So there is not a lot of outrage in Australia, so the protest against the timber industry in Tasmania moves to San Fransciso and the rest of the world…
Yesterday Paul West from the Rainforest Action Network put out the following media release. Before or after you read this nasty work of propaganda, you may want to find out some facts and figures on the Tasmanian forestry industry, click here, here and here.
The media release is titled ‘Global outcry over falling forests and failing democracy on Australia’s island state of Tasmania’ and begins:
“Outraged world citizens today protested at Australian embassies and consulates in America, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom to decry the destruction of old-growth forests and the undermining of democracy in the country’s island state of Tasmania by Forestry Tasmania and Gunns, Ltd., a rogue billion-dollar logging giant whose practices rank among the world’s worst according to recent reports.
The IUCN compares Gunns’ operations to rampant illegal logging in the Third World.
Demonstrators delivered a letter signed by leading international sustainability groups to Prime Minister John Howard demanding that the government act in accordance with scientific recommendations to protect Tasmania’s virgin forests from a well-documented arsenal of logging tactics deployed by Gunns and industry-controlled Forestry Tasmania. In the wake of massive clearcuts by Gunns, the industry routinely scorches the Earth with Napalm firebombs to eradicate all remaining life.
Gunns has also killed hundreds of thousands of native mammals using carrots poisoned with Compound 1080, a lethal super-toxin listed as a biological weapon by both the Canadian and US governments. Gunns CEO John Gay has publicly stated that it is okay that his company kills endangered animals because “there’s too many of them.” Tasmania’s forests are currently being clear-cut at an unprecedented rate equivalent to approximately 44 football fields per day. The vast majority of Tasmania’s priceless ancient trees are being processed into woodchips by Gunns to make disposable paper products destined for landfills in America and Asia.
The worldwide call for action today echoed a dozen of Australia’s leading scientists who signed a 2004 statement of support for the protection of Tasmania’s forests calling for the “urgent need for Australian government intervention.” The effort to protect Tasmania’s forests is one of the largest environmental issues in Australian history, and according to a 2004 opinion poll by Newspoll, over 85 percent of Australian citizens favor full protection for Tasmania’s pristine forests.
Carrying signs reading “Stop Gunns” and “Save Tassie’s Trees,” forest defenders around the world protested with “GUNNS” taped over the mouths in solidarity with 20 silenced citizens in Australia who are currently being sued by Gunns for speaking out against the company’s attacks on environmental treasures and public health. Likened to McDonald’s “McLibel” lawsuit, websites like Gunns20.org and McGunns.com are evidence of a growing global grassroots movement to protect free speech, reassert democracy and save old-growth forests. The Gunns 20 lawsuit has also been condemned by leading human rights lawyers in the UK. For the Tasmania Forest Campaign, Rainforest Action Network and its allies today launched TreesNotGunns.org to organize future worldwide action.
At the Australian High Commission in London today, British MP and Deputy Environmental Minister Norman Baker met with the Deputy High Commissioner to deliver the NGO letter and spoke about the atrocities he witnessed on his visit to Tasmania last month. Over 100 members of the British Parliament recently signed a motion condemning Gunns’ actions and calling for an international boycott of woodchips and paper sourced from Tasmania’s old-growth forests.
… Spearheaded by San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network, the worldwide day of protest expands one of the largest environmental protection campaigns in Australian history to global economic centers including Houston, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Tokyo, Vancouver and Washington, D.C. The letter to Prime Minister Howard was signed by coalition of US and European-based groups including Forest Ethics (ForestEthics.org), Friends of the Earth International (FOE.org), Global Exchange (GlobalExchange.org), Global Response (GlobalResponse.org), International Forum on Globalization (IFG.org), Native Forest Network (NativeForest.org), Pacific Environment (PacificEnvironment.org), Rainforest Action Network (RAN.org), Ruckus Society (Ruckus.org) and the Sierra Club (SierraClub.org).”
