Rod…more environmentalist bullshit and noise ! What is the solution ?

The solution, Sam, is to present the voters with an option that is not a spun off green party or a rehash of the lib/lab machine. With policies that look further forward than the seven or so years it takes to become permanently attached to the public tit, and a willingness to call the corrupt and incompetent for what they are and remove them from positions of influence, I suspect the voting public would respond, and the lofty ideas espoused by OCG might actually happen. Absent that OCG are just wasting money and time, and frankly, I don’t bother listening.
And before anyone rips it up me about not standing, I am not allowed to until my house is finished. Bosses orders

Thanks Rod. The wide range of concerns expressed by OCG reflect around the logging and plantation industry reflect those held by many TT contributors but moreover many Tasmanians.
Finding common ground/solution and an acceptable way forward in Tasmania on this issue can only be possible if Industry (particulary Gunns who monopolise the industry) either learns or is forced through legislation to bend to the wishes of the wider community. The combative siege-like mentality that Gunns exhibits towards its local critics and the way in which the Tasmanian government has helped to foster that unhealthy attitude must change.
The goals of OCG seem impossible at first glance, yet what choice to we have but to try and keep trying. Violence, the type which we have witnessed even this year in the forests is not the answer.

Sounds fine, but I’m not sure what you are actually saying, Rod. Are you talking only about the management of plantations, or about plantations per se? That plantations are ok, and should be continue to expand, as long as they are chemical free? As I understand it, that’s not possible, because for example monoculture plants are not resistant to certain bugs and need therefore to be sprayed. Are you talking only about monoculture plantations?

Putting this article alongside that by Tim Thorne and Max Bound and the many excellent comments that attracted, http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/plantations-/, plantation establishment should be stopped and alternatives found. The argument that plantation timber is going to be very much cheaper and in oversupply from overseas warrants a rather tougher line that is presented here.

“If it were built, it would be the source of deep ongoing community conflict.” 

If it isn’t built it will be the source of deep ongoing community conflict.” 

If the OCG were really about finding common ground its leadership group would understand that both statements are equally true and equally valid. 

Therefore to establish common ground means respecting both positions and find a solution that does not mean one side wins - OK it’s so its not going to be easy, no one ever thought it would be - but to simply favour one solution over the other does nothing to establish common ground.

Nor does this help. “Finding common ground/solution and an acceptable way forward in Tasmania on this issue can only be possible if Industry (particulary Gunns who monopolise the industry) either learns or is forced through legislation to bend to the wishes of the wider community. The combative siege-like mentality that Gunns ...” 

As dear old Horace Rumple of the Bailey would say “I rest my case your Honour”.

Without aerial spraying and contamination of our water catchments, plantations would not be viable.

Also, without the MIS distortion of the market, they would not be economically viable either.

A plantation system that is economically and ecologically sound is somewhat like a colonial empire that is non-exploitative, a square circle, or a virgin birth.

Exactly what, then, is it that you want, Rod?

One place to start would be to compel plantation owners to fence their holdings against excursions of animals which use these areas as resting places to then plunder improved agricultural holdings nearby. To obtain tax benifits to plant up agricultural thereby putting additional costs onto all adjacent land users at no cost to themselves should not be allowed under planning regulations. Securely fencing large blocks is minor compared to the cost of fencing small areas . Which individual land owners have to do, to exist.

When I hear the term ‘Our Common Ground’ for the life of me I can find no ‘common ground’ with the aims of this group. They have a name that sounds good and they purport to be trying to find a solution to a pressing problem and heal the divide between current industry practices and the public, but I think it is more concerned with blowing a cloud of dust in faces of the activists. I believe it is a pretence with very little substance other to allay public animosity towards the timber industry.

It is unlikely that the industry itself will make any concessions that they are not forced into by the pressure of mounting public anger or by their failure to find financial support for their current practices. They do not like marches and protests and actuion groups and Weld Angels etc. They would rather try to emasculate them via a spin action that pretends they are co-operating and listening to the people. I can assure you they are not. It is all a put-up job and a sham!

