Hey, what’s the problem? 

All that needs to happen is for the Lennon Govt & the Howard regime to give Gunns Ltd some more taxpayer money; simple. problem solved.

Bye the way, has anybody in the media bothered to ask the 2IC, Robin Gray, (the supposed real ‘brains’ behind Gunns Ltd), what he thinks about their situation. 

After all he did run this state…once upon a time…& it would be terribly interesting to hear what he has planned for the company (& this state) in the future. 

Or should we perhaps just ask Paul Lennon?

I wonder if these contractors are the same people (or employees of) who crowded into Albert Hall to cheers John Howard/John Gay at the last Federal election - and denounce Mark Latham and his $800 million forestry buy-back package.

It reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons when Mr. Burns offers his employees a choice between a medical/dental insurance program - or a free keg of Duff Beer.

I would like to say that I feel sorry for these people but quite frankly - they had a chance and blew it.  You always sow that which you reap.  And you thought Dr Sues’ Lorax was fiction!  No more Truffalar Trees now boys.

18 months into a Latham government funded restructure of the timber industry to put it on a more resilient basis by moving away from the dumbest product, woodchips, would these businesses be in such trouble.

Where are the timber workers friends, Chipman, Howard, Lennon and the CFMEU officials, crying foul or doling out more taxpayers surplus to prop up this low grade export industry.

Any reporter worth their salt ration would have reflected on the warning that the conservation movement has given a number of times over the years.

The wave of wood has hit and a second wave is growing in other countries. These siesmic wood waves will continue.

This is why Tasmnaia would have been better moving to a transition strategy that more elaborately transformed the wood into product.

aha they all go, a pulp mill. Tehn you will have waves of pulp as newer large mills are built in countries that are racing to the bottom in environmental controls.

I can only think of one reason why Tasmania is offered the dumbest solutions to the problems of forestry and conservation.

Howard got elected, and more importantly in the long term, Baker and Ferguson got elected in northern Tas, as a result of that short-sighted attitude.

Don’t knock short-sightedness.  It achieved exactly what it wanted.

Does anybody seriously believe that any of the politicians, union officials or media people (Latham with his handout included) saw forestry workers as anything more than units in a power game?

I’d like to blieve that the Greens saw them differently, because I admire Bob Brown, but I would need proof that has so far not been forthcoming since the election.

What was it that The Mercury correspondent, Greg Barns told us a few weeks ago about the end of the forest debate in Tasmania?

Cant recall this much attention on TAS TIMES when poppy contracts were slashed by 90% or is this just the “kick the boots into Gunns” web site.

For so long now Tasmania’s native forests have been raped and pillaged, this still continues on a massive scale. Children are stopped from going to school by palls of thick smoke, people forced from their homes and into hospitals.
Native wildlife systematically massacred, water catchments silted and humans sprayed with a toxic cocktail of chemicals.

Now the businessmen who until now have enjoyed the profits from these abominations are finding out what it is like to be the lowest common denominator.

Of course these men want a pulp mill. It is apparent they have no where else to put our native forest.
It is their last desperate move to continue the rape and pillage, to keep afloat their world renowned unsustainable practices.

I too was in disbelief when $800 million to help bail out an industry that is so heavily subsidised went begging with the help of those now conspicuous by their absence.

I was so happy to see that someone at last had a solution to our problems here, a solution that would have quite possibly seen an end to the third world practices in our forest industry and the division in our community, but that went out the window at the Albert Hall with the Unions, Howard and our State Government.

Now those who sold out Tasmania are crying foul, the beast is feeding on itself, the rats are jumping ship and the blame game is in full swing.

And…..action! The show rolls on…..

In answer to Mr Reid, the debate remains dead. 

It might come as a surprise to those who salivate at the prospect of trouble in the forests, but the current issue is one that is common in any industry that deals in world markets.

Commodity prices rise and fall - and suppliers’contracts and incomes rise and fall accordingly.

No one owes logging contractors a living just as no-one owes farmers a living.

Yes of course Greg the debate is dead…....nothing left to say.

But I wonder how dead the debate would be for Greg if he lived in the Tamar valley and Pulp Mill was being built in his backyard?

No one owes anyone a living, but that’s hardly the point.

