Dirty ferals do more harm to their cause than they will ever realise.

is it just me or do you think that if they dressed up in business suits it would have a deeper impression?

Again law abiding contractors going about their legal employment are having their workplace illegally invaded creating an unsafe workplace.

Why these people are allowed to get away with this and then to only get a slap on the wrist from the judge is beyond me. If I was to go in to the local greenie doctor or dentist and stop him from working I’m sure I’d get more than a slap on the wrist.

If you morally object to the local greenie doctor Tess why dont you drop in and protest? Or dont you have the guts? I,m guessing thats the thing that probably differentiates folks like you from these young protesters. As for your love for ‘law abiding Forestry’.......give me a break girlfriend.

Bully Boy Rednecks don’t much for their cause either, “anonymous”. If you don’t agree with the Ferals, what about the suited Liberal politicians and the redneck Timber Communities Australia folks who supported a policy for protection of the Upper Florentine and Lower Weld in the last election. Go have a look at the policy yourself, its on the libs’ website. It was called “A sustainable future for Tasmania”, shame was: it isn’t!
Oh, yeah, just where are those suit wearing, middle class protesters when you need them??

While the contractors may well be “going about their legal employment” The legality of their employers activities are the subject of considerable debate.

Non violent protest is one of the hallmarks of healthy democracy and has brought enormous benefit to millions around the world. To be effective it is usually “illegal” to some extent or other. Governments have even been known to change laws on the run when it suits them. To move the goal posts!

The current activities of a few protestors in Tasmania’s southern forest is fairly mild when considering Forestry Tasmania’s ongoing destruction of thousands of acres of unique and valuable forest. The wasteful chipping and irresponsible burning of valuable and often irreplaceable timber.

Perhaps they do it “legally”; quite possibly not.

With genuine sustainable native forest management we could be “harvesting the interest while retaining the capital”. Locally we would probably make as much or more money and it is likely that such protests would become a thing of the past.

Tasmania could then move beyond this stifling conflict.

**

To burn such timber is ‘criminal’. Much of it could be value added here, creating work and wealth locally.

The short term smoke pollution when burning as much as 70% of a standing mature forest coupe after ‘harvest’ is unacceptable. And we never seem to consider the longer term ‘hidden emissions’ from the decomposing underground root systems .

Pat Synge

http://www.buyselltrade.com.au
tasmania’s free classified advertising

Well, its good to see the same old conflict hasn’t even begun to be resolved, meaning everyone on both sides of the ‘debate’ can keep on whingeing about the same old things.

Do we hear the ‘greenies’ coming up with legitimate business plans for sensible alternative industries to generate realistic levels of employment ?

Do we hear Gunns acknowledeging what many high profile sicentists are telling us, that CO2 emissions and biodiveristy loss are irrepairably damaging our planet?

The answer to both questions is no.

Until the managers of the situation, that’s business, government and alternative political representatives take some active responsability, via sensible long term strategies to solve BOTH sets of problems, this conflict will only continue.

Equity is a wonderful thing until you try and activate it in the real world. Fortunately, there are many ways of earning a crust, many of which don’t rely on environmental degradation. Unfortunatley there is only one wilderness, once its gone its gone.

How much of Gunns profits last year was invested into the development of new and sustainable industries to ensure future employment ?

How many of the ‘protesters’ there have jobs to go to and families to support ?

The answer to both questions is probably very little.

The solution to this problem is for both sides to put themselves in the others position, see how it fits and work out exactly what needs to be done to engage a resolution. Until everyone invvolved is serious about solving the problem, the conflict will continue.

John Reeves might like to visit http://www.twff.com.au/spectimbfinal.pdf for a considered approach to working towards genuine sustainable forest management.

Other reports prepared by Timber Workers for Forests (and available on the same site) show just how far we currently are from achieving this.

It is clear that, despite the rhetoric about job creation, the current exploitation of our forests leads to fewer jobs (per hectare of forest cleared) than ever before. And most of the resulting profit goes out of Tasmania as well.

Pat Synge

I think the question can be asked as to what the protestors here were hoping to achieve.

