NOTE: Updates have been posted below, including the tally.
I need your help, because they need your help. Please read this whole story and consider if you can help. WUWT readers may recall this story: Death of a Feedlot Operator …in which the anal-retentive government of West Australia has “licensed” a family farm out of operation due to some shonky science and arbitrary application of the “sniff test”. Yes that’s right, cattle farms smell, so do pig farms, as does any farm. But now it’s reason to shut one out due to baseless complaints from the local greens. And, it all started when Matt Thompson started doubting global warming and talking about it publicly.
I’ve never made a plea to the WUWT worldwide readership for help, I’m making one now to donate to these people to stave off eviction. If nothing else, do it to spite the government of Western Australia and the greens (Environmental Defender’s Office WA) that have turned farming into a “crime”. The real crime is that government listens to these hotheads. From Jo Nova’s website:
4 days notice! The Thompsons are served notice of eviction.
Will, Abbey, Janet, Luke, Matt and Kate on their farm. April 2010
From Agmates (and many emails), news comes that The National Bank served notice today that the Thompsons have to be off their property in four days.
This is a family with four young children, who ran a profitable business; they filled in every form and ticked every box. They have broken no laws, and there are no outstanding environmental notices, but yet, they came to Western Australia with their life savings and they are losing everything. (Note: Matt and Janet are from the USA, Hugo, Oklahoma – Anthony)
Don’t bring your investment dollars to Western Australia — not while the Department of the Environment effectively controls the state.
The Thompsons waited a full year to get Works Approval for a 15,000 head feedlot. After they had already committed the capital, the rules kept shifting. They discovered they’d need ongoing licenses as well. After several years of ramping up the capacity on these licenses, things changed. Matt spoke out as a skeptic. About that time, the renewals were delayed, then the numbers were cut in half, and new conditions were added that were impossible to meet. To feed and supply water for thousands of cattle the Thompsons had to sign agreements in advance to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars of goods they could not use, but had no way of knowing that at the time. When they appealed, it took 18 months to get “vindicated” but by then there was only six months left on the “two year” license. Not enough to set up all the contracts and run a business. The new sub-clauses meant that even licenses for a qualified “10,000″ head had vague untestable conditions: the license you have when you don’t have a license.
I am ashamed of what our government has done.
If the media won’t cover this, shame on them too.
I’ve written before in more detail:
Tyranny: How to destroy a business with environmental red tape
Smell that evidence
There is much discussion on Agmates, and a call for donations (see below):
URGENT HELP – Thompson family in trouble
NAB had not long ago told Matt & Janet that they were not going to move on them before December 31st. But it appears that they have changed their mind.
Those familar with previous discussions on Agmates will know that the Thompson family have no funds available to them to face being thrown out on their ear by the bank. Donations are needed ASAP to help provide a roof over the children’s head. Please consider donating what you are able into the following bank account that has been set up so as any donations can’t be seized with all other assets of Matt & Janet including the few dollars left in their own bank account.
Account Name: L&S BallardDescription: Kate/Aby/Will/LukeBSB: 016 770Account Number: 439863697ANZ: Bintamilling Arcade, Egerton Street, Narrogin, Western AustraliaSWIFT Code: ANZBAU3M
=====================================
For International money transfers, or payment by credit cards, Jo Nova has set up a special PayPal donation button (in US dollars). This will go to her bank account, with an ID that means it will be recorded as a donation for Matt and Janet. She will transfer it to their account. I have complete trust here. Please give anything you can, no amount is too small.
I’m confident WUWT readers can turn this around.
LINK TO PAYPAL DONATION HERE
You can also use your credit/debit card if you don’t have a PayPal account.
(note this takes you to an intermediate page, which I have to do since wordpress.com won’t allow me to insert the full code).
Also for those who have other websites, or who frequent other forums, bulletin boards, and blogs, I ask your help in getting the word out.
As Michael D. Smith writes in comments below:
Let’s show the Aussie Government what “We The People” can do…
Thanks for your consideration – Anthony
================================================
UPDATE1:
Dale Stiller writes in comments: Thank you all who have sent donations for the Thompson family. You can also help by emailing your disgust to Main Stream Media in Western Australia. Below are a few email addresses.