I personally can find no common ground with the destruction of our native forests, or with the cultivation of monoculture plantations where once the forests stood, nor the convertion of good arable land to this ghastly, euphmemistically named ‘crop’.

I notice this group has a large amount of money at its disposal and can afford long adverts on television about itself and the advantages of plantation timber. To me, this appears to be yet another forestry group with a secret agenda, paid for by us.

By making plantations a preferred option and stating that they will ensure jobs for all the workers, they are glossing over the real problems. Plantations are a disaster from so many points of view. Here is why.
1. The trees are primarily custom designed for a single purpose, which is to make paper. They are nowhere near as efficient as hard wood for any other purpose, despite all the people who nightly appear on our screens with their happy smiling faces and tell us how good it is for us and how they prefer working with this rubbish rather than the real thing.
2. They state that these trees are superior as carbon sinks to the five hundred year old trees they replace - the largest trees in the Southern Hemisphere and and the most carbon dense in the world. Plantations NEVER achieve the biomass of the trees they replace, and they are harvested after a mere twelve years and return their carbon back to the atmosphere within a very short time.
3. These trees cannot survive without a huge chemical cocktail being applied to them, all of which is toxic to both animals and humans and as every town’s water catchment is Tasmania has this weed growing in it and it is subject to continuous aerial sprays, is it any wonder that Tasmania has such a huge health problem?
4. As plantations march across the landscape, biodiversity exits through the door. More and more species of plants, birds, insects and animals are appearing on the endangered list or are already on their way to extinction.
5. Plantations require 6 times as much water to grow as native forests, and are responsible for depleting our waterways and lowering the water tables. This deprives other native species of water and in drought conditions, radically increases the fire risk.
6. Plantations make little or no returns to the public purse, as they require huge tax subsidies and are exempt from land tax and rates. Most profit from the crop is diverted away from Tasmania via the auspices of one monopolistic conpany and its off-shore shareholders.
7. Plantations have no visual appeal and are a blight on the countryside, which has a knock-on effect on our tourism.
8. Plantations actually REDUCE the number of jobs available in the timber industry, and since their inception, there has been a steady and dramatic decline in the number of timber and forestry workers. Plantations are designed for machine harvesting with minimal labour.
9. Plantations are the source of much corruption and breed get-rich-quick mentalities. The MIS schemes are just one pointer, and the willingness of governments to bow to industry requirements against the interests of the people is another.
10. They are driving people off the land, closing farms and affecting the lives and livelihoods of many local community dwellers.

There are other points, but these ten illustrate how little common ground there is between forestry, industry, government and the people. It will take more than a nightly spruiking on TV to convince me otherwise.

If they want some REAL common ground, try suggesting that they cease the logging of native forests and use the work force to root out these woody weeds and replant native species in their place and maybe restore our island to its previous state, when once it had a ‘clean, green image’ and we didn’t have to lie about it!

OCG cannot maintain that tree plantations are the solution as well as the problem. Why don’t you get your act together before going public with a whole lot of contradictions? Tasmania has Australia’s highest cancer rate caused by endocrine disruptor’s from herbicides, and now you are calling the cancer wards common ground.

Gerry Mander (comment 8) thank you for your post.

Plantations are the PITs and if that’s how Tasmania becomes ‘clean, green & clever’, please cart me off to a cancer or a psychiatric ward now!

Gerry Mander…You are spot on with all you say. Everytime I see and hear this ad. I think of another lie and whitewash from Gunns and FT. I am just hoping that the voters of Tasmania are not so gullible as to believe what is being spruiked. We desperately need to get rid of this Lab/lib/gunns gov’t at the next election if we want to see improvements on this island and try to gain back our clean, green image.

An extraordinary outburst considering Karl Stevens is an elected greens councillor and the running mate of Lyons Green Tim Morris in the upcoming state election. I expect that the modern Green voter would demand more moderate and constructive contributions to public debate than this Karl.

