last

None of this is news to me .
The Greens and Greenlabor will go down with a whimper on this important critical matter  because they whimper into it.
 Conservation is hard work and its got to work to work.
Scenario of misguided expenditure on conservation 
Every australian home could have panels and low energy lights and we still couldn't have toast in the morning if the Greens have their way with our coal. for what end . Co2 that may well be resequestered.

And yet most of  the money for conservation goes in grants.and all parties agree . What is this ?Conservation is like welfare .  No wonder TRUMP is popular in the USA . All our parties are just all talk on conservation .


Monday, April 18, 2016

Feelings R not good enough to make us tough enough

As a resource management planner with Vic Dept's of Env for over 3 decades , its clear the public debate by The political GREENS is feelings based and often devoid of the competence that is ess
ential to really care .   By allowing feelings to rule  they cannot absorb the hard edged issues . There approach is not  whole ecosystem planning  but particular animal or problem focused .  Such an approach is wasteful and distracting cf  Ecologically focused economics

The public effect of taking their feelings lead  is to insult those who study to show themselves approved .

Because public opinion is based on feelings and those feelings relate to desires within that group to deny our needs for food , deny death and the real difficulties of living here , their insistence on stopping things is often impractical , unreasonable and quite wrong. Their choice to become vegans is fine  - but most people will use their well designed eye teeth  .
Because many in the remote public audience don't like the idea of death and suffering ( who does ) they also don't really study things properly , so how can they really care . Soft may feel good but its no frame for future toughness in the real world . 
Many of those full of feelings don't know HOW to manage any animals in their habitats .  They presume to tell us onground custodians that they know and we don't. It's time to stop the rot so our children and those on the ground can again have a career as truly competent carers.

We as land managers HAVE to deal with death. Our public land planners have been forced to adopt non culling policies that are absolutely sound to minimize the suffering of animals .see the koalas starving at Cape Otway story at

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 02, 2015

Super stupid seriuos risks from trees and fearburdened polys

I love trees but I don't worship them like some do.
I love trees but I respect them enough to know this ---- they like me will die and that many quite nice looking native trees already have fungi and ants eating away at them inside .

Probably half of the trees in our native forests are like that 
Here is a post I made yesterday . I hope you understand the reasons why I make the accusation and why its time to change things 

I don't pretend like some that we must let them die completely before we touch them . They are not sacred objects to me even though they have been treated as such by some officers of government .
So what is the government doing to make sense of tree management in the state of Victoria? - sweet nothing and fulla fear  would describe the lot of them
The problem they should have dealt with 15 years ago is some careless legislation introduced into the planning schemes over 30 years ago. It implies native vegetation must be "retained " .This has been widely interpreted as "preserve it"  like we do with museum specimens ,  Fine , retain native communities  but be realistic - not shallow ;  they like us die and must be replaced with new .

NVR legislation was one of the most ignorant and blinkered pieces of legislation ever introduced into the planning act in  Victoria and successive governments are still 30 years later , afraid to deal with the silly myth and focus that now surround it .Clearly our politicians are too afraid of a public reaction and too stupid to investigate why this lie has become truth to be promoted by their very own statute .

Too many tragedies happen all around us , so I have to speak up - I used to approve applications under the Native Vegetation Retention legislation . The death of a toddler overnight in The Patch reminds me there are very dangerous trees which should be removed right across our suburbs , but are not . I can say this because however big the storm and however healthy the tree,  there are far too many dangerous trees being left by Council officers who dare to presume they should stay. Trees have become untouchable almost sacred in their eyes and its partly because the original legislation was dreamed up by ignorant and blinkered preservationists .
Worse , the Libs have not twigged why its had such a bad effect on public risk evaluation . I have nothing against leaving trees,  but the prevailing wisdom that they should be left BEFORE rot gets hold of them in them is rubbish.Some people want to live in a world where there is no surgery . oh dear - would be nice!