1. A principled stand against an industrial practise they oppose
2. Generating positive PR for their cause
3. Bit of both

I suspect that the protesting folks on the ground here are much more driven by option 1 as they are losing the PR battle. And I say that there is nothing wrong about being young and idealistic, feeling you must fight your ideological opponents. I would hope that they would keep it as legal as they can and have some thought for the contractors who are trying to do their job as safely as possible. But you can’t enforce a new perspective on people who are living their life by a certain world view, so I don’t see the protestors changing - there will always be young hot heads out to ‘save the world’ in the way they see fit. I only hope no-one gets hurt.

Now in the world of pragmatic politics, I think it is time for someone brave and articulate to come forward and offer a new way of doing business around the forestry issue. The Tasmanian public is getting sick of extremist views on all sides so there is a great need for a peacemaker to come in with practical solutions. Who could be this new voice? McKim? Bartlett? Kerr? Woodfield?

John

The Tasmanian greens have a document titled the Forest Transition Policy ( check out their website or I am sure that if you phoned their office they will send you a copy - this document is a very thorough paper on just what you say is not happening. Also the Huon valley Environment Centre have done a lot of work on a document titled Expanding the Airwalk Experience once again detailing alternatives to low return clearfell and woodchip. Personally (and i am a greenie) i have purchased many hundreds of acres of land and now running a tourism business in the bush that provides a far greater return per acre than any logging operation can. Look around John there are many positive examples happening - just imagine if we greenies had the money and resourse of the governement and Gunns.. the possiblilities would then be endless. http://www.huonbushretreats.com

Actually, John, yes we do see “greenies” putting forward legitimate “business” plans; such as the Greens Forest Transition Policy http://tas.greens.org.au/issues/index.php?CampaignID=6

One day soon the logging industry will have logged all the native forests that they can, what then for the loggers families?

The loggers worst enemy to their jobs is the unsustainable practices that their employers engage in illegally.

And for your information many people who protest or support the protesters do have families, and I, and I’m sure many others, also have jobs.

Ok, good responses thanks.

Pat, I have visited the TWFF site before and have read your documentation, i fully support it.

Micheal, i am also familiar with the the greens policy and plans, both of these are positive moves indeed.

Thanks for more info.

By my comment about “legitimate” bussines plans I was referring to ones that are active in the real sense, as in being funded, followed and implemented.

Unfortunaltey both those options, whilst well thought out, are not in a position to be implemented as mainstream strategy, because they are alternatives posed by groups who are not in a position of managing the situation, not current FT policy or legitimate active policy at all.

That does not mean they not relevant plans,I think they are but realtime implementation is a different test of well intentioned plans.

So the question I ask is, what will it take for the TWFF and Greens plans to get some legs in real time, can the blame be laid soley at FT’s and Gunns feet ?

Maybe it can. It’s easy to propose alternatives but harder to implement them, harder to fund them, harder ot have them accepted by all parties.

What I am looking for is some cross over of intent, how can these alternatives be packaged in such a way that you ‘get through’ to those in power, what kind of conciousness shift
is needed from management before they will ‘click’ and get it. How can that shift in thinking be enaged ?

maybe the focus needs to in creatinig a feeling of ‘security’ in implementing alterntaives as the insecurity of forest loss and job loss is at the root of this issue.

Good on anyone who fights State Forest Hypocrisy!

Trees are very rich you see,
There’s money grown on trees.
Though nothing for the public,
“No Woodcutting” if you please.

Controlled by the MIS and big Gunns, they hire forestry,
And use our hard worked public funds,
To do their dirty work and pay the fines of… logged illegally!
Legally, all in the name of funding their game of monopoly.

Now could someone tell me please?
When rainforest trees make rain,
For our milk and honey bees, and seafood from our seas,
Not to mention water, for you and me.

And when our State Forestry, policed with guns,
Has put a latch on the catchments,
And destroys our rain making trees,
And takes the buffers and dams the creeks, (had them fined, you see)

And gets their water free,
For their industrial scaled crops,
Of thirsty pulp wood trees,
Who is the real, controlling, water authority?

