Thread: An open letter to Fish and Game

being a bloke of average townie awareness, thanks for the viewpoints to further my education guys. truly.

So it's not 99% of water courses then.

Can you explain to me how Fed farmers came up with when in fact 80% of New Zealand’s waterways are stable or improving, what criteria/ facts are they using for this statement? Because 60% aren't fit for swimming! I shudder to think what percentage aren't drinkable! You obviously think that's acceptable?

No, as I said in an earlier post, an outcome of the clean streams accord was that dairy farmers would fence off their waterways, with a waterway being defined as something that (IIRC) is 3m+ wide and contains water all year round. So this does not include 'waterways' on sheep and beef land etc.

In terms of the definition of a 'waterway', you have to draw the line somewhere. Is it fair and reasonable to require farmers to fence off depressions on their land that fill up with water after rain but are generally dry? Is it worth the cost and lost effective area for the potential gains in nutrient losses? Considering that these areas are covered in grass for most of the year, I'd consider the losses to be insignificant.

The statement that "80% of New Zealand’s waterways are stable or improving" comes from regional councils water quality monitoring data. If you are interested, I suggest you go see your regional council. There are others, but the main water quality metrics are: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and E Coli.

The 'swimability' argument is an interesting one which is used a lot by people with political motives. It largely relates to E Coli levels and how often they are over a certain level. The issue here it that E Coli levels are at their highest following high rainfall/flooding events (high levels of run off) - when you wouldn't want to go swimming anyway. Like I said, people seem to play with the definition to suit their political motives.

Are you aware that waterfowl are a significant contributor to E Coli levels in waterways? No? Fish and Game miss that fact out eh

I'd like to see our countries water quality significantly improved, I'm not quite sure how you can think anything to the contrary.

I just can't see much being achieved unless we are all prepared to acknowledge our contribution to the current state of our water and be part of the solution.

Originally Posted by outdoorlad

So it's not 99% of water courses then.

Can you explain to me how Fed farmers came up with when in fact 80% of New Zealand’s waterways are stable or improving, what criteria/ facts are they using for this statement? Because 60% aren't fit for swimming! I shudder to think what percentage aren't drinkable! You obviously think that's acceptable?

We urge all Fish and Game licence holders to support the men and women who support you in providing access to great fishing and hunting experiences and encourage their organisation to work with, not against, the farming community. Don’t let the opportunities be lost by undermining farmers’ generosity.

Actually this is another issue that pisses me off (Not Landholders Fault) as there should be legal access to All Public Land! Another, Government Cockup!

One of the key outcomes of the clean streams accord was an agreement to fence off all dairy farm waterways in order to reduce faecal contamination (through stopping dairy cows having direct access to waterways) and reduced Phosphate leaching into waterway

s (through the creation of riparian buffer zones). As of last year 99% of dairy farm waterways have now been fenced. It is now a condition of supply for all of the major dairy companies.

I wouldn't have thought dairy cows having access to waterways is that prevalent[ givin the cost of a cow and a drowned or bogged to death dairy cow ]as most would fence them out because of them dropping calves in them or becoming bogged themselves??
the access to waterways is more a beef and sheep farm problem aint it??.
its a nice way to distract from the real issue of fertilizer and excrement run off tho but I applaud that they,re doing it anyway how ever selfserving
[QUOTE When you shit and piss where does it go? Unless you have a modern sewerage system that has kept up with population growth, then whenever you have more than 5mm of rain there is a good chance that it will find it's way (in it's raw state) into the nearest waterway. ][/QUOTE]

not in my front or back yard and not 6 or7 seven times a day do 600 of us turn up to piss and shit in my 1/4acre.

Are you aware that waterfowl are a significant contributor to E Coli levels in waterways? No? Fish and Game miss that fact out eh
]

well aware actualy but generaly not a problem as normal un sucked off or undammed water levels wash it away.
and I remember that silly tory trout in hurinui trying to blame geese for the elevated levels that farming were causing in the waiau and the hurinui.
she got slaped down pretty quick by science and the local council if memory serves

The 'swimability' argument is an interesting one which is used a lot by people with political motives. It largely relates to E Coli levels and how often they are over a certain level.

excellent can I pursuade you down for a swim in the Selwyn te waihora area this summer.??
I wont include lake forsyth cos apparently that's all due to deforestation.
E COLI WILL BE THE LEAST OF YOUR WORRIES.
LAST NIGHT ON A SHOOT AT BOGGY CREEK, after we finished catching colds but f all else.
my waders reeked my hands and decoys reeked and the water was some soupy shit with dead fish and Christ knows what else in it.

This might be an issue around the definition of a 'waterway' - IIRC a 'waterway' is 3m+ wide and contains water year round.

sounds like my my bladder tho I wish f&g saw it that way for my 12 g owning steel suffering mates

Went out for a duck shoot tonight with mr dundee,nice and peaceful out their,some swans flew over to high,,so miss our dog jess,all good.