NVR  was intended to stop mass clearing and its now just largely a relic that supports the nonsense talk about relics . I wrote recently to the Napthine government and they did nothing . I am writing again to remind my local member that "some of these deaths are on your heads" because you allow untrained officers in council to administer this legislation and its now unworkable frame   ;Its an example too of legislation slotted into the wrong place - claims to be about planning but is far too determinative .   The legislation should be changed so this stupid name does not continue to worry and confuse people ;so that aim of the retaining habitat is the focus - not some tree that is destined to rot and become dangerous.,.A green faith where hey avoid talk of death is common but dangerous and their careless talk has engendered ignorant myths. .

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

What should YOU really worry about ?

Promised to try and add some direction to this important question sometime ......
. in the meantime -----explore     here is how this started  

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Towards CONSENSUS and COMPETENCE on the environment

Labor continue to travel from hell and back in their attempt to follow the Greens lead . The Greens are talking about  some important issues,  but realistically,  they don't have their feet on the ground either in ecology or in its child-economy. Their worries lead to as many disastrous action ideas than any real ones around .
You think attempting to stop this slide on the first road into Apollo bay is overly ambitious? - how about Tony Burke creating the world biggest protection zones ?You think forthright Government leaders, rather than trained onground independent environmental health professionals know what they are doing?
Take Greenlabor's ridiculous plans and actions in the last  decade to make water . Who do they think they are? And , most importantly, why do many urban industry based people follow them ? Its like there is religious ( or if you prefer idealistic) element.driving a large part of the community mindset on this .
As a planner with lots of on ground experience in providing sustainable solutions, its clear the majority of people in our communities do not have an economic world  view big enough to cope with "the eco of the environment " I am not suggesting we try and change that quickly - just make sure the 1% who do work with nature in our country have some objective truly scientific and practical friends .So that , if you like, \\'the bleeding hearts\\\\' don't  keep driving dumb surgery and deadly bleeding in territory that is clearly not their own to know .  It doesn't take much .When Iwas doing the job I worked 3 Shires  by myself.
The critical question with environment is competence . How do we gain confidence in working with nature to know we are actually  working with nature - not against it . Playing with fire and risking the landslide ? This slide of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of loose soil has been under control now for 10 years after  we drained and resurfaced it . We aren't expecting to control nature,  just making sure we respect it .This is what  a production ecologist tries to do . How many of them are there in Australia in 2012 . Maybe a handful . Most of the people working on " environmental matters " are not allowed to show independent professional judgement , because they work for Greenlabor.
Incompetence and ill directed worry will be Greenlabor's legacy to Australia.
No one needs die as a result of landslide in Australia ( but they have)  Parliament just have to know what to do ; to have someone trained to focus on prevention in the complex local environment rather than panic and irresponsible consultant quickfiz driven solutions

Men in the industrial age are so used to controlling their working environment they  can easily forget there is a world outside where we have to obey the rules of nature. Farmers know this,  otherwise they wouldn't survive more than a year,  but they are only now 1% of the population . Who will join them in understandingand growing the understanding of the big picture ?; Who will join them without trying to drag the dumb baggage of 2 dimensional economics of most secondary industry with them . Governments need not another 1% of its people to work with farmers.  Just a few 100 production ecologists would do

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Delicate or Resilient

At the heart of much unproductive debate on conservation this decade is the failure of the worriers to FIND OUT where the vulnerabilities of particular ecosystems lie . The actual job of assessing these boundaries is diminishing .
The only result that I think is possible without professional ecological engagement is eventual public indifference to the political squabbles run in ignorance and for political gain.
The interest in conservation can be expected, as its done in the last decade, to destroy that delicate profession.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Why banning exports of live animals won't work

The Greens (this week) seem to think the best way to stop bad behaviour is to ban it. They want to ban live exports of animals and will use any examples of bad behavoiur to try and lever an even bigger "seachange" in how we see and use meat and grazing animals.