Is it true that all these scats that the doggies keep finding are all pre-numbered?

I cannot help but agree with Gerry Mander all the way on this.

Geoff’s comment is interesting and sounds like a threat. As a Green running mate what was it that Karl said about OCG that could possibly be against Green policy?

Unless there’s some closer relationship between OCG and the Greens of course….hmmm

Re-polishing the niten into some shining light saviour … is protecting little but publicly funded corporate greed.

Water depleting
Eucalyptus Nitens are a fast growing introuduced species of tree which requires good soil and good rainfall. Hence the invasion of these trees into rainforest areas, water catchments and fertile farming land. It is by no accident water catchments have been targeted for niten plantation establishment.

Chemically reliant
Some insect species detrimental to nitens have been found to have increased in areas following the pattern of niten plantation establishment … hence more toxic poison use.

Fire Risk
Nitens are also very fire prone. Niten establishment therefore in and around rainforests and farms/communities creates a bigger fire risk.

Hybridization
There is also risk from cross pollination with some native Tasmanian eucalypts in native forests.

Weed infestation
Continued production/harvesting of these plantations in native forests increases the spread of weed infestation. 

This shining niten, requires our air, water and food production to be negatively affected.

Is the niten ‘certifiably’ the finest Tassie can do for a ‘sustainable’  world’s best practice forest industry? How many ‘eco’ stars do we and all those who have to live with the negative consequences get for being sacrificial lambs?  How many ‘eco’ stars does the likes of Gunns get to pulp rural Tasmania to supply pulp to overseas interests? Could someone possibly try and look after Tasmanian’s interests first… is that too much to ask?

It is all very good to suggest niten plantations should be managed without or with very little chemicals, for production areas to be outside rainforests/old growth forests - in essence high rainfall areas, outside watercatchments and fertile well watered farms, but realistically where then ... for large obviously low value production ... does one continue these niten plantations when these are the types of areas they require? The niten is an exotic species to Tasmania … they planted the wrong tree for ultimately a wrong low value purpose!

Maybe we should learn from that mistake and rather than try and forever continue on a path of maintaining volumes of woodchips to pulp from these nitens, start converting these niten plantations back into native state forests for selective logging (obviously with a much better not self regulated watchdog); water catchments back to mixed native species; protect fertile farms from the MIS scam and encourage mixed tree woodlots to compliment farms.

If you look at the relatively small blackwood woodlots which have been established in the far northwest, (though don’t agree state native forest should have been clearfelled and burnt to establish some of them) they don’t require poisons; are pretty fast growing; the natural under storey trees, which can also be used, are booming; there is native animal species habitat; and it’s a much higher value species. These could be inter mixed with species such as myrtles, sassafras, celery top etc for the long term. Forestry has either been just plain stupid or purposefully destroyed many areas and gullys which contain these species, then they dare to suggest they need more state forest clearfelled for the specialty timber industry…. when they have been the ones who have managed these types of forest to such an appalling degree. Reap as you sow!

In summary, and practically recognizing that the poison, burn, water depleting regime accompanying these niten plantations will not cease any time soon, we do not agree with continued rotations of niten plantations. As much as we wish an end to the conflict over forests, we don’t believe generally hinging our state forests, essentially our common ground, and our vital air, water and food production, on this shining monoculture niten is the right, let alone a bright path for the future. Can’t we come up with something better than that?

“I notice this group has a large amount of money at its disposal and can afford long adverts on television about itself and the advantages of plantation timber. To me, this appears to be yet another forestry group with a secret agenda”  Paranoia is surely alive and well and running rampant in Tasmania. 

If Gerry Mander can put so much effort into his postings surely a small amount of time researching the leadership of OCG would not have been time wasted? 