The operation of the market will ensure that small contractors and less skilled employees get shafted all the time.

Mr Barns seems to applaud this rather than feel that fellow-feeling for other humans should dictate policy.

It’s not only what we owe people that we should give, or it’s a sorry world indeed.

Those who participate in squandering our natural resources should get what they deserve, unfortunately it will only be the ordinary people who do. The robber barons will continue to rape and pillage as they have always done, they will simply move on and leave the serfs holding the bag. That does not however absolve the serfs of responsibility for aiding and abetting the robber barons.

Timber workers were offered an honourable and more than reasonable way out by both Labor and the Greens, and they chose not to take it, either through ignorance, greed or stupidity. When the industry collapses, not because of short term commodity prices, but because of inherent unsustainability they (not Lennon or Howard) will be the ones to suffer, and I for one say stuff them!

Then there´s the mill. Let Gunns build it, but serfs who own work for, or own shares in Gunns should be warned. This folly will finally rid Tasmania of its greatest parasite, but be smart and don´t be left holding the bag. Take a leaf out of the robber barons´ book and move on. Quietly start selling your shares now or looking for another job, because the big boys wont give a stuff about you when their gamble fails and Gunns goes under. Be smart for once.

Greg Barns, who has suggested there are ‘those who salivate at the prospect of trouble in the forests’ as you state?

And your quote: “No one owes logging contractors a living just as no-one owes farmers a living.”

Would you apply the same logic and compassion to refugees?

Greg Barns wrote:

“It might come as a surprise to those who salivate at the prospect of trouble in the forests, but the current issue is one that is common in any industry that deals in world markets. Commodity prices rise and fall - and suppliers’contracts and incomes rise and fall accordingly.”

World markets my foot!  The Federal and State Governments have created this crisis.  They have financed - through huge tax subsidies, grants and other lurks - the establishment of plantations and native forest clearfelling on such a grand scale that it is impossible to dispose of the product at a reasonable price. Other governments around the world have done this as well.

It’s called a ‘crisis of overproduction’.  It’s common in agriculture as well.

Instead of entering into international agreements to protect world forest resources and biodiversity our Governments have given given our treasures away at bargain basement prices.

Hey!  It’s fraud!  It’s diddling the figures when you fail to put a price on the loss of our natural resources.  You can’t run any economy on that basis.  Now, hopefully, everybody can see that.

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj
http://www.wrm.org.uy

Greg Barns once again displays his sublime indifference to irony.

While no one owes loggers a living, particularly at enormous cost to everyone else, it seems we do owe Gunns free wood, rent-free land, dams, highways and other roads, subsidised poison, free PR, rates exemptions, immunity from various torts actions etc..

In terms of explaining this, Greg must know something we don’t.

John Hayward

I have really followed with interest Brenda Rosser’s comments focussing on ‘overproduction’. This is precisely the reason why the devil population is currently expressing the facial cancer condition.

The use of 1080 poison for the last 50 years to control ‘overproductions’ of native herbivores has in turn caused an artificial hyper-abundance of Tasmanian devils - the carrion feeder consuming these carcases. Alas there was a break point reached and emergence of this contagion-like, aggressive and highly fatal cancer in devils in the early to mid-1990’s - when devil numbers peaked - was it.

What a sad metaphor for Tasmania in 2006.

Some comments from a recent media release by Bob Brown:

Gunns should fund contractors buyout: Brown

13th May 06

The state and federal governments should convene a crisis meeting to ensure Gunns and not the Tasmanian taxpayer funds the buyout of forest contractors facing ruin, Greens leader Bob Brown said in Hobart today.
…
“But the real target here must be the island state’s wealthiest company, Gunns Ltd, whose profits, according to contractor Noel Jackman, are being subsidised by contractors,” Senator Brown said.
…
“After his overseas jaunt, Mr Howard should fly back to Launceston and give John Gay a lecture in fair dealing.”
Senator Brown said Bass Greens MHA Kim Booth’s pre-election call for action for the contractors had been scoffed at by representatives.
“But where is Paul Lennon now?” Senator Brown asked.
…
From: http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=1993

I am opposed to all forms of corporate welfare Mr Heyward.

And there is no crisis Senator Brown - just markets in operation!

