Without a political leadership prepared to act only on evidence, and with an eye to future needs, opportunities and requirements, all the talking in the world will not fix this problem.
While Gunns has it hand up the backside of our government, nothing will get better.

i suspect the compromise will be to end clear-fell logging in old growth forests. Sound familiar? Interesting choice of gerald castles given that he resigned from the community leaders group before their work was concluded.

I suggest asking ‘should the public continue to subsidise the production of woodchips?’ instead of asking ‘is a solution possible?’

Costings have made it clear that without massive taxpayer subsidies, wood chipping for pulp would be so uneconomic that it wouldn’t happen at all.

It would be nice to believe that plantations would satisfy the forestry industry.

Unfortunately, good hardwood takes a long time to grow and most existing plantations are of wood that is only really usable for pulp.

Also the forest industry clearly wants both - plantations and forests. Without an enforceable agreement to trade logging forests for plantations I fear this is all fantasy.

As Thomas Pynchon said,” If they can get you asking the wrong questions, then they don’t have to worry about the answers.”

If we continue with plantations, we’ll have to keep paying the subsidies because wood chips are just not profitable.

Continuing with plantations is in the wood chip industry’s interests - they’ll receive constant subsidies, they’ll own the land, they’ll control much of our water.

Stop the subsidies and the forests will be protected from woodchipping.

It really is that simple.

I posted this recently and, being the eternal optimist, will do so again.

In the same manner as the 20 year timber supply agreement, place a 20 year moratorium on “old growth” currently in working forests and leave the decision to log for the next generation. Timber workers surely wish their children to reap the benefits of their industry while Australia can argue carbon retention during the interim period.

Ultimately, I agree with #1. It needs political leadership and, with all my optimism, I can’t see that happening.

Whatever is being imbibed, injected, inhaled or otherwise inserted it sure has had a magnificent impact in helping visualise such a concept…that Forestry might operate without conflict in Tasmania. Not since The Byrds 8 Miles High, Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club has such a whimsical and perhaps even fanciful concept.

But - Im sure many will turn up and romanticise.

At the present time 10% of mammals, 12% of reptiles and an incredible 40% of plants are currently threatened by the human species.

One could start by making Forestry accountable for their actions. One could start by removing the industry and its management from the face of the earth, and using our much claimed inventiveness to find something else to do with ‘all those jobs’.

Funny how government in Tasmania keeps insisting it is capable and useful, yet all of the key indicators are that its more of a self flushing enterprise that any of the automatic loos on Acland Street, St Kilda.

Well after Llywellyn’s bill today, I’d say that division is full steam ahead….

For some reason only known to the Liblabs, the proposed pulp mill and the endless clearfell of Tasmania’s native forests, retain priority ahead of all else.

As Mike points out, without the generous, yet unwarranted, taxpayer subsidies, the forest woodchip industry would go arse over.

So this will be another talk fest that will watch the forests be consumed at a rate faster than any time in history.

Fuck ‘em

Should we be advising consultation between home invaders and those sleeping within?

While we ponder in the meantime, I propose that forestry PR be classed as a cosmetic, so that at least some of our massive expenditure on it will be returned to the public purse.

John Hayward

If I wanted to get a useful answer to the questions being asked I would be interested in hearing from neutral experts in fields related to conflict resolution and who had studied the Tasmanian forestry issue closely.  Such people would most likely be political scientists/historians, perhaps sociologists or psychologists with an interest in activist motivations.  In this case at least two of the four invited speakers are participants in the conflict and are so on the same broad side as “Environment Tasmania”, and there is little sign of all that much expertise relevant to the question at hand being held by anyone listed.  So this does not bode well for the ability of the forum to actually answer the questions being raised, and I am unconvinced of the forum’s claimed importance.

Another round of thanks to Dr Kev for his sage advice.  As the good doctor suggests, the panel should exclude anyone with knowledge of or demonstrated concern with the environmental or economic effects of Tassie’s logging frenzy and instead concentrate on the psychopathology of anyone who objects to some of the most intensive logging in the world.

I share Kev’s puzzlement at the inclusion of someone whose field is irrelevant to the aims of Tassie logging, namely “High Value Wood Resources"expert Chris Harwood. What does he know about smash-n-grab chip mining?