Now you may want to find out some facts and figures on the Tasmanian forestry industry, click here, here and here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I recently read the Gunns forestry reports. They were SO squeaky clean. Squeaky squeaky squeaky. Something that squeaky must take a lot of oiling.
I regard this blatant attempt by the Tasmanian Greens to enlist foreign support and resources to assist them in their State election campaign as reprehensible. There is a democratic process taking place in an Australian community and these people have zero respect for that process. And one can just imagine how loud the squeals would have been if US anti-abortion groups had attempted to influence the recent parliamentary debate on RU486.
And how unusual, Thinksy sleazes out with unsubstantiated defamatory material. We have just examined the Tasmanian resource in other trails on this blog and it is as if Thinksy has a retention rate 0.05.
Jen, where do you start with such a piece of propaganda from the International Green movement? A movement that should be promoting outstanding achievements in reserving forests and publishing facts not outrageous claims. The Convention of Biological Diversity is a good starting point for any one who cares for our forests, plants and animals and our environment.
Its latest target is to reserve 10% of our forests world wide to protect biological diversity. Tasmania has met and passed this target and has reserved an outstanding 45% of its native forest including over a million hectares of old growth (primary) forest. Depending on which code of football you play, that’s a million soccer fields or almost 2 million American Football (Grid Iron) fields or about 1.5 million Rugby fields.
Outside of these reserves forests can be harvested based upon sustainable principles and covered by the Forest Practices Code that protects environmental and cultural values. As detailed on their website ( http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=7)all forestry must have a forest practice plan (FPP) that accounts for rare and endangered flora and fauna.
The Authority also publishes statistics from FPP shows in 2004-2005 only 34,328 ha of the total 3.2 million ha forest estate was planned for harvesting, of which only 12,600 ha was to be clear felled. Only about 10% of this can be classed as old growth.
Tasmania’s forests are well managed and have been subject to official inquiries and reports for decades. Tall old trees are ‘protected’ through reservation and outside reserves by a tall trees policy that reserves the biggest in terms of height and volume.
The star witness, Norman Baker MP, (who is a Liberal Democrat, not a member of the UK Government nor a Deputy Minister) did recently visit the State and went to the Styx Valley that has been subject to industrial scale harvesting since 1941 and was the birth place of clear fell, burn and sow silviculture for wet eucalypt forests. A silviculture introduced to ensure successful regeneration. The apparent pristine nature of this valley is testament to the sound forest management practices that Baker described this Valley as magnificent and demanded reservation. His Early Day motion, never designed to be debated, was supported by only 43 of the 646 Members of the House of Commons in July of last year.
The motion was in relation to the writ issued by Gunns against anti forest activists and groups. This writ available from web sites of the defendants alleges assault against employees, throwing urine to contaminate timber, illegal obstruction and trespass and alleged slander. It is not a writ against free speech or legitimate well informed criticism.
The so called International report recently released was for the Tasmanian chapter written by an employee of the Wilderness Society and A Friends of the Earth spokesperson. Not once did the report publish the amount of native forest or old growth reserved in Tasmania.
I wonder why people who claim to be conservations refuse to acknowledge the amount of forests that is reserved in Tasmania. Why the Wilderness Society fail to promote the 1.9 million hectares of high quality wilderness that is reserved. Or the fact that not one species of flora or fauna has gone extinct due to forestry in Tasmania. In fact as your web links shows it is the forest industry that is conducting the scientific research to ensure these species flourish.
Note the funding source and application for the 35 staff.