The banning will not work because the greens are being hypocritical over this issue and the public will see through this eventually. The greens are happy to play politics and play with the truth instead of playing credible and cutting conservation; Short term gain, long term pain .

If the only issue was cruelty, the sheep living their last days on a comfortable cruise to the middle east would have more vets up in arms about their situation ; if any of those animals weren't enjoying the best feed they ever had as their teeth give out.
The greens conveniently ignore the nature facts that grazing animals provide an important and absolutely neccessary links in natural regeneration cycles for soils ,carnivores and omnivores .The conservation issue is not "What use but How use" and its time all competent conservationists say so .

If the only issue was cruelty the greens would admit they are also interested in stopping people eating meat , believing as many do ( and are entitled to ) that that is the right thing to do. Truth is the casualty of playing political games with the best intentions. Not right !

The banning will not work and should not work because its an insult to sound leadership. Quickfiz. I clearly do not accept the way some animals are being killed in Indonesia at the moment , but i give my only support to those within the meat and other industries of true care who work to gain compliance by working with people ( Samaritan road practice. If political action is necessary it must be based on the truth - "we do want to insist that our stock to be treated well, but we understand as mature adults that we can't do that without your open cooperation!") .
Sensible parents don't try to force adults or growing adults to do what they disagree with by banning it. Only careless wannabes think they can make people care. The rush to try to impose punitive methods is a sign of desperation, not real confidence in outcomewhich is the stuff or reality politics.
The game playing greens will gain a few quick fix votes out of putting a simple badge on their good intentions . But in the long term, the result will be anything but a better consensus over how to improve animal treatment. More stock taken from poorly managed grasslands ( compared to ours ) and a lot of kudos for very little credible and sustained change . What we are on about HERE

Every Australian should support WMG ( well managed grasslands ) just as we can clearly support WMF ( well managed forests)
Short term gain , long term pain is the current game of certain greens this week - the greens should know better

To ban live exports on the basis of bad behaviour by some should be seen for what it is - a denial of human freedom. Western democracy has always put freedom before control whenever possible . Its always a bit too easy to solve someone else's problem on some distant shore. If the greens were serious about reform they would take out the plank , work with people and take seriously the Gracious way we teach people in the West to work.

Monday, March 21, 2011

All parties MUST take conservation competence seriously to survive

The first 10 years of the new millennium will go down as "The decade of Who care's " in conservation. Who really cares anyway?- is it all too hard or all too simple ????
If you are just an onlooker to the practical and theoretical science questions let me make it perfectly clear .
You will have to look very carefully to make sure you find someone who speaks and acts like a scientist with competence. Media, arts grads, lawyers, economists, quickrich gurus and businesss knows best sorts let themelselves go on subjects they only half know. While their passion is welcome, their fanaticism is not. You do not solve such problems as simply as you suggest!

This was the decade when nearly all the political parties and green groups are prepared to sacrifice themselves on the altar of sacred objects and half baked reactions to tough conservation questions .. Its a series of decades when even leaders lose their heads in a race to say something or nothing about the elephants in the room Read on Macbeth . What do you think?

The Libs go to one extreme one week, while labor goes to another another week ?
Tony Burke - it seems to me, is on a winner this week ( talking about alpine grazing ) because the Libs are wishy washy on tackling the real objective stuff.I know the trial ends shortly - but the point is -- have a plan B that's bigger than Libs currently have ( hacked up version of old plans)
Mr Walsh and Mr Ramsay are living in the past - farmers need competent conservationists NOT clones defending everything they do.
It maybe that the Libs have got a decent brief for research, but what I have seen so far looks like whitewash or should we call it "blackwash" or backwash .The media have only got to take some nasty pictures of fenced in areas ( not fair but could happen) and Mr Walsh And Mr Baillieu will be "in trouble"

The Libs won't get anywhere by acting in reaction to the conservation excesses of the left. ( Our PM was right to to state greens policies as "extreme" but is Mr Walsh in Victoria acting a little on the extreme?)
The Libs can only survive by BUILDING their own unique brand of conservation competence ( full not just fire ) and avoid the impression they don't take it seriously , say with their " high country grazing trial" .( the brief i have seen on the DPI website does not seem to include a proper review of ecosystem resilience and biodiversity issues )
The thinking people of Australia rightly expect , not necessarily an EIS ( a dumb reactionary tool often ) or a fire driven response to everything ( how reactive can you get) , but a clear commitment to careful research and proper review in this sensitive landscape . I will be the first to state the acceptibility of grazing, but also the first to insist on how it must be done ( based on ALL applied research so far ) .