John Hayward

Actually John (#10), my comment explicitly stated that any relevant expert analysing the issue would need to be familiar with the background. 

The reason I referred to activist psychology specifically is that the essential objectives of the industry and those working in it (profit and employment) are clear enough, but the goal for activism is much less clear because of the long history of instrumental objection and obstruction.  Claimed activist reasons for objecting to proposals (threatened species concerns, for example) are often proxies for deeper-seated objections to logging or industry in general, so it is difficult to distinguish between what activism claims to want and what would actually keep it satisfied.  Yet such a determination would be critical to any effective and lasting peace strategy.

Hayward’s comment re Harwood also misses the point.  This forum isn’t about what people know about different logging techniques. It is supposedly about whether a social and political conflict can be resolved.  What do the invited speakers know about conflict resolution that makes their opinions on that subject of interest?

Let me make this my contribution for today, from a 225km distance.
I am attending “THE BURNING SEASON” at the Royal Oak in Launceston from 7:45pm.

Good luck in Hobart people, you have a long way to go to become clear of what we should have had over 15 years ago,... It was easier to just refuse to do the serious solution development, and the greedy conversion industry used that opportunity since then. Sad, very sad and I can’t not reverse the terrible waste they have created since a small responsible team proposed in March 1994, “ProSilva: Quality Management in our Forests”, you find it via google search if you are interested.

Here another suggestion:
The FSC Principles and Criteria for responsible forest management
The FSC Principles and Criteria describe how the forests have to be managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations. They include managerial aspects as well as environmental and social requirements. In fact, FSC rules are the strictest and FSC’s social and environmental requirements the highest.

These 10 principles and 56 criteria form the basis for all FSC forest management standards. Based on these 10 principles, the FSC has developed further rules (called policies or standards) that further define and explain certain requirements stipulated in the 10 principles.

Here is a summary of some of the points the FSC Principles and Criteria require. Many of the points listed below will appear almost basic – but in many places even these basic requirements are not fulfilled. This is where FSC can have the biggest positive impact.

Prohibit conversion of forests or any other natural habitat
Respect of international workers rights
Respect of Human Rights with particular attention to indigenous peoples
Prohibit the use of hazardous chemicals
No corruption – follow all applicable laws
Identification and appropriate management of areas that need special protection (e.g. cultural or sacred sites, habitat of endangered animals or plants)
More here:  http://www.fsc.org/pc.html

Maybe there is conflict between the Tasmanian forestry industry & the Tasmanian people because Tasmanian people are continually wondering why their businesses & their industries aren’t receiving the same level of taxpayer funded subsidies, bureaucratic & political attention, as well as specially written legislation (ie, PTR, PMAA, PAL, MIS) that one (1) forestry company receives.  A company that directly & indirectly employs fewer & fewer people as time goes by.  Also in the mix is the Tasmanian forestry industry’s intense focus on wood chips & monoculture plantations of eucalyptus, with the associated loss of millions of taxpayers’ dollars through Forestry Tasmania, & all at the detriment of so called ‘lesser species’ of timber that could be used for construction & furniture, .  The continued destruction of old forests & valuable agricultural land by monoculture, eucalyptus plantations with their attendant aerial spraying of pesticides & ferociously intense debris burns, become easy & understandable focus points for the anger of people who see the obscene waste & despair continuing year after year, right next door to them.  The Tasmanian people see these conundrums everyday & are naturally angry at the obvious bias, unnecessary kowtowing & embarrassing fawning of the LibLab coalition toward the forestry industry.

Revoking the special legislation, refocusing on timber instead of wood chips, stopping the clear-felling of all old forests & the better control of plantations would be a good start for the Tasmanian forestry industry.  If not, the people of Tasmania will remain angry toward the forestry industry & the conflict will continue.  The forestry industry has to make at least these changes; the people of Tasmania have already given the forestry industry enough.

“Claimed activist reasons for objecting to proposals (threatened species concerns, for example) are often proxies for deeper-seated objections to logging or industry in general…..”