–
SUPPORT AND REVENUE
Public Support and Membership $ 682,003 [23.8%]
Major Gifts/Family Foundations $1,017,759 [35.6%]
Fundraising Events $ 102,316
Grants $1,051,500 [36.76%]
Interest $ 5,310
Net loss from Investments ($ 779)
Other Income $ 2,091
Total Support and Revenue $2,860,200
EXPENSES
PROGRAM SERVICES
Public Education & Membership $2,106,918 [80.2%]
SUPPORTING SERVICES
Management and General $ 139,993
Fundraising $ 379,408 [14.4%]
Total Expenses $ 2,626,319
Change in Net Assets $ 233,881
Net Assets at Beginning of Year $ 992,521
Net Assets at End of Year $1,226,402
–
Note the combininng of the “public education” and the “membership” functions under the one heading to disguise the extent of membership oriented expenditure.
Note also that this organisation is in receipt of 37% of its revenue from “Grants”. Could these grants be from the government of California? And why is a foreign government funded organisation interfering in an Australian State election?
The alarming thing about this ridiculous tripe is that the Rainforest Action Network has one fact on its side which overrules all objections: the fact that people are willing to believe these things.
Even when they’re written so farcically.
The piece starts with “Outraged world citizens…” as if to politely agree that citizens of other planets might have a different viewpoint.
And that thing about napalming forests and poisoning animals, it’s like they’re not there for lumber after all. Maybe they want to build football fields instead? Although 44 per day would saturate the market and not be very profitable.
And that “lethal super-toxin” is cute. That’s so we can distinguish it from the “nutritious” super-toxin, it appears.
People constantly harp and complain about the “growing divide” between the rich and the poor, but in this technologic age, the “growing divide” of most importance is the divide between the intelligent and the ignorant.
And in the latter group one finds many who are *voluntarily* ignorant. Instead of saying, “huh?” they greedily latch on to any notion that excuses them from thought and demand instead that people stop doing quizzical things.
It is from such as these that we hear claims along the lines of, ‘anything that clean must be dirty.’
The question for the rest of us is, should we treat these people with an amused tolerance, such as we extend to crystal-worshippers, or condemn them as cultural pollutants?
I like both ideas, actually.
Schiller.
Good point Schiller. I suspect the aspect of forestry that the green movement find most confronting is the fact that we routinely cull the bent and the underperforming stems. This would cut awfully close to the bone for your average green/left scheiser gestalten.
The problem for us is that most of the funds for these campaigns come from single neurotic New York poodle owners who gave up long ago on any capacity on their own part to form enduring relationships, let alone succesfully procreate, but then seek to “do their bit for future generations” by pouring obscene amounts of inheritance money into the coffers of spivs.
They purchase gratitude in lieu of earned respect.
Jumping Jehosaphat Ian, you have a way with words. I haven’t heard the word ‘spiv’ since about 1948. Then they had greasy raincoats, pencil moustaches, a broad brimmed hat, and a fag dangling out of the corner of the mouth. They sold nylon stockings on street corners. Would you care to give us an updated definition?
By the look of the photo, there’s only 7 of them present at the protest, though the phalanx formation is impressive.
Why weren’t the words “holocaust” and “genocide” included in the press release? Perhaps they were and I missed them. May as well offend the Jewish community as well, while we are busy trivialising the use of napalm in war.
Where was the mandatory Santa Claus that constitutes an essential ingredient in all respectable street theatre? And not ONE raffia hat!!
I demand a repeat performance!
Davey, the MO is the same but they now inhabit the nether regions of those in power. The term is usually used in compound form, ie, departmental spiv, extension spiv, greenhouse spiv, planning spiv, enviro spiv etc. It has returned to common use by anyone who’s Karma has brought them into contact with the Beattie government. There is absolutely no truth in the rumour that the term has been adopted as the designation of choice for the senior executive levels of DNRM. Any similarity between the two is purely coincidental.
Hey – let’s get rid of the forests! Then we can put mansions on the hillsides to prevent erosion and promote habitat for poor people who need work tending our lawns…
I’ve actually never seen a “forest” per se, but I’ve seen trees – and they grow fast.
Great Ian,
I would see word-recycling as a new initiative for the conservation movement. How about such terms as knave, scoundrel, poltroon and dastard?
