But surely part of Mr Spencer's problem is the land he owns.
It's hilly, rocky marginal land that would be of little use for anything outside a few goats and rampant bushfires.
Bigpond News on 11 January 2010
When members of the Spencer family went public on 8 & 9 JJanuary 2010, with their concerns that the media, certain websites and fora had lost the plot when discussing Peter Spencer's hungerstrike protest, I wondered how one of the principal offenders Agmates Community Site would react.
On January 8 contributors at this site did indeed begin to react - just not to the criticism of the part they are playing in the silly little drama being played out at "Saarhanlee".
At one thread the Spencer family is attacked for going public, but the issue of the accuracy of what Agmates itself was publishing is not addressed.
For good measure one contributor also suggested that the police are monitoring Agmates - though why and what for is never fully revealed.
A call to blockade local government administrative centres across the country brought a smile to my face, as did the claim that the Peter Spencer issue will bring the Rudd Government down.
However, what I enjoyed most was watching the idea form amid the chatter that the somewhat anti-Labor newspaper, The Australian, was either slanting its coverage at the request of the Rudd Government or because it had been threatened by that same government.
I'm sure that the newspaper would be rather puzzled as to why some thought this might actually have happened in this instance and, perhaps even been a mite indignant that it was also thought to have completely ignored reporting on Peter Spencer for 47 days straight until the family spoke out.
It seems that the Agmates family never let facts get in the way of a good story, so casually brushed aside The Australian's articles published on 18 December 2009 and 5 January 2010.
Less amusing was the assertion that Kevin Rudd's "dirt squad put them [Spencer family] up to it" and the very strange X Files-style whisper that there is something extremely valuable on or under Peter Spencer's land which the government seeks to obtain by actively forcing him off it.
There was only one thread which advised caution when it came to some conspiracy theories, however this warning was from a representative of a lobby group/website which freely indulges in these theories itself at times. To its credit, as of 13 January this particular group continues (on another thread) to advise Agmates against going down the weird road.
Yet another Agmates thread has this audio statement by Peter Spencer. If you listen, particularly enjoy the fact that near the end he attempts to draw the Petrov Affair into the 1970 gun incident and, the crew on this particular discussion thread did not bat an eyelid when he implied this 1954 event actually occurred close to the time he threatened to self-harm.
On 12 January 2010 Agmates congratulated itself on the number of visitors to these discussion threads - I of course was one of these and I have to say that, although my jaw dropped on occasion and I laughed aloud at other times, little that was posted on this website was of any real value in looking at the issue of compensation for farmers who may be negatively affected by native vegetation legislation. As a lobbying effort it was going nowhere fast and, following Mr. Spencer's directions meant credibility became hopelessly lost somewhere in the back paddock many days ago.
Perhaps the final word should go to Geoff Cockfield quoted in The Australian yesterday:
SUPPORTERS of hunger-striking farmer Peter Spencer risk derailing debate on vital issues of property rights with their fringe views, a leading agri-politics expert has warned.
Heated online debate over Mr Spencer's 50-day protest atop a tower is continuing, often lurching into conspiracy theories.
Geoff Cockfield, a specialist in agri-environment policy from the University of Southern Queensland, said it was not helping the NSW farmer's cause that he should be compensated for not being allowed to clear his land near Cooma.
"You always have fringe populists in rural areas thriving around particular issues, whatever they might be," he said.
"They start plausibly enough, just picking on minor irritations people have about governments, but as you get more information we start to get into the worldwide conspiracy.
"There's quite a few mainstream agri-politicians and economists and public policy people who would be sympathetic to the argument that if we are actually preventing full use of property rights in the interests of some sort of supra-national agreement on carbon sequestration, then what's the case for everyone bearing the cost of that?
"I think it's a strong case," he said, "but it creates a problem for the various farm organisations who have been working away on the issue.
"Who do you associate with?"
UPDATE:
Peter Spencer reportedly ended his hungerstrike on 13 January 2010.