Industry in general???  It is this sort of extreme black and white, all or nothing mindset that perpetuates conflict not to mention misinformation about environmentalists

All over the world there are examples of sustainable industry….the people of Tasmania want to move towards this but when has a nation (or state) ever thrived the level of corruption, cronyism and just plain incompetence that the over taxed and over governed people of Tasmania have to put up with

....and miserably, there is no end in sight—-perhaps when the entire state looks like this

http://images-2.redbubble.net/img/art/size:
large/view:main/2959857-3-moonscape-queenstown.jpg

they will stop ——and then blame ‘the greenies’

Thank you for stating such as what should be the ‘right now present day concerns’ stated back in FSC Principles and Criteria March 94.

I would recommend you could hold your own on debating most if not all of the contentions of the divisiveness today caused by the Rogues of present-time forestry in Tasmania.
(see comments 9, 11, above.)
I cannot accept that some desk-bound academic can hold or even assume the majorities of opinion on matters well outside the confines of their office.

As I view this matter, their are expert woodsmen and forest ranging individuals whom could make quite a significant contribution to resolving this divisiveness between the pro-forest destroyers and the persons whom cannot for the life of them, understand the whims of those who seek to reduce our Ancient forests to greedily line their pockets.
The external persons could well identify the tragic loss of our forests, whilst the desk-bound academic is capable only of digesting published information and bending to the opinion of other such ignorants, yet the man of the land can see and fully comprehend thus translate a clearer picture of the forlorn pursuit of maintaining the present divided stance, of purposefully splitting public opinion, so to benefit the strategies of these same forestry hounds.

Do realize Dr Bonham that the highly educated and professed knowledgeable academics have, through their crafted learnings, ably delivered to we Tasmanians the very controls acting against the wishes of most Tasmanians.
Lawmakers, governments and ancillary experts have irresponsibly delivered the present world as it presently stands with all its present failings.

No doubt Dr Bonham, you will seek to dispute my comments as your ‘par for the course ridiculing history’ has proven you to do so often in the past?
I do not thank you for the newly inserted derogatory statement bu you, as now published via the auspices of the internet, under my name!

William Boeder.

The basis of this conflict needs to be explored more thoroughly.

The forestry industry seeks to profit from publicly owned forests and it achieves this by receiving favours from government that are not applied to other industries. Many of those favours cost the public significant amounts of money that may be better applied elsewhere.

Governments have failed to be even handed and are blatantly favouring that one industry over all others.

The consequence of biased government is two fold - ecological damage and growing public dismay.

Considering the scale of the favours to forestry, their behaviour is too much like that of a street beggar who taunts donors for not giving enough.

Instead of treating the public with respect, they are dismissive of public concerns and abusive of those concerned for the environment.

As far as I can tell, all of these characteristics are driven by failures of government.

Unless these failures are properly addressed there appears little prospect of the forest wars being curtailed.

As it stands, taxpayers are forced to pay forestry interests to destroy our forest ecologies to keep the money flowing into the right pockets.

I can’t get over the egotistical arrogance of the pro forestry people…If a tree is standing…chop it down. When driving away from Launceston in almost all directions, all that can be seen is endless plantations…DISGRACEFUL…The waterways running through these hideous sights would be polluted, there is never any wildlife to be seen or even roadkill where there are small trees growing as they have all been poisoned. Why does our island have to look this way? On the rare occasions when there is wildlife to be seen and the beautiful native forests, one wonders how long before the lab/libs give permission for the timber giants to go in and clearfell these beautiful areas. I don’t believe there is very much saved…each area that we think is saved is quickly being logged from the inside so they are not seen in the act. This is where the protesters come into their own…good on them.

#13 - depicting it as a conflict between the industry and “the Tasmanian people” is a clear misrepresentation; obviously, many of “the Tasmanian people” support the industry.  The proportion that do so may vary from time to time and issue to issue, and is difficult to measure with most polls commissioned on the issue being defective, but the people are clearly nowhere near united in opposition to the industry.

William Boeder’s #15 employs blatant stereotypes that are utterly unconnected to reality; for instance I am neither an academic nor desk-bound, and it is common for academics in areas relevant to the forest industries to do plenty of fieldwork.  I do not “realise” the thing that Boeder claims, without evidence, to be true, and indeed I suggest that it is probably rubbish.  If it is not rubbish he should present compelling evidence for it instead of engaging in vacuous unsubstantiated blithering.