You guys are fantastic! I have never seen a more ingenius group of faux satire since the 16th Century’s Fescinnine Verses! Brilliant I say!
I will say a few things though of a less satirical nature:
1. Rainforest Action does not get money from the government — as a resident of California I happen to know this first hand working in the non-profit world. If they did it de-classify them as a “non-governmental” organization (at least by our Yankee standards).
2. Forestry Tasmania, which is currently headed by a former logging industry exec, is completely exempt from all environemtal regulations such as the endangered species act and the FOI act. Thats pretty ridiculous no? I mean even our folks in the Bush administration laugh at that one.
3. Forestry Tas also receieves all of its funding from the government (unlike Rainforest Action). Hmm…gotta follow the money folks.
Like most blogs this one seems to thrive on bullshit. Other than a few great comments by Ian Mott and Cinders, who actually took the time to do a little research, the bulk of this commentary revolves around outlandish generalizations and childish insults. Which, I guess, is what reinforces the community.
Ian,
Thanks for posting our annual report numbers. We’re pretty proud of the fact that a full 80% of our budget goes to our programs (fundraising is actually a different section, you’ll notice). RAN is a lot of bang for the buck.
While I’ll admit that our funders do include a random “New York poodle owner” here or there, we get everybody from folks that are barely scraping by but want a better world for their kids to the kids themselves who have just completed a rainforest unit at their school and want to help out.
Since you brought up funding, I was wondering if the fact that the IPA (Ms. Marohasy’s employer) has received money from Gunns makes this whole debate kind of moot. Should we just continue to roll our eyes at one another, or is there room for honest debate?
(Oh, and I’ve always liked “rapscallion”…)
Stan Jones
Web Designer,
Rainforest Action Network
Stan,
If you don’t want to call me Jen or Jennifer – then I suggest Dr Marohasy rather than Ms Marohasy.
As a privately-funded Think Tank, the IPA is funded by many individual Australians and some Australian corporations. I am paid a salary by the IPA.
This blog is my ‘hobby’ to the extent that it is not part of my work program with the IPA and is not supported by the IPA.
Here I try and follow environmental issues of significance, particularly to Australia, and in particular give a voice to the alternative perspective.
Your campaign against Gunns and forestry in Tasmania is in my view incredibly misguided. Tasmania has a lot of trees and a very sustainable forestry industry. From memory, 40 percent of the island is covered in forest and 45 percent of this forest is protected from logging. What other state or country provides such a high level of protection to its forests?
You can focus in on the Tasmania industry’s practice of clear felling and suggest that it is not sustainable – but in doing this you simply show your ignorance. Tasmania has many forests of tall Eucalputus because this species regenerates best following a clear-fell and burn. If Tasmanian foresters selectively logged in all areas, this forest type would be replaced by rainforest.
In conclusion,
1. Ignorance isn’t what you don’t know. It is what you do know that isn’t correct.
2. Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to conscience. (Adam Smith)
Finally, as far as I can tell, you belong to a very ignorant group of virtuous but misguided people and your campaign will do much harm and no good for the global environment.
Jennifer,
No offense meant on the “Ms” title, I didn’t want to assume anything–but I guess I did afterall. My apologies.
We feel the same way about “giving voice to the alternative perspective”. In many ways, that’s what we do for people who feel powerless against corporations with substantial PR budgets. So RAN and IPA both have a community and ideology to which they belong. It just seemed silly to argue about funding.
RAN picks its battles pretty carefully. If the Gunns/Tasmania situation were only about sustainable logging, that would be one thing. The definition of “sustainable” seems to change as the wind blows. Personally, what I find most salient is the legal action that Gunns has taken to protect its image and silence an “alternative perspective”.
Certainly, the freemarketeers can see that activists play a substantial role in airing a business’s dirty laundry so that the market can make a better informed response? More information = better decisions. That’s good economics, right?