This sticking of the boot into Mr Barns is most unsightly. It seems our rabid Greens colleagues on TT are a touch sensitive about their lack of relevance in contemporary Tasmania.

If you want relevancy boys and girls, you need to strike out with a more positive message for the populace.

The conservationist movement may have lost the majority of the minds but maybe not most of the hearts.

There is room for conservation practises to grow if a new strategy for engaging Tasmanians can be developed. However, if the serial TT complainers are any indication, the Greens are set for no growth at the next election.

Again I agree with SA. Leave that poor bloke Greg Barns alone. He’s a paid commentator and not a journalist!

We should show some understanding for his difficult task of having to cultivate the appearance of a seemingly deep understanding and authoritative sounding opinion on any topic known to man, whilst both being in step with his employer’s worldviews and yet still creating a good level of controversy in order to help sell those damned papers.

To call this activity cynical is to forget who makes the world go around, someone always at the forefront of Greg’s mind, namely the shareholder.  Hence his (I suspect genuine), comment on ALL forms of corporate welfare.

Of course newspapers are a business and improving the bottom line by any legal means for their shareholders is their only duty. Employing a creative person like Barns to come up with controversial yet inconsequential opinions is, in terms of any negative impact on their broader strategic business interests at least, a valid and effective marketing tool.

Just because some of you don’t “get” his interpretation of entertainment should not be cause for all these earnest attacks on his “opinions”.

For him, trying to keep all these balls in the air whilst simultaneously attempting to keep track of the huge volume of previously expressed opinions in order to avoid sounding too obviously insincere and specious to the consumers must be extremely stressful.

It would be a great advantage for a person in his position to have the ability to feed on and take strength from the public attention and notoriety in order to avoid pesky self-doubt and of course always be able to enjoy a good night’s sleep. Even as an end in itself.

Let’s just all hope he is just such a person for the sake of his health and wellbeing. But in case he isn’t, I implore you, leave the poor wretch alone! He is after all only doing his job, eeking out a living any way he can. Like the rest of us, I’m sure he would say, God bless his little heart.

We can’t all be noble. Trying to at least appear as such should be honourable enough. There is no shame in lowering the bar so we can all have experiences of success.

I would love to write more of my opinions in his defence but I must venture out and buy some more Ventolin as I curiously and mysteriously keep running out lately. Maybe it’s something in the air. Odd…

David, I am very interested in your comment (#16) where you write: “The use of 1080 poison for the last 50 years to control ‘overproductions’ of native herbivores has in turn caused an artificial hyper-abundance of Tasmanian devils - the carrion feeder consuming these carcases. “

Do you have evidence for this claim or is it just a hypothesis based on a conjunction?  What about the theory that the spike in devil numbers is largely due to an increase in carrying capacity produced by the extinction of a competitor, the thylacine?

Sorry, that should read #15, not #16.

The timelines for the drop out of the thylacine, as a possible competitor to the devil versus the timeline for the introduction of 1080 poison to control native herbivores are different. If we agree that thylacines were likely in low numbers from about 1910 onwards, and taking your thesis, then the devil population would have shown an increase after this period. Guiler and others have noted that devils were rarely seen up to the 1950s. And Menna Jones et al state in their RFA reports of around 1995-96 that devil numbers were guesstimated at numbers between 130,000 and 170,000 individuals statewide by the early to mid-1990s.

Post-1803, for a scavenger, carrion-feeding carnivore the availability of carcases from hunting, human activity, roadkill, livestock deaths and broad-scale 1080 poisoning would all provide new sources of nutrition to support devil reproduction over and above natural mortality of herbivores and active predation efforts of devils. We know when 1080 started to be used in Tasmania and based on government statistics on the number of kg of 1080 used per year, we can assess the trends in usage through the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

Would that there was a good devil ecology study to cite. Maybe David Pemberton, Menna, or Nick Mooney might like to offer their opinion here. It is stated that adult devils move over relatively large distances to access available carrion. My personal experiences with land owners in the Midlands and Fingal Valley regarding devil populations after 1080-poisoning for native herbivores control and conversations with Bob Green are the only testiment I can offer to this plausible ‘conjunction’.

Maybe a useful research topic for an interested UTAS honours-year Zoology or Environmental Studies student.