And if trees make oxygen, is this a down stream commodity?
For who will own the air that I breathe?
Will I have to pay, to grow my own fresh air,
On company owned state forest trees?

It may not be so funny, in the future, don’t you see?
Many also said, water … would always be free!
And of course we all know now,
The earth spins round…. Naturally!

And carbon credits? Didn’t industrialization,
Come with a guarantee? Obviously not …
… A warranty! Except of course the forest tree.
But that’s meaningless apparently, to Forestry.

Now if I use solar power,
And own some acres of protected rainforest trees
And use wood in my combustion stove
To cook and heat my water,

Am I rich or am I poor? What will my carbon credits buy me?
Or don’t I own them, if I’m not a government funded company,
With an agency attached to a GBE
To loophole accidentally, selling my protected forest trees?

Will it let the streams run again around me?
Tilled and dammed to suit only forestry.
Will it buy me, unpoisoned, pure fresh air?
And stop the destruction, and buy some diversity?

Let’s look at this in reality,
There’s no sustainable benefit for you and me,
From this current forest industry.
Massive logging around the world has shown us this environmentally.

As a movie doesn’t show what goes on behind the scenes,
Forest Practices Codes glossy sheen,
Tells the perfect story,
In reality, made up of some very sorry scenes.

I’ll take my air and water now, if you please,
Because I live behind the gates of forestry,
And see what they try to deceive.
Agreements made accordingly.

And those who won’t believe, can take their chance, 
With this land and resource grabbing monopoly,
Just try and remember, the rest,
Your choices affect … within your community.

For there are many more alternatives for our society.
For one, have a paddle with sim (http://www.paddlewithsim.com)
He’ll give it to you strait, what sustainability is all about,
Looking at choices in real sustainable incentives for our lives.
For what’s better than happiness scored, from being wise,
In society’s living, environmentally sustainable lives?

Michael and Pat, thanks for yr responses, and links.
I am familiar with both those sites and data but have revisited them both and updated my undertstanding of their contents.

Whilst they are both good moves in principle, I doubt that the scale proposed and income methods generated if they are successfully implemented will impact much on ‘replacing’ or modifying a $1.2 billion a year industry such as Gunns.

While the greens policy and proposals are sensible to a degree I wonder if the Greens have a strong track record in mainstream business management, the venture capital to invest or kickstart their proposals or the credability with governmnet in terms of actually caring strongly about jobs and families to have much impact on this conflict in resolution terms.

The crux of the issue is twofold, part one is that these industrial practices of cutting down or digging up raw resources and selling them is the backbone of our society economically and has been for many years.

The second crux is represented by these comments by Premier Lennon [the ginger walrus ;-) (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1132778.htm)

”  Four Corners wrote:

  TICKY FULLERTON: Tasmania had planned to pull out of old-growth clear-felling and chipping by 2010, but that now seems unlikely.

  PAUL LENNON: We’re not prepared to sacrifice a single job in meeting that deadline target of 2010.

  TICKY FULLERTON: So jobs are directly attached to old-growth foresting?

  PAUL LENNON: My word. My word.

  TICKY FULLERTON: For as long as any Tasmanian can remember, the issue has been jobs. And jobs are Government’s justification for its forest policy.

  PAUL LENNON: Now, Graham Green, the Wilderness Society, Dr Brown and Mrs Milne, Olivia Newton-John and everybody else that you can peddle out might not care about Tasmanian families in this industry and people working in this industry, but the Tasmanian Government does.”

These comment indicate that the governments view is the that greens really don’t care about jobs.

What I am genuinley fishing for here is a way forward and a bit of bridge building in terms of getting some common ground from which to move these issues forward.

Despite the best intentions of TWFF and Greens, the situation has reached a new level of stalemate with both sides digging their heals in a little deeper.

Personally I suppport all the alternative initiatives, politically I dont see a lot that will either reduce this conflict or has a good chance of changing the thinking of people such as Lennon or Gunns management, no matter how many times they lose in court, such as Weilangata, they come back with the same party line.