I like the ring of “virtuous but misguided”. No doubt many catalysts for change in their day were called the same. Anyway, I’m just the web designer–maybe one of our campaigners can jump on next.
Thanks for treating me like a person, by the way. It’s easy to dismiss (though my side prefers to vilify) without getting our hands dirty. At the end of the day there’s only one planet, so we might as well acknowledge that solutions are going to take wisdom from the left, right, and everywhere in between.
Stan
Stan
So is it about forestry practices or is it about the legal action by Gunns?
The legal action could hardly be considered clever PR, but given the facts/the evidence is rarely/never reported in the mainstream media – I understand Gunns Ltd are resorting to the courts for a fair hearing.
Which brings me to your suggestion that you are an agent for change. Quite the contrary, environmentalism as articulated by your organisation is now mainstream. It is your type of organisation and the members of your alliance that have the “ear of politicians” and it is your message that is repeated daily by the world’s environmental reporters.
And I note that Greenpeace met with the Australian Environment Minister after their campaign in the Antarctic and he gave them a pat on the back and a mention in parliament.
It is your type of organisation that has successfully ripped the guts out of forestry in Queensland. We now import from NSW, Malaysia and Indonesia etcetera.
I am simply fighting for a more evidence-based approach to environmentalism and against the current zeitgeist.
Stan
I’m sure you would agure that that democracy is for all, including the right to challenge matters through due legal process should the need arise. Yet it appears that there is a few that would prefer to restrict this right.
That same few didn’t offer one word of displeasure a couple of years ago when the Tasmanian Environmental Defenders Office instigated a Supreme Court action against Timber Communities Australia (I am proud to be TCA’s Tasmanian state Manager) for its raising concerns about a EDO web site link to another site promoting illegal actions. The EDO’s board of management includes senior members from the broader Tasmanian environmental activist movement. The EDO vigorously pursued their right even after legal argument showed they would not succeed. In the end their action failed with costs awarded. Yet the same environmental activits are now loudly condemning a due legal process against themselves by a Tasmanian timber company.
TCA also strongly argues that the broader environmental movement often exercise their right to legal process. Their recent failed Meander Dam Supreme court case is just one example.
Also during the 2004 federal election The Australian Greens leader exercised his legal right by pursuing a matter regarding an election advertisement he disapproved of. (This same Greens leader is now crying that he shouldnt’ be subjected to legal challange)
Which proves that if the right to challenge within the law for redress is pursued by any one
other than the privileged environmental activists, its called a denial of “freedom of speech”, what rubbish, freedom of speech is and should be a fundamental right of all but I’m sure you will aguree that it does carry with it a responsibility to not “step over the line”. Equally there is the fundamental right of redress if the line is over stepped.
There is a very strong case that the environmental activists them selves as the only ones’ that have the right of expression and are all too willing to deny freedom of speech to any one that has a differing view to thier’s.
For example the blatant attempts to destroy a TCA forestry information billboard legally displayed in Hobart last year. Also past activist campaigns to silence forestry commentators like Dr Patrick Moore (co-founder of Green Peace)adds weight. Again with these, a deafening wall of silence from those now crying denial of speech, but one could just imagine their out cry if the roles was reversed, with the issue of a couple of years ago of who could or could not provide sponsorship to Tasmania’s 10 Days on the Island.
The same have also raised the matter of the right to protest; but again they seem to over look that this course of action is a fundamental right as long as it is conducted within the law. TCA its self has taken up this right with its role in the 1995 weeklong protest around the Federal parliament by timber workers and their dependent communities. Throughout this weeklong protest timber folk respected and preserved the right to work for in and around the federal parliament from the Prime Minister down. This total event was conducted within the realms of approved legal protest and it achieved it aims without damage to property or denying the rights of others.
To TCA proudly a make contrast to the environmental activists all too common tactics of unlawful protest and their having complete disrespect for the rights of others.