Friday, February 25, 2011

The problem is so big only the government can do anything about it

Sorry post modernists are a sorry lot - lost the idea that people and ideas can make a difference.
I started this blog POST today after our Prime Minister announced a great big new tax that will cause us all to do good - great good, she thinks. That and the flood levy symbolize just how limited a vision they have of all the range of things that are really threatening us here .
First of all as a competent and well connected scientist I know that the unhappy alliance of the media and political extremists are into beat ups . They love to worry us .
Secondly , when you know quite a bit about how the ecosystems really work and more than the above group ( which doesn't mean we know much either) you know that they worry too much (because the eartb is very resilient ( they keep using that word about people but its the created order that exhibits it best )
Thirdly ( while there is lots more ) the action of this day is a reactionary action ,not a planning action ( which means are moving backwards ). A guilt driven thing in some cases which means you can test it for both projection and tokenism .
The only things we can really do to avoid disasters ( like the earth quake in Christchurch this week ) is to plan better to avoid the consequences of them and coerce those who chose poorly ( http://quickfix.blogspot.com/ ). We are doing this better than we realize (no1 above) . We need to help those in poor countries to do that more than we need a tax on Carbon and a new bureau to bless us when we choose well

Monday, June 21, 2010

What is the world's biggest environmental problem ?

I'm afraid you won't learn the answer to this question from any politician/ or therefore media wannabes ) in our country because they are ALL using the most complex profession and conservation challenge as a political football. Its Quite pathetic how much hot air , and our money , is wasted simply on hot air. emotional not rational . we must act rationally if we are going to do more than air our hot air .
But you can get somewhere near the truth, if you are an Australian, by looking at what's actually happened in your own country - one of the driest and most sensitive environments on earth.Each year by planning supporting and educating and exercising caution in risk the resiliance and sustainability of our ecosystems is increased - no reason why it can't be true the world over.
Here is one of my postings on ANSWERS - to the question
What is the biggest environmental (agricultural) problem TODAY
"Some will say resiliance but deeper than that is capability , Soil erosion and salinity . Failure of governments to minimize their rural peoples exposure to the instability and risk that come from "unrestricted attempts" to farm what scientists can identify as marginally capable land .Notice the problem is not the farmers, as much as it is the governments to solve.
In Australia, we ask governments to give rural people a fairgomate ( blogspot of the same name) .
A balance between being told what to do and supported to do . So, its not so much the type of use ( eg sheep grazing )((The "what" ) but the How ( the sheep footprint" ) Government support to resist overuse of land types and locations can direct citizens to develop uses better suited to some other use than the use proposed .( the "how")
Government can prevent much of the exploitation of land by using a range of planning. taxation and education methods - but all methods must be done sensitively because land managers can make up a large % of the population and are often are at great stress themselves .Relieving their stress is not really costly , but is poorly practiced even in the West, partly because exploitative political elements confuse the "what" issue with the "where" issues ( "Where" changes are harder to quickfix)
While this exposure to risk for soil and soil managers occurs most evidently in subsistence agricultural areas, this pressure can occur in developed countries.

Yours is a great question for a great country and region because its a problem that can and has been largely solved in the West. Resiliance planning just needs more practical political focus by conservationists worldwide . Young people like yourself?