The remainder of Boeder’s comments about me are a personal attack that is irrelevant to this thread.  I ask William Boeder to avoid such personal attacks as per the TT Code of Conduct, and to stick to debating the issues.  But yes, it is par for the course that when confronted with factually threadbare waffle like #15 I treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

#14 - OK, “industry in general” was a tad over-generalised. I didn’t mean to suggest that those using anti-logging as a proxy for a more generalised anti-industrialist (or anti-capitalist or anti-corporatist) stance are opposed to absolutely everything that could possibly be conceived of as “industry”. 

As for “black and white all or nothing mindsets”, we don’t need to look too far on this website to find plenty of those - for instance posters who are a priori opposed to the construction of a pulp mill in Tasmania no matter where it is, who it is by, what forests it uses or what the technology.

Iam not sure if it is possible to end the conflict in Tasmania over Forestry, but here are a couple of my wishlist issues.
_ The industry and Government to stop lying to us about forestry.
- Stop woodchipping valuable trees and no clearfelling in the forests. Return to good forest practices of selective logging.
-woodchipping to be only on real forest and sawmill waste. No Trees that could be left to grow into sawlogs to be chipped.
- Throw all the current top end managers of FT out. Sack the lot and get in some fresh talent who know how to tell the truth and to care for forests.
- Take away all concessions to Gunns ltd.
- Delete the wood supply agreement for the pulp mill, delete the water supply agreement, delete the PMAA and permits for the pulp mill.

Not much to ask for is it.
Oh maybe the government and oppostion could be sent to work in a real job, maybe a green corps restoration forestry job for the lot.

I am a mature aged Honours student at Utas College of the Arts. Having just submitted a proposal for a thesis titled Common Ground: A print-based investigation into landscape & issues of consensus & division, I was intrigued by the title of last night’s forum, Common Ground - is a solution to the forestry conflict possible? and so I found myself on the campus where I seldom tread.
My wish was to find something in the discussion that could forward my research and perhaps something that could help me justify my research as novel and important. The forum’s title suggested to me that perhaps my research was indeed topical. How could I not attend?
I came to the forum with preconceived notions about common ground as did most if not all of the attendees. This is the introduction to my proposal. It may serve to illustrate my perspective on common ground.   
‘The aim of this project is a visual communication of the concept of common ground. Through my research I have chosen to consider common ground as more than just consensus. It is also a shared landscape and an holistic perception of various locales, public spaces, shaped by social, historical and geological time.
It is twenty-five years since my arrival in Tasmania. I cannot remember a time when this state was not divided over some social or environmental cause. Through the various debates we have heard the term common ground endlessly bandied about yet the people remain polarised and divided. Therefore it is more than possible that my upcoming body of work comes from idealism and a hope for a future cognisant of the population’s wishes.’
On reflection, it was the first speaker, Gerard Castles, who came most prepared to discuss ideas to further common ground. His notion that we should bring the middle together for ‘the middle is where change comes from’ works for me as an artist and a citizen. I support the mooted idea that common ground is founded on shared values. I often declare that I am seeking a middle ground, a neutral stance, and I am not represented well in Tasmania’s polarised political arguments. Recently one of my critics asserted there was no common ground in the Tasmanian forestry debate. To wit I answered that we might both have a grandmother with a super scone recipe. It was conceded. There are common values we all share no matter how polarised the debate.
Castle’s reference to a colour-coded eight step value system from survival, through tribal, to independence/self worth and global community mapped out a possible agenda for conflict resolution in our community. For my purposes the colour-coded steps could be beneficial to integrate in my work and so offered a surprise direction of investigation.
Dr. Judith Ajani and Dr. Chris Harwood on the most part skirted the idea of common ground and honed onto issues of forestry, economics, land use and landscape. My choice here was between statistics based upon forestry statistics and ‘fact things.’ Ajani did reason that there could be consensus on issues aside of the woodchipping debate. Harwood speculated no end to the division and invited everybody to be polite to one another.
Peter McQuillan did support the idea of starting in the middle. He maintained that we should respect dialogue and ‘create space that is safe for people to come together.’ This idea of creating safe space makes me reflect on the little reading I have done in the past in Gestalt art therapy and the benefits of someone being able to express oneself in a ‘safe space.’ His comments in regards to revisiting the Regional Forestry Agreement so it may reflect ‘new science’, seemed very reasonable to this self proclaimed moderate citizen.
With the floor open to questions there were none to successfully answer such as the one about migrating spray drift. There was discussion on the language of division and a vocal call to let the RFA stand. Polarity was shown. Consensus proved elusive. 
My thanks go to Utas School of Geography and Environmental Studies for providing this forum for common ground. We apparently have a long way to go thus my thesis shall not be redundant before delivery; there must be some comfort to me in that.  Would that it were otherwise. ros meeker