W A Newspaper contacts:
The West
http:au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/contact/
(does not give a Perth email, only phone no (08) 94823111 )
Email for Sydney Rep Office (The West) cdsilva@wansydney.com.au
Western Australian statewide rural newspaper
W A Radio – Perth National:
ABC News Radio – http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/about/contact.htm
ABC News Rural – wwwabc.net.au/rural/contact/
ABC Midwest & wheatbelt http://www.abc.net.au/contact/contactabc.htm
=====================================================
UPDATE2:
Janet Thompson responds to the issues raised by some saying she said in a public meeting: “there will be no odour”. Given Matt’s and Janet’s extensive involvement in animal agriculture, including feedlots and saleyards, in the States prior to coming to Western Australia, I find it hard to believe that she’d say this. Here is an excerpt of her response:
The myth has been propagated that I stated at our original open public meeting in March 2002 that I made the statement that there would be no odour. In considering any proposition in which animals are to be located in one area, it is ludicrous for anyone to state that there would be no odour. (And, I submit, for anyone to blindly believe such a statement.) I know places that have one horse, and there is odour to manage. Whatever statement that was made that night has been taken out of context, and now many people who were not even in attendance that night are repeating this myth. We spoke about manure smelling when it was wet, and for that reason, found it desirable to be located on the south side of town, when prevailing winds are away from town. We were always open about this, and are gravely disappointed in friends who have not come to us to discuss things, but instead worked actively behind our backs to wreak havoc in our lives, and to attempt to destroy our livelihood, the livelihoods of our employees and contractors, and our life savings.
Here’s the document as PDF. FYI, You’ll see today’s date on it since I made the PDF today from a Word DOC sent to me.
Thompson Response to community members LCCC
========================================================
UPDATE3: HOW TO WRITE A LETTER Reader Mark from Australia writes and provides sample letter ideas for contacting MP’s in Australia and members of the media:
People should reword as they desire and add questions if they have any specialist knowledge or expertise, especially in the feedlot business. They MUST keep it civil. People should send FOUR SEPARATE letters or emails. One to each Minister. That is important. Each MUST be answered so they must put their return addresses on them. I will be sending mine as letters, today.
Be sure to edit this to cover the points you want to include and your own words. Note that simpler hand written letters are likely to carry more weight. It is important to distinguish between EDO Environmental Defenders Office (which is the Non Governmental Organization) and DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (which is the state department of environment and conservation, which is responsible for licensing and the decisions that have been made). In that vein, most of the questions should be about DEC, not EDO (although the funding ones are great to ask).
Premier The Honourable Colin Barnett MEc MLA
Minister for State Development
24th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower,
197 St Georges Terrace,
PERTH Western Australia 6000
Tel: (08) 9222 9888 Fax: (08) 9322 1213
e-Mail: wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Honourable Brendon Grylls MLA
Minister for Regional Development & Lands; Minister Assisting the Minister for State Development
9th Floor, Dumas House,
2 Havelock Street,
WEST PERTH Western Australia 6005
Tel: (08) 9213 7000 Fax: (08) 9213 7001
e-Mail: Minister.Grylls@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Honourable Terry Redman MLA
Minister for Agriculture and Food
Address: 11th Floor, Dumas House, 2 Havelock Street, WEST PERTH WA 6005
Telephone: (08) 9213 6700 Fax: (08) 9213 6701
e-Mail: Minister.Redman@dpc.wa.gov.au
The Honourable Donna Faragher MEd(Hons) BA(Hons) GradDipEd JP MLC
Minister for Environment
10th Floor, Dumas House,
2 Havelock Street,
WEST PERTH WA 6005
Tel: (08) 9213 7250 Fax: (08) 9213 7255
e-Mail: Minister.Faragher@dpc.wa.gov.au
MINISTERIAL REQUEST – NARROGIN BEEF PRODUCERS
Background Information
Matt and Janet Thompson moved from the USA to establish a feedlot business about 4 km outside Narrogin, WA. The business started operation in 2003 and employed about 20 locals at peak. This represents a success for WA and a success for Australia in attracting foreign investment.