Gerry OCG is the love child of the Wildreness Society and the likes of Mr.P “over my dead body” Cundal to name but two of the OCG leadership group.  So are they merely dupes or are they duble/triple/with half pike/agents of Gunns. 

I have no idea how old you are Gerry but if u r a young man still full of idealism allow me to let you into a no so secret, secret.  When ever and where ever you have the choice between a fuck up and a conspiracy 99 x out of 100 go for the fuck up because conspiracies are simply too hard to organise. 

Nor should you see falsehoods and lies hiding behind every bush and tree because they don’t.  For the most part what we have to deal with is simple incompetence and mistakes.  This might not be so much fun and it may be mundane but that’s life and thses simple facts are as true in the so called forest wars as they are everywhere else in life.

#12 Geoff. The not so modern Green voter rather admires the clarity of Karl Stevens’ statement (#9). Or do you have some inside knowledge of a Greens party shift away from concern about the health impacts of plantations? Is your statement an implied threat Geoff? Are you intimating that it is not appropriate in the modern Green movement for Karl Stevens to be on the ticket? Has a mistake been made Geoff? Geoff are you an example of the ‘modern Green voter’?

#11 Gerry Mander: this is a superb analysis. Unfortunately the ‘modern Green voter’ may not approve of what you say. Lucky you are not on any Green ticket.

Sorry but I agree with Geoff.
I am a Registered Nurse with plenty of experience in the area of oncology. I have worked on Cancer Wards in 4 different cities in Australia including an incredibly rewarding stint of 2 years at PMH for Kids in WA. I have nursed kids and adults through their last days.
Any time you want me to sit down with you all and explain what that entails let me know.
Whilst I agree with you all that the possibility of some cancers being caused by endocrine disruptors I have never nursed a patient where this has been shown to be the case.
Just a few weeks back we lost a kid who relapsed from ALL. Great Kid. We had nursed him for two years. Cancer Wards are not trivial places and blaming people for others cancers is not trivial stuff.
I have stated previously on this site my belief that the Tas govt will eventually face a compensation scenario with chemical use similar to that which Hardies have faced over Asbestos. However for Karl to impute blame to OCG for the people on our cancer wards is sick. It is wrong, immature, unconstructive and you blokes should know better than to support this sort of sad and nasty garbage.
I cant for the life of me understand why you would utter this stuff in public Karl. What good can come of it? You are better than that mate.

(8)

    I am in complete agreement with that entire post.
        No Compromise whatsoever !

                  d.d.

Where are the plantations of myrtle, huon pine, celery top pine, blackwood, leatherwood, sassafras & tassie oak?

That’s right, these ‘lesser species’ are no good for woodchipping for paper & as they are slow growers their long ‘turn-around’ doesn’t fit with the quick ‘turn-around’ required for the MIS ponzi scheme that underpins Tasmania’s whole forestry industry.

#8 point
Ensuring that people have access to sufficient supplies of clean water has become one of the great challenges of the 21st century.
Water and Health: Global Issues and Our Shared Responsibilities
(At a NYAS symposium organized in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, four experts provided a wide-ranging set of perspectives on the importance of water in our lives.)
The issues of loss of biodiversity, declining environmental and human health with the ‘alarming’ increases in ‘western chronic diseases’ such as diabetes, heart disease, allergies and kidney diseases to name only a few are all inter-connected and connected to the quality of our water, food, air and our own lifestyles (and connections).
The issues are complex and proposing ‘simple’ solutions such as exotic mono-culture plantations which are water hungry at the expense of other water users, and pollute our water, soil and air would not seem sensible from a public health perspective let alone the environmental perspective. Current plantations require pesticide use to allow them to grow including aerially sprayed insecticides, that use high intensity fires which release dioxins as well as much air pollution, render the soil sterile and easily subject to soil erosion: all practices which pollute our water, our drinking water. Much is made of ‘using’ our current >300,000 HA plantations and talk of even incresing acreages.
If Tasmania proposes to be regarded as a ‘food bowl’(clean air, clean water, good soil), and we are to live and thrive here we need to re-look at this whole issue from a more balanced perspective which protects our water and human and environmental health.