Originally Posted by mrs dundee

Went out for a duck shoot tonight with mr dundee,nice and peaceful out their,some swans flew over to high,,so miss our dog jess,all good.Attachment 68879

I reiterate I hear that

Environmental expenditure

Changes have been made to ensure that all business operating costs, including those for dealing with environmental issue, are taken into consideration in calculating taxable income, and that the timing of such deductions is appropriate

Most businesses incur expenses when generating income and most of these can be deducted from its income to arrive at its net profit or taxable income. It is on this amount that you pay income tax. Certain business expenses that are paid for out of business income cannot be claimed as allowable business ]

irrigation equipment cowsheds farm vhicles ??

Inland Revenue considers updating farmhouse expenses rules
14 October 2016

Inland Revenue is looking to bring tax accounting practice regarding farmhouse expenses into line with the law.

This is all part of a review of out-dated practices and policies.

The practice of full-time farmers deducting 25% of farmhouse expenses without needing to provide evidence of their business use has been accepted by the department since the 1960s.

Farmers have also been able to deduct 100% of rates bills and interest costs on loans.

Inland Revenue Group Tax Counsel Graham Tubb said this has allowed some farmers to claim deductions for private spending.


Under proposals that go out for consultation today, the farmhouse adjustment will more strictly follow the law so farmers are treated like other businesses.

It’s suggested that farms, where the cost of the farmhouse is less than 20% of the total value of the farm, will still be able to claim a 100% deduction on interest costs.

However, deductions on rates related to the house and general farmhouse expenses would be at a new flat rate of 15% unless the taxpayer can provide evidence to substantiate a higher claim.

“It’s going to be generally business as usual for large farms except the automatic deduction will be based on 15% of farmhouse costs rather than the previous 25%.

“We see the proposed rule changes mostly affecting smaller operations or lifestyle blocks.

“These concessions have been able to be applied even in cases where farming isn’t the household’s main source of income and that’s not in keeping with the intent of the rule.

“Other industries have long had to provide evidence of business use when using their house for work purposes so it’s only fair and equitable that farming gets the same treatment.”

Where the cost of the farmhouse is valued at more than 20% of the total farm’s value, then deductions can only be claimed on expenses attributable to actual business use.

The rules would only affect farms being run by sole traders or in partnership. Those in trusts or companies are subject to different regimes.

“Business deductions certainly remain under these proposals but we’re looking to remove the practice of using the farm to claim for private spending.”

“We have already spoken with Federated Farmers and other industry groups in determining our revised position. However, we look forward to receiving submissions from farmers and their accountants affected by the change.”

The changes will apply from the start of the 2017-18 year after submissions have been considered.

The consultation document can be read online and the deadline for submissions is December 22.

Media contact:
Baden Campbell

I'm sure no evidence of the 400 mill irri fund is needed for you.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

irrigation equipment cowsheds farm vhicles ??


I'm sure no evidence of the 400 mill irri fund is needed for you.

Fair enough, the house deduction side of things is the only deduction that I can think of that doesn't apply to other businesses. Given that farm houses are typically used for farms meetings as farm office and their value is a lot less than an urban home, I'm not sure it's significant enough to justify you attitude.

Could I please some more details on the '400 mill irri fund' and also an explanation on the difference between a 'subsidy' and an 'investment' and how the terms could/should be applied to this fund.

You still need to provide details on "drought /flood /any major wheather event help first"

you know what I don't need to provide fuck all because you,l never concede the point anyway.
the irri fund is real and you know it .
investment for who?? what other private bussiness group gets a 400 million government hand up that doubles their land values while virtually, [ after depreciation for irri equipment and deductability for just about everything else],costing them buggerall .

Originally Posted by gsp follower

you know what I don't need to provide fuck all because you,l never concede the point anyway..

The problem is that if you can't back up your statements with facts then you become merely a 'Nutter having a rant'
If you wouldn't concede a point regardless of the facts then I'll let you decide what that makes you....

[QUOTE=the irri fund is real and you know it ...[/QUOTE]
You're right there is an irrigation fund. The government is investing money into it rather than giving money to it. You are welcome to provide evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by investment for who?? what other private bussiness group gets a 400 million government hand up that doubles their land values while virtually, [ after depreciation for irri equipment and deductability for just about everything else

,costing them buggerall .

Do you have any understanding of economics and how regional economic growth benefits the whole region?

What is your hang up about depreciation? Why would you not be able to depreciate an business asset that wears out (depreciates)? All businesses do this and it's not specific to the New Zealand tax system.

Do you have any understanding of economics and how regional economic growth benefits the whole region?]

by hiring foreign labour at minimum wage for instance.
you address the question for a change instead of getting on a high horse

what other private bussiness group gets a 400 million government hand up that doubles their land values overnight

just one will do.

What depreciation? Houses and farms have never cost so much to buy in this country!

bit like the old $100,000.00 fund that MPs carter&wilkinson got for a certain abortion of a goosecull a few elections ago eh.I had a sly dig at the local DOC boss awee while ago -he rolled his eyes and sighed "that was a fuckup start to finish" GSP follower thatll brin g a chuckle to ya chops!