Following his publicly expressing doubt as to the effect of the cattle industry on ‘global warming’ in June 2008, the West Australian Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) took an interest in complaints by Narrogin greens against the Thompson’s business.
In 2008, the Thompson’s applied to the West Australian Department of Environment and Conservation for an increase in their licence capacity from 10,000 to 15,000 head. Instead, the DEC cut their licence conditions back to 6,000 head, effectively closing the business by removing its economies of scale. The feedlot remains closed. This closure also played a role in the suicide of one of the employees, Mr Lindley Boseley.
The reasoning given by EDO on use of regulation to destroy this business is not available but seems subjective, indeed, specious (Reference page 2 of EDO newsletter at http://www.edowa.org.au/newsletters/200803Newsletter.pdf).
The EDO newsletter is itself disturbing. It displays the hallmarks of both a ‘captured bureaucracy’ and an issue-motivated NGO. It is positively triumphs the ‘Green cause’.
Questions
1.The Environmental Defenders Office is jointly funded by the West Australian State Government and the Federal Government. Why is WA funding this organisation when it seems to be little more than an arm of ‘The Greens’?
2.On what scientific grounds was the Thompson’s licence capacity reduced from 10,000 head to 6,000 head?
3.Was the viability of the Thompson’s business considered by the EDO in making this determination?
4.What are the scientific or other relevant qualifications of those who made this decision within the EDO?
5.Was this decision subject to review by anyone with skills in determining its impact on the viability of the Thompson’s business?
a.If so, who, and what are their business qualifications and experience?
b.If the EDO decision was not subject to review to determine the impact of the decision on the Thompson’s business by a person with appropriate business qualifications and skills, why not?
c.If the EDO decision included no business impact review from a person qualified to determine its impact on their business, were ‘the rules constantly changed’ in respect of the Thompsons applications?
i.If so, why and on what grounds?
ii.If so what were the qualifications of the person(s) making these ‘rule changes’?
d.Was ‘natural justice’ denied to the Thompsons in their application?
e.What appeals processes were available to the Thompsons?
f.Were they made aware of these in time to make effective use of them?
6.Why are the Thompsons being evicted from their property on 21 September 2010 instead of in December?
7.Are the WA Ministers for State Development, Agriculture, and State Development and Lands aware of the ability of the EDO to close any WA agricultural business on apparently subjective and/or ideological grounds?
8.Are the appropriate WA Ministers (State Development, Agriculture, and State Development and Lands) aware that this case is now attracting very adverse international attention to WA, due to the Thompsons being international investors in WA?
9.Are the appropriate WA Ministers (State Development, Agriculture, and State Development and Lands) aware that this case is causing damage to WA’s ‘brand’ as a safe place for international investment in agriculture?
10.Is there a link between Mr Thompson’s ‘offence’ against a Green ideological belief in ‘global warming’ and the EDO’s patently apparent belief in that same ideology?
11.Was Mr Thomson’s business targeted by the EDO on the basis of this ideology?
12.Did the ‘Green ideology’ so apparent in the EDO’s publications play any role in their determination?
a.If so, why is ‘Green ideology’ permitted to destroy a business and 20 jobs?
b.If not, what was the scientific basis for their decision to deny their application for an increase in license numbers from 10,000 head to 15,000 head?
13.Will the WA Government review the funding and operations of the EDO to prevent further damage to WA’s ‘brand’ as an investment destination?
Yours Sincerely
NAME
ADDRESS
DATE
===============================================
UPDATE4:
Jo Nova reports that WUWT readers have given generously! Over $27,000 was raised in two days from 670 donations. My humble and sincerest thanks to you all for coming to their aid when asked. Jo Nova reports that the fund will go into the Thompson children’s names.
Of course the alarmist community has been silent, there’s not been one word of support that I’m aware of.
See the latest from Jo Nova of how the DEC defines ditches at farms, and you’ll understand the sort of green tyranny the Thompsons face.
People should reword as they desire and add questions if they have any specialist knowledge or expertise, especially in the feedlot business. They MUST keep it civil.
People should send FOUR SEPARATE letters or emails. One to each Minister. That is important.
Each MUST be answered so they must put their return addresses on them. I will be sending mine as letters, today.