Rick,#18 With your knowledge of oncology, what do you attribute Tasmania’s highest cancer rate in Australia to? We’ve all been told it’s caused by agricultural chemicals banned in the EU.

#22
I dont attribute it to OCG or any other group trying to find a solution to Tasmanias forest wars. You should apologise for your illtempered and reckless comments Karl and then lets start the discussion about the contents of the OCG media release over again.

Tasmania does not have a ‘forest’ industry.  Monoculture tree plantations have largely replaced the remnant native forests left after two hundred years of unsustainable logging.

Even now, with such a tiny segment left of old-growth and native species, the ‘timber’ industry keeps cutting down these mature trees faster than they can be replaced.

A forest industry must, by definition, protect, sustain and (now) increase the native forest base.

Plantations are not forests.  They are fibre for the incredibly wasteful paper and pulp industry.  This is the so-called ‘forest’ industry that OCG say they support.  This is a joke.

Don’t support the pulp and paper industry.  Terry towelling napkins for babies and toddlers are much, much cheaper and better for the environment than paper ones.  They can be recycled.  Cloth has been used for hundred of years (or more) for women’s hygeine products, tableware, handkerchieves.  You name it, there are alternatives out there!

The policies of OCG & TWS are surely best described by those organisations.

There seem to be several people on this site who speak hotly in defence of these organisations but who themselves don’t represent them.

Isn’t the answer to these doubts to get a definitive statement from the organisations involved?

pilko #23 I thought Allison Bleaney had become ‘Tasmanian of the Year’ for linking agricultural chemicals and fatal diseases such as cancer. Now you’re calling that connection ‘ill-tempered’.
What’s happened pilko? Have you bought into an MIS scheme and done some money.

#26 Another childish comment Karl. Instead of trying to impress & acting as a mouthpiece for others Karl just try and think for yourself here mate.

Do me a favor and read Rod Wests article again.
Particularly on Plantations.
I cant find anything he says that actually disagrees with your position or mine
i.e.
1. unacceptable impacts on local communities from the establishment of plantations.
2.The establishment of plantation in Tasmania has caused significant environmental damage and current management of our plantations is in serious need of reform.
3. Without a community agreement to resolve the forestry issue, the status quo will continue including community conflict, native forest destruction, more plantations established, chemical poisoning and the Tamar pulp mill.
4. If we can find a viable path forward, plantation establishment could be controlled, aerial spraying and pesticides contamination ended and our water catchments protected through the introduction of proper integrated catchment management plans.

What do you suggest that we do with existing plantations? Yes we would like to just rip them out but thats clearly not going to happen.
So if we could achieve reform in the way Rod has outlined above then isnt that a good start.

One serious problem with this whole OCG approach is that the conflict is not the cause of the difficulties at all, the conflict is a result of other factors including those exquisitely described by Charles Gilmour and Gerry Mander above.

To remove a problem, we need to understand and deal with its root causes.

There’s little doubt by now that the root causes are deep and include:

* lack of Rights on the part of the citizenry
* corrupt political party funding systems
* lack of representation of the community
* failure to value the environment.

These failures and weaknesses cause other problems such as:

* giveaways of public resources
* ‘tragedy of the commons’ environmental depletion
* blatant favouring of party ‘friendly’ industries
* community disadvantage.

With so many nested and interconnected ‘root causes’ of the ‘forestry conflict’, it’s very difficult to see how pro-forestry media campaigns are going to achieve anything except to create new ways for the industry to gain advantages.

Bit sad - even this subject get good folks (I thought) on the same side slagging each other. Really!
Good grief, is it not possible to disagree politely?

I note the more than reasonable question about who is funding OCG - big money it seems. On the other hand I have considerable respect for Peter Cundall - assuming he is, as stated somewhere here, ‘on the board’.