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Bleeding hearts and budgets

It was true when i started this blog and its still true today .
Unless Governments stop playing football with my profession, it may well be a profession of little note in ten years time. Australians in 2020 certainly won't be leading in it as there were in 1980's.
The art and science of sound practice should not be something that is the subject of constsnt change and experimentation - and yet this is what expenditure on environment has become - just another drip feed that feeds tokenism and softedged and misdirected crap.
The greens talk about the problems but do not work out real solutions - but the major parties now do the same . - its not there job------ why would they ?
Rudd may live to regret his trust in his conservation advisors in particular because they are so heavenly minded they are often of no earthly use.

If only one party would have the courage to say were going to end the marginalisation of a discussion that should be mainstream and professional our kids could keep building and extending the great work started in conservation in Australia and beyond .

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Biosequestration - the natural limits.

Here they go again- Polys trying to tell us what they know about what we already know . While the word may not be familiar to farmers the idea is .
Tragically though its new to the wannabes. They LOVE new toys . Before you know it we will have yet another QUANGO or INVESTMENT company/ CRC to duplicate and frustrate progress of the people on the land/ those who know their stuff.

Absolutely nobody needs duplication if we are into conservation and credibility

Thanks to a local farmer we have the perfect piece of onground logic for this week . Grasslands are good .
My apologies to those who asked for some buffering equations within the carbon cycle here - I decided that this isn't the place, because the wannabees who are always searching but never coming to a knowledge of the whole truth --will keep wandering over the the territory ,if they think they are onto something new . see also 2 paras and 2 posts down . They will only be forced to stop talking when we stop feeding them This is their problem; the disease which ruins most cutting edge conservation in Australia - naming one part of the challenge but having no complete view of the whole .

Believe me, if you have doubts about government policy and where it comes from, you are not alone .Very scary when you are isolated from all the noise .
Just have a look at grist and how Obama is having to recant all the talk about biofuels and ethanol . Most polys want quickfix when slowfix is the only way.

Its easy for me because i worked and studied with earth systems all my life and know them well enough to see the huge pile of rubbish that polys and bureaubrats shovel around each week - all in the once good name of conservation .
For you who are not more clear about this , remember, Doubt is not wrong, as the true fundamantalists on CC would have you believe. Its very much part of sound science and common sense . Words ---you can't trust them to use them properly, let alone facts !
Try being an effective environmental risk management scientist over the last few decades. Telling the truth on basic chemistry and physics can cost you your job.
YET Reconciliation with the earth is not something you play with ; it comes at a cost – the cost of doing things properly and professionally; Its Not about quick fix .So whose really kidding who here !
For me doing science and post grad geoscience at University and working effectively in providing risk management advice on the environment for 30 years was no guarantee that you will be able to speak freely. (Bracks sacked me, one of the best water conservationists in the State of Victoria , in its most drought driven year . No wonder Hon Tim Holding has nowhere to go with all his mislaid pipes.( Remember you heard it first on blogger )

Doubts and questions used to define scientists; now only skeptics are doubters and doubters are supposedly stupid .
Our political spin merchants have redefined what scientists are - good scientists are those who are certain about the things they are advocating and they support what we , the leaders , say.
If only they knew what they are really saying--- they have made a game of football out of one of the most important challenges for humans on this earth -living within the chemical limits.
Since the post 2 down , Senator Fielding has asked a simple important carbon question of Senator Wong and got no scientificly defensible answer . These are the numbers in one chemical equation , even a undergrad could answer !
I could add to the reasons why Wongs latest diversion won't work , but that would be to give them talking space when we need an end to this waste of effort.
Carbon cycles are some of the most well buffered, both now and throughout geologial history. Temperature and .......( various other things that you need to look me up for)limits the application of sequestrtaion technology in ways currently censored. Obviuosly Wongs advisors don't know them - what a surprise !

You should not support Labor or the greens in ETS for many reasons. If you can't think of a good reason, he's one . The government pay for a pathetic ad that encourages questions (askmorenow)and yet , they can't even decide whether cows should fart, belch or breath.