Hope this helps.
If you must refer to me, then please just keep it as ‘Reader Mark from Australia’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony
Reading through the comments I see that a few have posted the complaints from neighbours. They would do well to have a look at Jo Nova’s Smell the evidence post here: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/smell-that-evidence/ This story has gotten longer and stronger legs since Jo first wrote about the Thompsons and it is most heartening to see so many familiar names lending support.
Update, I see Walter Schneider September 18, 2010 at 4:18 pm has beaten me to the punch. On the money Walter.
Anyway thank you Anthony for getting behind this. As an Australian I’m amazed that we are a quantum leap behind when it comes to exposing fraudulent environmentalism. Government agencies need to become more responsible/responsive to all stakeholders and this issue has the potential to bring that about.
I don’t get it, don’t the people of australia give a [snip] about their own peeps?
Not that I don’t mind the whole saving people thingy but give me a frakking break will ya I alone can only do so much. Apparently, of course, this is more then the whole pathetic Aussie hackers alone are able to achieve.
Pfft.
I am a australian but it is sad to say we are being taken over by the greens just like newzealand has, their farmers are going to be destroyed next month as there govt are going to vote on charging farmers green house gases ie methane cows farting .in australia Bob Brown of the greens have done a deal with labour to form a govt who are pushing the ETS and you name it . most of the the gooses have been recruted from the union movment say no more . GOD SAVE AUSTRALIA
I had no trouble donating with Paypal.
Firstly, I would like to say that on the face of it – the problem seems relatively small (as in, the number of complainants) relative to the potential economic benefits to the area.
I would also certainly take the view that the licensing authority and planners should have considered all of the ‘aspects’ of the feedlot at the time of application.
On the basis of (original) licensing conditions having been met – there seems little reason to withhold ‘re-licensing’ but I can see why they may wish to impose extra conditions (though clearly, as an outsider, I cannot comment on whether those extra conditions have been ‘beefed up’ by local action groups – excuse the pun – to deliberately try and put the venture out of business.)
I am intrigued as to what detailed environmental monitoring has or has not been used by either party (or parties) to confirm or deny the presence of significant odour at the suggested distance of 4 to 5 km away.
My suggestion would have been to install appropriate air quality sampling points along the ‘route’ to town. If the odour production really is that strong (as suggested by the complaints link given above) I would have no doubt that gas sampling and analysis would be able to ‘pinpoint’ the source – I would also be reasonably confident that pig manure and cow manure would generate different odour ‘signatures’, for example?
Would there be any merit in doing such analysis now – even though there are no cattle on the feedlot? – in other words, could there be a ‘control’ set of samples, along with a survey of citizens – which (one would presume) would confirm the ‘no cattle odour’ state of play. Thereafter, on appeal (or as a condition of the appeal being granted?), perhaps a few thousand cattle could be introduced, and with additional sampling immediately adjacent to the feedlot, and further sampling (and survey) of the route to town after an appropriate period. Surely, this would/could scientifically confirm the presence of absence of ‘odour’?
One complainant specifically mentions H2S – which is easily detected in very small concentrations with readily available and not too expensive equipment, for example (I used to do this myself!)
A period of monitoring and scientific analysis could perhaps be offered as some type of agreement between all parties?. If the monitoring clearly shows the problem, and defines how serious it is – correct decisions could be made without either party feeling unreasonably aggrieved – (i.e. control, shut down or continuation as before). It could transpire that the odour IS a problem, but on only certain days, conditions, etc – or that it IS from somewhere else entirely! As the human nose is highly sensitive to H2S – it may simply be the H2S concentration thats the problem, which could be addressed by different feeds, etc, etc (and no – I dont know anything about feeds, farming, or cow farts ! – I am just wildly speculating in the hope it may trigger some reasonable thoughts in others?).
As I read it – there needs to be some serious legal arbitration rather than the us and them ‘fight’ attitude.
I find it amazing that the livelihood of a (supposedly) successful operation seems to be reliant on what really amounts to anecdotal evidence (this is only from what I have read, so I cannot be sure of this!). The environmental health dept, etc, should surely have some scientific evidence before they strap on their size 12 boots and start laying into folk??