What has taken place with our forests - what is still taking place - has no easy answers. Continuing to trash our natural forests must stop. To stop that means no more conversion of natural forest into chemically dependent monocultures. These are NOT forests!
So that leaves conversion of agricultural (food producing) land.
I was aghast to hear a TWS tall poppy saying Australia doesn’t need to produce food! We can import it! SACRE BLUE!!!
Want to know why I have, since being in Tasmania, zero respect for TWS? This is just one of them for openers.

I try to keep an open mind - and I have more to know about OCG - but my gut tells me it is bad news. This looks too much like supping with the Devil. And the Devil is being generous and is picking up the tab.
Let me tell all who read this - this type of deal is subverting the environment movement all over the planet. Where there is still an environment left to save.

On another angle, all the chat about Cancer is fine - I ask how the hell the Clean Green State can have the worst state of health in Australia. As Alison Bleaney is clearly demonstrating, it has very much to do with spreading chemicals around with abandon.
How about Diabetes Type II?
Here is an abstract from a just published peer reviewed USA NIH report

start snip
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2009/0901321/abstract.html
Persistent Organic Pollutant Exposure
Leads to Insulin Resistance Syndrome
Online 19 November 2009

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of the insulin resistance syndrome has increased at an alarming rate worldwide creating a serious challenge to public health care in the 21st century. Recently, epidemiological studies have associated the prevalence of type 2
diabetes with elevated body burdens of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). However, experimental evidence demonstrating a causal link between POPs and the development
of insulin resistance is lacking. 
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether exposure to POPs contributes to insulin resistance and metabolic disorders.
METHODS: Wistar rats were exposed for 28 days to lipophilic POPs through the consumption of high-fat diet containing either refined or crude fish oil obtained from farmed Atlantic salmon. Furthermore, differentiated adipocytes were exposed to several
POP mixtures that mimicked the relative abundance of organic pollutants present in crude salmon oil. We measured body weight, whole-body insulin sensitivity, POP accumulation, lipid and glucose homeostasis, gene expression and performed
microarray analysis.
RESULTS: Adult male rats exposed to crude, but not refined, salmon oil developed insulin resistance, abdominal obesity and hepatosteatosis. The contribution of POPs to insulin resistance was confirmed in cultured adipocytes where POPs, especially
organochlorine pesticides, led to robust inhibition of insulin action. Moreover, POPs induced down-regulation of insulin-induced gene-1 (Insig-1) and Lpin1 genes, two master regulators of lipid homeostasis.
CONCLUSION: Our findings, for the first time, provide evidence that exposure to POPs commonly present in food chains leads to insulin resistance and associated metabolic disorders.

End snip

How many other nasty diseases are rampant at the same time - like Autism, Parkinsons et al.
So many have a very precise finger of at least suspicion pointed at many forms and levels of multiple chemical contamination.
To deny this today is - sorry chemical supplicants - a tragic folly!

Rick Pilkington said:
“What do you suggest that we do with existing plantations? Yes we would like to just rip them out but thats clearly not going to happen.
So if we could achieve reform…”

So, members of the Tasmanian community can’t be honest as to providing a genuine answer to the question ‘what to do with the existing plantations’.  Because those that went ahead and ensured that the state was infested with them (by dismantling all forms of democratic input into land planning) are certainly NOT going to listen to the community this time round.

Take a good look at this industrial weed infestation.  Because it is the physical expression of widespread corruption and the dismantling of any form of genuine community empowerment.

The Tasmanian Wilderness Society, Our Common Ground, the Australian Conservation Foundation, World Wildlife Fund and other spinners should stop kidding themselves that the history of how this disaster unfolded will be forgotten.  How groups labelled ‘green’ and ‘labor’ (and dominated by a tiny handful of right-wingers) gave the go-ahead for Tasmania’s ecocide by way of the promotion of vast and immensely destructive industrial tree monocultures.  All to provide the most superfluous and wasteful consumer products in return for the loss of vastly more valuable water, soil, air and land resources.