Democracy used correctly is the provider of freedom of speech for all, but when that freedom is abused, democracy is also the provider for those seeking redress, perhaps a vital point overlooked by the “elitist” environmental activists.
Jacob and Stan, you say you don’t get government funding so what, then, is the source of the Grants that amounted to 37% of your revenue?
Your suggestion that your “public education” function is distinct from your “membership” is not borne out by your accounts which have them as one item. This is standard procedure for so-called advocacy groups like yours that send out tonnes and tonnes of pure promo material with extreme and misleading “shock horror” stories that you claim to be “Public Education”.
The almost complete absence of serious publications that actually add to the sum of knowledge is usually more than adequate evidence to establish that such organisations are essentially a marketing scam designed for no other purpose than to perpetuate themselves.
Have you ever actually spoken to a Tasmanian Forester to understand what they actually do and why?
Do you actually know what proportion of the Tasmanian forest estate is already in reserves?
Do you actually know what proportion of the total area that is available for harvesting is actually harvested each year?
Do you actually know how many years after regeneration burning it takes before the full suite of dependent species have returned to the site?
You know jack shit fella.
Jacob,
Thanks for the compliment in referring to my well researched post, perhaps you might like to reconsider some of your claims after similar research.
Forestry Tas must comply with the Tasmanian Threatened Species Act and the Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
The only ‘exemption’ is they don’t need separate applications for each individual harvest operation as their management and planning systems have been accredited by the relevant agencies responsible for the Acts.
How they meet these two Acts is detailed in their Sustainable Forest Management report at
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pages/sustainable_fm_contents.htm
it is well worth a read.
In relation to Freedom of Information your claim is also out of date, Forestry Tasmania did have a partial exemption under section 32A of the relevant Act but this was repealed as announced by the relevant Minister in The Hobart Mercury, Online Edition, Ellen Whinnett (Tuesday 31 August 2004)
The Act can be found at http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au
Forestry Tasmania is a Government Business Enterprise that must operate on a commercial basis and is expected and does provide a return to Government.
In regards to the Head of Forestry Tasmania you mention, the following Media release (edited for brevity) about Evan winning an award outlines his career.
National Foresters Award to Evan Rolley
The N.W.Jolly Award to be awarded to Evan this evening is the institute’s highest and most prestigious honour for outstanding service to the profession.
The institute has recognised Evan’s thirty-year career as a professional forester as one in which he has made an outstanding contribution to forestry and the community of Tasmania.
Evan Rolley served his apprenticeship as a field forester in Smithton in 1975, served as a District Forester in Launceston, a specialist in Fire Management Branch and six years as Forest Information Officer based in Hobart. Evan served as Chairman of the Tasmanian division of the Institute of Foresters and oversaw the implementation stage of the Forest Practices Act as the first Chief Forest Practices Officer.
From 1987-90 he was Commissioner of Private Forests and Operations and Chief Commissioner from 1990. Evan was principal negotiator during the Regional Forest Agreement process and has been Managing Director of Forestry Tasmania since 1994.
The N.W.Jolly Award is presented at the IFA’s Annual General Meeting in Canberra. The IFA has 1250 professional members Australia-wide and is strongly committed to the principles of sustainable forest management.
November 16, 2005
Perhaps a silly question – but is there a web site that sets out the positive case for logging in Tasmania with some relevant statistics? Economics, sustainability, environmental and biodiversity impacts.
How does the man, Ms, Miss, Mrs, Mr, Doctor, Professor, Reverend, Rabi, Imam in street (perhaps Jack or Jill Shit or their cousin Numb Nuts) get some decent information?
Or is that not a good idea for legal/strategic reasons.
Phil, I thought the same thing when I first saw the Treesnotgunns site. I actually think there is a need for a bit more than just competing sites, I think there is a need for a site which will provide space for both sides to put their arguments and list their references, resources etc. If Gunns and RAN wanted to sponsor one, could get it up quite quickly, and publicise it to the OLO audience!