i do agree with kevin in #9 about the neutrality of participants yet do not agree absolutely with his assessment of the pro-forestry industry objectives being clearly about profit and employment. negative information regarding ‘profit and employment’ relating to the forestry industry are often ignored or even denied by key forestry industry figures, assumedly due to motives being clouded by a desire to win the battle or somethink…, one only has to think of the ‘benefits only’ assessment of the pulp mill, an exercise in denying the realities about profit and employment. or the rejection of an $.8 billion investment because in part it was percieved as a victory for the greenies, even though it equated to an investment of about $125000 per tasmanian forestry industry worker. this latter example, for me, captures the emotional (rather than rational) drive within the forestry industry. while profit and employment objectives may be easy to define clearly, and valid objectives, i think that they are clouded by an emotional or existential pursuit which matches that of the green side of the debate. kevin, i think you are portraying something that exists in both camps, as belonging to one side only. the a priori opposition to a pulp mill can be understood as an expression of a lack of trust in those proposing the mill due to previously observed actions of those who are/were proposing (over a dinner in a hobart restuarant, wasn’t it?). in this sense the opposition is not clearly a priori. there is truth in what you write, as many anti forestry activists are driven, often blindly, by a deep seated opposition to anythin forestry, yet your opinions are slanted in favour of the forestry intersts, so in this sense, you are not much different in process from the rest of us. i oppose this mill, in part, because of ideology, i can see that in myself, i dont claim to have answers here but think that an acknowledgement of this within both camps would help.

In reading the usual form of post given here by Dr Kevin Bonham, I would to advise that ‘not all
is at it seems in this perfect world’ particularly when it is viewed by those who seek to hose down the comments of others.
For instance, I give the following facts.

Recently a certain academic person in our midst, a Senator Abetz of the Liberal Party, was recorded as claiming a number of extreme incidents relative to the fox problem in Tasmania.
His delivery of such mistruths were based on the hear-say evidence from another politician here in Tasmania a Mr. Polley.
Such was the potency of the delivery by this rogue Senator, that more Federal Funding was immediately gifted to the open arms of a certain DPIEW minister in this State.

Accordingly, the employed staff in Canberra were of the belief that foxes were predominate all over our Tasmanian State. almost seen on a daily basis.
Now this is in fact what substantially goes on behind closed doors.
Always and ever if given the appopropriate spin as do governments both deliver and of course respond to, (EG: believe their own inflated rantings.)
From a number of isolated and readily presumed fox droppings, add a few imported scruffy carcases, then a powerful and exaggerated delivery of this information by such as the Abetz machine, embellished with much ramped up rhetoric to the Federal sector of government by this anti the people Senator, and the money starts to flow into Tasmania, so to deal with the huge proliferation of foxes in our State.

Now then, how does this sort of activity disprove my case and examples as above if you please Dr Kevin Bonham?

Do note I have not resorted to personal attacks as you so repeatedly and incorrectly assume, nor is this factual information incorrect, nor is it the product of non-factual threadbare waffle.

As for vaccuous unsubstantiated blithering, well a read of the Hansard records of this matter should be able to verily confirm my comments.

Do take further note that this post is not aimed as another personal attack upon you, rather they are intended to leave myself with some sort of credibility that as in the past you seem so keen to destroy.
You seem to refer to most of my commentaries as some sort of gizmoed personal affront to yourself.
So from hereon in, please do not assume the highly inflated stance that is peculiar to your now present writing style, as it duly became in times past?
The links to Hansard will confirm my statements, re the out of all proportion fox references.
Do please advise me if you will, if this government record of events will be acceptable to you as proof, Dr Kevin Bonham?

Thank you.

William Boeder.

I suggest we all take the time to have a look at what just popped up in the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511942676683258.html

Add in what Ted Traynor had to say to Tim Cox on the ABC this am and it is plain that what, up til now has been a fringe view of the future is being taken more seriously by the mainstream.