Drawing down on our future well-being. The unbridled exploitation, greed, theft and hubris was no longer coming solely from the usual corporate cronies in the Liberal and National/Country parties. 

Not forgotten. Never accepted.

So what is your suggestion Brenda.
What would you like to see happen to existing plantations and the way the industry is regulated and how do you intend to go about achieving real results in the short to medium term?
I share some of your pessimism about govt but I depart from you on your pessimism towards the environmental groups.
No speeches Brenda. Dont tell me how hopeless it all is. I can do that for myself. We all can.
Give us the Brenda Rosser Plan to reforming the plantation and logging industry with achievable practical steps.

Ive made my decision , and that is “stuff the O.C.G.” and their backsliding.

  I think i saw the writing on the wall when listening to various ones at the early T.A.P meetings which is why i decided to do my own thing.

  This new party ! so close to an election will further muddy the waters, and create confusion among the average fence sitting voters and already the infighting that is going on combined with the apparent decision of O.C.G. to make concessions creates even further confusion and is just not on ! under any circumstances from where i sit.

    The strange thing is that those that appear to be running things were of exactly the same opinion not that long ago.

    Same ol, same ol, same ol, story !

                    d.d.

Yes I agree Rick. The plantation argument is getting confused. The reality is that there are plantations in the ground at the moment. They are not going to magically disappear. The fact that productive farmland was used for these plantations is regrettable but it has happened, so a positive use must be found for them. The establishment of future plantations is another argument.

Pilko #31,and David Mohr #33,
...” What would you like to see happen to existing plantations and the way the industry is regulated and how do you intend to go about achieving real results in the short to medium term?”
This is the key question that Tasmania is confronted with. No matter who in our community, society, industries, local, state and federal Governments, Departments and Schools.

A Whole Island Plan, “from the summit to the sea”, a landscape and catchment restoration approach. This will take generations, many decades possibly two centuries, no less.

Having come to Tasmania from Central Europe and having been involved with NRM and international and local forestry issues for 34 years, I would like to see a serious, honest, coopeartion, collaboration happening.
The TV advertising campaign must have cost a big heap of $, someone must be doing well out of this.

The ball is in the other court, I am here in the Tamar Valley, ready to be involved when the time is right. The Iceberg is here and the last 20and a half years I was on “the outside” may come to an end when the “rescue” and “clean up” campaign gets into action.

There needs to be a drastic cleanout in head offices and some regional district sectors.

I wonder how the ca 13 South African Foresters that FT imported in 2009 are adapting to the unsustainable forest war situation adapt.

They may just get the picture and realise that when one comes down to Tassie with a young family, that there is more at stake than just the paycheque every two weeks.

Time will tell.
If O.C.G. is seriously interested to resolve the issues at their root course, I am prepared to get involved again, but no hidden agendas with me.
Cheers
Just Frank again

“Green Collar Jobs” - plenty!
Sweden developed “The richer Forest program” about 23 years ago and in 1991 every Swedish Forest owner was alowed to have/ grow their own Oak trees - not just for the King, the Crown ...
Tassie had it soo easy for soooo many years, now mega snow packs every winter, mud slides, poverty, lack of daylight, over population etc… just think of it, seriously

(33)
     
    “The reality is that there are plantations in the ground at the moment”

    As they are logged a program of reforestation with natives should be established or perhaps they will coexist !  but to consider any mill just for the purpose of harvesting existing coups is not an option, besides we know that we haven’t enough product to feed it anyway unless they take existing and old growth, and we know that is exctly what they have in mind.

                        d.d.

‘Take a good look at this industrial weed infestation.  Because it is the physical expression of widespread corruption and the dismantling of any form of genuine community empowerment.’ ... Brenda Rosser

‘What would you like to see happen to existing plantations and the way the industry is regulated and how do you intend to go about achieving real results in the short to medium term?’... Pilko

The only practical solution is to root out the corruption before one can root out the weeds. The first is probably more difficult than the second as it pervades all levels of government and is backed by corporate money; the new God in society.