I try write this from a neutral view – though I agree with the majority of anti-establishment type comments and can fully sympathise with the Thompsons position.
However, my view (and I don’t mean to sound patronising) would always be to fight fire with fire and try to produce scientific facts. Here in the Uk, we have quite grim odour at the moment with manure spreading, but it never extends ‘kilometres’ – though I’d admit to not wanting to have to suffer it for more than the time it usually takes to drive past – and of course, it is usually a temporary thing anyway. The ‘rural’ area argument is unfair – of course, we expect manure smells in the country – but not suddenly or ‘newly’ imposed on a constant basis on our homes. Hence, if it was shown to be say only a couple of days a month – that would surely be considered ‘normal’ for rural life? It is this kind of information that is difficult to extract from the reporting, but it is exactly this kind of information that needs to be made available for anyone to make a reasonable assessment.
Just my view… and good wishes to the Thompsons
I can understand some readers may be sceptical. I am sure the issue is not as simple as it may at first seem, from either side.
However, I trust Anthony, he’s always been straight and clear, and he has actually met these people. I also trust Jo.
I have been a victim of bureaucracy influenced by unscrupulous malicious individuals. My family was threatened with deportation from Australia because some thoroughly unpleasant person (whom I had demonstrated as being professionally incompetent) decided to make allegations regarding my professional activities that had breached my visa conditions. The Department of Immigration saw fit to believe the allegations, and I had to spend $10k on lawyers to prove that what I was doing was within the conditions that the department themselves had set, ie to prove to them what their own conditions actually were! As such, I have every sympathy for the victims here.
My donation sent.
1DandyTroll says:
September 18, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Not sure I get your point? I could take offence at a possible insult to Australians, but I’ll give you the benefit.
Donated via PayPal.
What has happened to the Thompson family is outrageous. Will this lunacy never end?
@Ralph says:
September 18, 2010 at 1:57 pm
This is certainly a tragic story and shows once more what bureaucracy can do to well meaning people. And it’s honourable that Anythony is going out of his way to help his friends.
However, a couple of things don’t quite add up. There’s a report dated April 2008 saying that the DEC wanted the number of cattle be reduced because of odour and waste managment issues.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/09/2211844.htm?site=news
It’s pretty clear from the information in Jo Nova’s article (particularly the links to the council agenda) that despite her appeal to emotions, there’s no link to the climate sceptic comments. the problem had been recognised years earlier. Hence the headcount restriction already occurring before the meeting where the comments were apparently made.
It’s clear that a number of people in the town had strong concerns about the odours. It’s also clear that the authorities tried to work with the Narrogin Beef Producers to improve their standards. One-on-one consultations and liaising with the complainants to try to settle differences without resorting to restrictions etc.
I think a number of occurrences are being conflated to make a conspiracy theory work on this one. Cooler heads might have found a solution, but launching a PR campaign isn’t.
Now, giving money to stop the foreclosure is going to solve what exactly? I know it feels good, and you’re propagandising this to the hilt. But its really just extending the agony for this family isn’t it? Are they going to keep fighting on with something that they can’t afford to run with the current licence?
Better to make a clear break and move on, IMHO.
Given the actual neighbors’ complaints against the Thompsons, this isn’t a matter only of helping them keep their farm. There needs to be a solution to the smell problem. From the neighbors’ descriptions, it is an unusually strong smell. This can happen for subtle reasons, not always easily controlled. But perhaps the college that wrote in complaint might also provide the manpower to study the situation and come up with a solution. In the meantime there is a well-known solution to feedlot odour problems: a little thing called Zeolite. I don’t know if it’s available in Oz, but though it increases costs, it improves relations to neighbours and has the benefit of improving the soil-enriching qualities of manure.
Apart from donating, I think it could also help if politicians in Australia could be made aware of the concern that this is causing. I therefore think it would might a good idea for everyone to voice their objection (or appeal) to the WA State Premier. Here is the contact link for Colin Barnett:
http://www.premier.wa.gov.au/Pages/Contact.aspx
Perhaps a link could be included in the main article. It doesn’t matter if you aren’t an Australian resident; the fact that the concern has global extent, will only help get their attention.