OK Jen – here’s a challenge !! Facilitated debate online by web hosting ?!
A good place to start would be the National Association of Forest Industries at http://www.nafi.com.au It has a good mix of professional papers, reports, topical coverage and, for the kids and green plodders, plenty of educational material.
In all this debate and it’s duelling web sites, we all need to recognise who the real experts in forest ecology are. They are not foresters and they certainly are not greens. They are the wildlife that live in these forests. And they vote with their feet.
The highest concentrations of Yellow Bellied Gliders, for example, have been observed in forests that, in the old parlance, “have been extensively modified”. That is, stands of regrowth after heavy harvesting with a minimum of retained stems. YBG’s are sap feeders and sap flow and nutritional value is highest in vigorously growing young to early mature trees.
According to Eucalypt Forest Guru, RG Florence, in “Ecology and Silviculture of Eucalypt Forests”, these robust young trees that are stretching to maximise their share of a newly created gap produce maximum seed fall. And that also means maximum flowering and maximum production of fresh green leaf.
And this, of course, means maximum inputs to the entire leaf, sap, flower and seed based food chains.
And this is why the real experts in forest ecology, the wildlife, are generally more abundant in a multi-aged mosaic of regenerating forest than in a locked up and slowly dieing old growth forest. In the latter, the growth has declined, the sap flows less, the bark is thicker, the leaves are older and the buds and seeds are fewer.
Take a look at;
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/viewpoint/stories/s1339987.htm
Fair enough Ian. But in the end animals can’t talk and people are influenced by debate.
I could facilitate something here. But better still use OLO. A link to what Graham can offer is http://issuesbriefs.nationalforum.com.au/about.html .
And notice OLO has a very low Alexa rating meaning they get more visits than me (though note how my rating keeps improving!).
OLO are sometimes picked up by Google News etcetera.
I reckon Phil had a great idea and that Graham has the mechanism to facilitate information collection and exchange from both sides.
But as always, if RAN or Gunns want something posted here – just send it in and I will probably do it as a new guest blog post.
Jen – without wanting to give you a job I reckon you would be in a good position to facilitate something like this. And your blog is far from a pushover for either side – e.g. just watching Thinsky and Motty go for it should convince anyone !! A unique national experiment perhaps. The format – web site with attached blog ?? I suppose you would have to be optimistic that you would get somewhere.
Stan! Stan! Anyone seen Stan?
Boxer
It does look like Stan and his RAN mates know full well that hard core activists will do what ever it takes to stop any “alternative perspective” thats not theirs.
So I guess its easier for Stan and the RAN to run away from the debate so they don’t have to lay upon their Australian hard core activists mates the same scorn they aimed at Gunns for seeking a leagal ruling on whats acceptable.
It’s probley even more embarrassing for Stan to stay engaged, for he knows that Gunns is acting within the law to pursue it’s interests where the hard core activists knowingly act out side the law.
As Billy Conolly was moved to observe, there is one person behind all this eco-terrorism. It is Stan. You can see his work in AfganiSTAN, PakiSTAN, KyrgiSTAN and BaluchiSTAN. Just four cones and it all makes sense, not to me, but it all makes sense.
The discussions have been interesting and informative. As many of you may know – Gunns does not have a PR department. We concentrate on doing our jobs to the best or our ability. Without the forests in good health and in abundance we would be out of business. We have tried using science and common sense, statistics and verifiable facts to combat misinformation and emotive claptrap – but in the end people believe what they want to believe – the truth be buggered and that is the frustrating part of it all. The domocratic processes in Australia – both at a Federal and State level have domonstrated that the majority of Australians and Tasmanians support forest policy as it stands. There is always room for improvement in any industry and hence we and Forestry Tasmania are constantly looking at new ways to improve our environmental standards. However – we use science and research to achieve that end – not uninformed rhetoric.
Make a new plan Stan and hit the road.