As far as I can see, barring revolution, the only solution to the problem will lie in a natural disaster where either the financial system totally collapses or the environment itself collapses. By that time, of course, like in the Victorian song, ‘The pardon came too late!’

However, the even bigger stumbling block is the apathy and lack of comprehension of the problem and the dangers by the general public. The government sees to it that many of the REAL issues are cloaked in a conspiracy of silence. While they continue to vote into power those responsible for the problem, it will not go away. Money is the faceless enemy behind the scenes and industry will continue to grease the palms of those who make the decisions to maintain their profits. They are without conscience and will eventually walk away from the disaster they have created when they can no longer strip any more profits out of the mess they have left us to inherit.

It is not just here in Tasmania, but this is the way of the world. Here we have no leadership, no honesty or integrity, no vision or foresight and no inspiration for anyone to do anything other than carry on as they are. The coalition of the three major players, Libs, Labs and Corporations will see to it that only promises are ever made and the only action taken will be to worsen the situation, while claiming just the opposite. They will be helped in this objective by all the little spawning groups who are there to divert attention and spruik the interests of the main benefactors.

The solution? An Obama with teeth!

We need someone with real charisma who will cut through the bullshit and the corruption and work for the good of the people and the State, rather than pander to Gunns and all the other ‘privileged’ companies. If it means the end for Gunns in its current form, so much the better, as they have been pillaging the assets of this state for their own advantage for far too long. It’s called ‘Reform’, and by God, we need it!

As for plantations, they have only been around in large quantities for about 30 years. As they are harvested, they can be cleared and returned to either genuine agriculture or back to native forest. Wasn’t some politician mentioning something about turning Tasmania into a food bowl? It WAS a food bowl at one time, employing thousands and supporting local communites before the ‘corrupt era’.

Refurbishing the plantations with native timber would give Tasmania a tremendous opportunity to develop a ‘fine wood’ trade in quality furniture like the IKEA company and quality timber exports. The new plantations of native timbers would start to come on line as the industry develops and would see a perpetual and sustainable industry, in the real sense of the word, and an income for the state that doesn’t head offshore. The health benefits alone from NOT spraying and contaminatineg our water catchmenets would go a long way to offsetting most of the intitial costs, and then there are the other benefits associated with carbon trading.

The entire thinking of Tasmania seems to be dictated by the needs of Gunns. It influences the lives of EVERY SINGLE citizen in so many ways, some obvious and some less so. It is about time this stranglehold on our lives was broken and the government started doing the job they are elected and paid to do, which is look after the interests of the people. But as I said earlier, maybe it will need a TOTAL disaster before the Liathon awakes. I just hope that salvation doesn’t arrive to coincide with Armageddon!

Gerry Mander has taken the words from out of my mouth!  Such a good rundown of the history and predicament in Tassie.

We also need a genuine environmentalist’s perspective on the policies of the Greens, TWS etc.

They have gone unchallenged from this group for too long.

In fact, everyone should read the Greens Charter and compare it with the policies of this party.  There’s no match at all when it comes to industrial tree plantations.

The reason groups have a charter in the first instance is to ensure they’re not co-opted away from their most fundamental aims.

This O.C.G. group have been got at, and i need to know what their affiliation with the Greens entails,  because if in fact the Greens actually endorse their proposals, then they have lost me and my vote ! and any one else i can convince, so i await a statement from Mckim and or Kim Booth on the matter !

                  d.d.

I made a statement some months ago regarding certain individuals with political aspirations and now with this O.C.G con , it appears the chooks are coming home to roost !

    Same ol!  same ol! same ol! same ol story !

          ”  SHOW ME THE MONEY ! “

                        d.d.

No, Brenda (#37), the reason groups have a charter is so that we can see how far from it they drift.  There is no reason to believe the Greens any different.