Tony Abbott, leader of the federal Opposition in Australia (against Labor/Greens), could also be made aware of this. He, at least, has taken a tentative stand against Warmunism. Here is his contact link:
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/ContactTony.aspx
Mike Jonas says:
September 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm
“[…]a major odour problem. The document appears to be genuine, as it contains identification of the WA College of Agriculture Narrogin who would surely complain loudly if misrepresented ”
Excuse me, a COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE that complains about smells from an agricultural business? That’s like a programmer complaining about the need to sit in front of a screen.
@JERoME
‘Not sure I get your point? I could take offence at a possible insult to Australians, but I’ll give you the benefit.’
Why? If yer an australian hacker I frakking insult ya all the way and then some and then I frakking spit on ya, just for a good measure and to make a point, right. But jesus, what kind of a pathetic person are you if you don’t take care of your own?
Thanks for the heads up. Donation sent.
Sent them Ulysses S Grant as a goodwill ambassador. ☺
I suspect some would think a re-enactment of Sherman’s march to the sea would be appropriate.
Larry
Donated some $$$. Good luck and God bless to the Thompson’s.
Donation sent. Good job Anthony for helping carry the torch with Jo and the others on this one!
Thanks for the post. I’ll send along a donation, and linked your post at Free Republic; some response might come from their readers.
This is by no means a problem unique to our friends down under. Numerous American farmers have been subject to legal harassment after city folks bought their place in the county and were shocked, SHOCKED! to discover that agriculture sometimes is associated with smells, dust, and noise. Its like folks who buy a home underneath the departure path of some major metropolitan airport only to discover to their amazement that noisy airplanes are roaring overhead all day. Next thing you know they’re lawyering up.
Thats why I left Australia and took my business elsewhere DVM Msc, PhD
Done.
Treeman : “Reading through the comments I see that a few have posted the complaints from neighbours. They would do well to have a look at Jo Nova’s Smell the evidence post here: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/smell-that-evidence/”
I have now read it. Seems there is a second smell!
DirkH : “Excuse me, a COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE that complains about smells from an agricultural business?”
Not the main point, perhaps, but a good one.
It seems to me that, as usual, it is best to cut through the noise and find the main points. Maybe Jo Nova has done this satisfactorily. Even if JN is out somewhat, it is surely the case that the Thompsons were treated [add appropriate adjective] unfairly and our support of them is highly justified.
Would someone care to say when “Matt Thompson started doubting global warming and talking about it publicly” so that we can see where it fits on Jo Nova’s chart?
Unfortunately true, unlike water rights in the U.S. Property usage is not protected by priority of use.
In water law the oldest water claim has priority over all other junior claims. In land use matters the prevailing attitude and accepted norms of the majority trump even land owners who have been doing the same thing for generations.
This has been a problem for all sorts of specialty uses such as agriculture, airports, racing venues (drag strips) out door movie theaters etc.
You could have a working cattle ranch that has been in continuous use for 100 years and if enough environmental whackos move in as your neighbors, you be come the nuisance and they become the “community” and define define the “acceptable use” in the neighborhood.
It would be nice if people actually had to be responsible for their decisions, but in land use situations that is not the case. If I could get enough people of similar world view and attitude to move into a community, I can dictate what long time natives of the community can do, even though I could have and should have known that they all had homes with private hangers and a small air strip in their back yards and like to fly every Saturday morning at 7:00 am, if enough new neighbors move in and complain about the noise from that activity you can drive them out of the their own neighborhood.
It would be very nice if someone some where could get a land mark case ruling that the oldest prevailing use has seniority over newer uses. If there is a pig farm nearby that has been in operation for some time, there is no legitimate claim that a cattle feed lot is a nuisance due to odors.
The same tactic has been used to shut down commercial businesses as it is nearly impossible to prove the negative that your business is not responsible for an odor problem alleged by some hyper sensitive neighbor.
Larry
When properly calibrated, this machine could be located upwind to test complainants’ olfactory objectivity.
It says something about the WUWT blog and Anthony in particular that in order to get to this point on this page after donating a few dollars, I had to wade through seemingly hundreds of similar messages. Thanks for what you to Anthony.