What do both think will need to happen in order to begin to implement better practices in Tasmania’s forests that will both save biodiversity and create long term earnings in real, not idealogical terms ?

Michael Sharman wrote

“And for your information many people who protest or support the protesters do have families, and I, and I’m sure many others, also have jobs.”

Michael, I was referring specifically to the protesters in those pictures above and the general view is they are young,  or student, to some extent and if they had jobs or families to support they would not have the time to engage in full time protesting, tree sits or being out there in work time and have leave their kids at home.

I have nothing against these protesters and feel it is valuable they are doing it. I just question the overall success rate of these kinds of protests beyond ‘raising awareness’ and pissing off the forestry workers and cops.

I know many others with families and jobs support the end of clearfelling old growth and enviro issues in general. In fact people from all walks of life.Those of us in this situation often dont have the time or space to spend time hanging out in the forests,laying in front of dozers etc, we are busy with our jobs and families ;-)and the occasional weekend protest in the city is all we can make it to.

The greens Forest Transition Strategy has been around for a few years now and I am just wondering, when, if at all, some of it may become implemented, or if it can make the transistion from well meaning idealism to active functional policy. Then it may be tested to see if it can adequatley replace the income lost from old growth logging and realisticley create new sustainable industries. I cant see its a legitimate business plan until it is funded and tested in realtime.

I hope it does but i dont think it goes nearly far enough in real terms to providing a solution to this problem and I dont think the greens cross over far enough or with enough oomph! to infiltrate organisations like Gunns or FT.

Please be aware I am all for the end of old growth logging, environmental destruction AND non damaging income streams that are sustainable.

I i think its obvious we are not even close yet and everything anyone has done to this point has not been fully successful.

“The Government’s view is that greens really don’t care about jobs”.

If job creation/retention was really the Government’s primary motivation I, for one, would hold them in far greater respect. Unfortunately, as the current Auspine fiasco so clearly demonstrates, jobs are not the real issue.

Due to lack of appropriate thinning and pruning over the last fifteen years we now have a situation where there is a lack of supply. In other words due to FT’s refusal to provide real jobs in silviculture.

Now that it has become a hot potato the Government is scrambling around offering timber at fire sale prices and ready to spend taxpayers’ money on subsidised transport.

If job retention was the real issue why would FEA have been awarded a supply contract for a non existent mill that, if built, would employ 100 thus putting the jobs of more than 300 on the line?

If the Keating Government had won in 1996, ‘old growth logging’ would have been phased out by 1999.  This position in Federal forest policy had evolved after years of debates and compromises.
The science said for Australia to keep its forest diversity and integrity, that it had to be done.
The forest industry was well informed and supposedly ready for the transition.
Instead they now defend the indefensible in terms of what kind of forestry is done in Tasmania, on one hand ‘old growth logging’ is miniscule to the woodchippers needs, and on the other hand razing hectares for that very industry.
The contradicitions and lies are all on the public record.  Basically conservationists have been arguing the same point in the forestry debate, globally as well as locally.  Governments change and change laws which allow the very few to get very rich from a public resource, and direct public policy in relation to the resource.
All industries shed jobs, its the result of increased technology and efficiencies.  It seems sacrosant to suggest treating forestry workers like other workers who lose jobs in industry due to free market forces and outmoded industrial practices.
It’s a total shame job, and basically when ignorance is replaced with facts hopefully it won’t only be the Greens demanding accountability from this Government business and its relationship to the monolithic Gunns.

