Clearing native vegetation reduces rainfall.

I recall research done in WA showed higher rainfall in non-cleared areas than in cleared areas in the same region. 

The degree of rabbit-caused damage to native vegetation might depend on the number of rabbits. But it takes only one human with a bulldozer or a chainsaw to wreak enormous environmental havoc. 

There are at least two serious problems related to large scale native vegetation clearance & replacing the vegetation with wheat crops. The first is soil salinity as a result of water tables rising bringing with them the dissolved salts deposited aeons ago. The second is that monocultures such as vast swathes of wheat are extremely vulnerable to destruction by even one pest because of the lack of biodiversity which would otherwise have predators to control the insect or insects. When you throw in soil erosion we have a recipe for disaster because of our agriculture mistakes.

It all makes sense to me. And I totally agree with Wollemi. It is depressing to take a drive through most farmland. I have never been able to understand why clearing for farmland has to be so absolute. The preservation of WIDE corridors around natural watercourses and water holdings, both natural and man-made, gullies and other areas that provide important habitat for wildlife should be mandated. Only a few wise and concientious landholders will do it voluntary. 

I've always found it odd they leave trees along the raods. Like its some feel good thing of how green and careing we are, but I know that doesn't even come into consideration. The farmer clears to his boundry so they can utalise all their land.  And the government does not want to clear any more than the road due to cost.  So the wildlife are actually lucky the transport corridor is just wider then the road.  This pathetic corridor of habitate is often the only habitate for hundred and hundreds of metres at times, if not much of the time.  If anything does live in it, it's on borrowed time before being flattened by a car.     

It also find it odd livestock famers dislike trees because this view of taking the water from the  grass. Why do so many just cut them down and leave them liying around.  The dead tree lay on more grass than it supposidely kills standing. Does the possibility of live stock injuring themselves not come into the equasion either. And when you see a herd of cows standing under the lone tree on a warm day, the penny still doesn't drop.  

I camped with a farmer who hates trees last weekend.  He was doing the kill grass blurb as we stood amongst the moderate cover of mature gums.  Perhaps spaced every 5 to 8m, plent of grass from what I could see. I think they just like looking over their estate, and cleared land makes it easier to manage is a common beleif. Perhaps tt would also help to farm where the grass is good naturally, or farm something that can co exist with the land without damaging it. But we are sheep.  In the building indusdtry we have a saying you can't to pollish a turd, same as farmers farming land that is no good for farming, but still they try.

I once had 100 acres of land I bought off a farmer selling off the estare for whatever reason.  They ran 1 beast per 10 acres.  I bought it for nature as I thought it usless for livestock and I'm no farmer. I'm pretty sure I was the only dude in the district with that view.  This farmer also liked selling trees for telegraph poles, now there is another great moment in human thinking.  How many in your street?  And like curbside collection the replacement of ploes is a constant cycle. But it's cheap, well to the human hip pocket anyway. 

Woko, I have grave fears also for Northern Australia.  From what I have seen all I have head is punters counting money.  As Peter Garret once sang back in 84 " who can stand in the way, when there is a dollar to be made".