When we have done so, perhaps what we should be asking is not, how do we solve this problem, but should we be even bothering with this issue?

I have long known a bigger picture than the malignant mess that is Tasmanian government is the real issue. The video clip from Rupperts film “Collapse” neatly encompasses that.

Government of all forms has a choice, get relevant, and help us learn and adapt, or get ignored. Survival trumps money, lawyers, laws, political correctness, and common courtesy.

The future of the LIB/LAB coalition in Tasmnaia looks increasingly short, irrelevant and terminal.

I have been following this post with some interest, and wonder if in fact Bonham, Haywood, and those who support the mill issue actually watch television at all ! e.g. the plethora of factual documentaries regarding global warming, over population, famine , unusual and deadly weather patterns, and almost every night on the news we hear of yet another previously unheard disaster
 
  Christ ! the earth is crying out for help and
Faced with such a magnitude of information how can anyone not take note,  whilst still trying to claim some credibility.

                  d.d.

For the record and for the millionth time re Don’s #25 (6/11/09 4:31), I am not a supporter of the pulp mill (nor necessarily an opponent, though there are some aspects of the processes around it I have opposed).  Of course Don does not explicitly say I do support the mill but his post could well be read as such.  Quite what the mill is supposed to have to do with overpopulation and famine I have no idea.

Joey (#22 9:03 pm 5/11), there is sometimes a difference between having an objective and consistently achieving it, or even correctly analysing the best means to attain it.  I assume the rejected investment option you refer to was the Latham bailout.  It’s hard to blame an industry for being cynical about a proposal to spend money retraining people from that industry into other pursuits.  There is no guarantee that such a scheme will work, so rightly or wrongly workers within the industry may have thought their employment positions were better advanced by staying in the industry they were (even if it is tending to shed jobs over time) in than punting on an unknown future in another one.  Latham also did himself no favours by being publicly chummy with Senator Brown - this may well have caused rank-and-file timber workers to suspect that he would go further in a Green direction than his actual policy suggested.

The examples of reasons for pulp-mill opposition you refer to (lack of trust in those supporting it) are not what I was referring to when I referred to the position of those who are flatly opposed to any pulp mill whatsoever.  Of course, not all opposition to this pulp mill is a priori in nature, but I did not say it was.

If my opinions are really so slanted then it should not be too hard to demonstrate ways in which my comments really are inaccurate, rather than demolishing positions that are merely similar to, but not the same as, what I actually said.

William Boeder in #23 gives an example regarding the fox debate that is supposed to establish his previous slurs against “academics”.

The only visible attempt at a link between his fox example and his previous comments is his claims that Senator Eric Abetz is an “academic person”.  Actually Abetz’s only tertiary qualification is at bachelor level (Arts/Law combined degree, 1981) and although he has a continual interest in university issues and student politics, he has no career, publication or further education record that would even half-justify calling him an “academic”. 

Given that the connection between the Abetz example and Boeder’s previous abuse towards academics falls over at that hurdle (because Abetz is simply not an academic or anything like one), I have no interest in addressing the example itself. 

I also have no interest in addressing Boeder’s characterisation of my view of his posts, except to note that it is exaggerated.  The reader can judge for themselves whether Boeder’s post grants him any “credibility”.

Dear Dr K Bonham, thank you for your usual put-me-downs, to think I tried once to give credit to one of your phsepoligist commentaries and somehow you turned that around to another attack.
Generally opinions that don’t run with your points of view are given the horrobillus treatment. Ok so be it, though your critical comments are ever directed to me, do not faze me Dr. K Bonham, I would no more like to live in a Bonhamised world than the alternative of a monastic isolated kind of lifestyle.
You were seeking facts, you got them, so stop your repeated pissing and moaning about my posts, they do you no credit whatsoever.

At the end of the day forestry is not a life threatening must have industry, you can’t eat woodchips, you can’t do much more than ruin magnitudinal amounts of Ancient Forests, destroy ecology systems and create a top tier of fat-cat timber industry rogues.
I hope this is plain enough for you Dr K Bonham, that is why there is so much division in this State, I take it you would rather join this top tier of graspers than look to the preservation of Tasmania’s diminishing Ancient Forests?

Do take a trip through the Tarkine soon, for one day it will all be flattened, particularly if the pro-forestry push get their way, over and above what the rest of the State has to say about this.