Lets cut to the chase, this mill is going to initially “cost a packet” create havoc with our water system ! most likely decimate the wine industry ,have a negative impact upon our roads through the increased truck traffic along with further traffic accidents and congestion and contribute to the already nasty haze which hovers over the Tamar valley for much of the year, not to mention the stench that seems to come from these mills in other regions of the world ! and thats for a start ! now ! once up and running a precedent will have been set
and the argument will then be put forward for a Southern pulp mill ,incidently already on the drawing board , now ! after these initial hurdles, they then have to compete in a world market to sell product ! and they simply will be unable to compete unless of course there is a plan for a drastic erosion of Tasmanian wage packets.
    This is not Green gobbligook ! , it is just plain Bloody common sense . Oh ! by the way did i mention TOURISM !
                d.d.
Further to my last post as yet not numbered, it has to be stressed that this is not just a Tamar valley or indeed exclusively a Tasmanian problem ! it is quite definitely a problem of global importance and the push for common sense has to start somewhere ! it may as well be here.
    Pulp mill’s are extremely damaging to the WORLDS environment and even if they could be made perfectly clean they must still be phased out, The world can not sustain the loss of more forestation and other methods need to be looked at ! such as industrial hemp! which is much more cost effective with little or no damage to the environment and if legalised would put many farmers and others back on the land !
    For a given acreage ! a crop of hemp delivers three to four times the amount of pulp as does timber, and grows to harvest in 7 months as against 20 years, it needs no pesticides and is impervious to insect life along with many other pluses , and harvesting is a doddle !
    Forestry is all about lining the pockets of the fat cats and it has to stop ! because they don’t give a f——-k . except for their goddamn share portfolio’s !

You’re right john, Gunns will never accept any policy that may cause them a loss. Which means that they will never stop logging native forests.

But Gunns is but one business and I fail to see why as a Tasmanian I should be concerned, beyond the possible welfare issues, in protecting the profits of an outmoded business.

The only way is to force them is with a Government that has the guts to legislate to make their current practices illegal. Unfortunately we have the opposite with Paul Lennon retrospectively changing legislation to make sure their practices continue…

Has the FTP been discussed in parliament, or is it a case of “anything proposed by the Greens should be ignored” that it seems to be? Where is the constructive critique? (and where is the mainstream media coverage? debates?)

Intelligent discussion for sure(?) good bit of economic rationality, of course arguing details are just part of a perenial tit for tat. Either defending the undefendable or debating the anomalies of alternatives.

Get a grip, the folk who have put their economic lives on hold and have taken an active roll, will many years down the track be recognised for the thankless task and constant abuse rained down by those who choose to compromise their integrity by joining the gravy train to Hell, piously sniping from the comfort of their offices.

Disparaging the enemy is the first call ever made be it in the school yard or from the prime minister, Ferals- dirty,badly dressed,dolebludgers keep it up its a badge of honour for the little they recieve their actions ARE commendable, believe it or not most are extremely intelligent, decent people.

I personally feel ashamed not to be standing beside them (or sitting) as should we all, vigorous debate does little but distract from the reality of the situation. WA stood back until it was left with 3% of its original forests, they just stood by and grew fat on the income and cried when it ran out. Ran out,never to return.

Now they have sold the ground under their feet to a ravenous beast, just as we will. Under the banner of economic benefit, all resources follow the same cycle of discovery,exploitation followed by collapse. Shame the only resource yet to do this is humans, for as sure as the forest are being harvested, we are being farmed, but for as long as our opinions can be voiced we will ever be in denial of our own lack of potency.

I would prefer to die knowing I did not participate in societies self anhilation but did try to be a grain of sand in its eye, to all those who stand before the machine you are my Hero’s. To the scum with their shiny arsed pants and intellectual bigotry, all cleverly wrapped in economic details where will you be when the taps no longer work,gas runs out and power ceases to fire your cities at night? and who do you think you will have to rely on then?

I may have ditched the suit for the nappy wipes but I can assure you I’d be honoured to protest alongside “those dirty ferals”. They are making a stand for my children, grandchildren and so on ad infinitum. Granted, their actions may not necessarily make for effective/positive media coverage. But when they chain themselves to a machine or climb a treesit in an exclusion zone the only thing on their minds, I am certain, is just to make it STOP. NOW.

As it should.

As for jobs, why was latham’s $600 million retraining package not sufficient when nearly every week we hear of private logging contractors losing work from Gunns? Is someone seriously suggesting, due to a lack of a business plan,  Tasmania isn’t an eco tourism bonanza if left unravaged by man’s pernicious lust for currency?