The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Gunns capitulates to misinformation and bullying > Comments

Gunns capitulates to misinformation and bullying : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 24/9/2010

Gunns' move away from native forests reflects poorly on a society that has largely lost perspective

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Paulie and King Hazza

The pulp mill is a separate issue from native forests because it will only use plantation timbers. The article is about native forests, so constant references to the pulp mill are off-topic.

Paulie
“Gunns has worked ferociously over the last 14 years to destroy as much high conservation old growth forest and replace it with plantations”

In the public land estate - which is what the article refers to - Gunns and other companies have harvested ‘old growth’, mature and regrowth native forest and Forestry Tasmania has regenerated most back to native forest. FT has converted some to sawlog plantations, but most gets regenerated as native forest, not as plantation.

“What about the massive 'regeneration burns' is that carbon recouped too?” Yes.

“There isn't a clear felled forest anywhere in the world which has recovered from clearfell woodchipping, except as a narrow economic resource”

What about the million hectares of forest killed in just a few days by 1939 bushfires. They regenerated in the same way as after logging and are now 70-years old. Most are contained in parks and reserves –fire is the threat to them becoming future old growth. Styx valley has magnificent advanced regrowth stemming from intensive harvesting in the late 1930s and 40s.

“MWPOYNTER, your central argument that Gunns has never acted corruptly or illegally is demonstrably false as the public record attests”

I am not necessarily defending Gunns, but the article was talking specifically about native forest operations, not the pulp mill. I agree the public record is full of conjecture about Gunns behavior from people or groups opposing the pulp mill – does that mean it is right?

“I don't see too much evidence of huon pine, celery top etc regeneration personally, just like the great kauri forests in NZ and Qld, the red cedars etc have NEVER recovered”

Red Cedar and Kauri forests were primarily lost to permanent forest clearing for farmland, and Huon Pine was largely lost under hydro-electric dams. Their demise can hardly be blamed on forestry.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 28 September 2010 1:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Mikester

It seems that the mere mention of the 'Gunns' word spurs prominent pulp mill opponents into action even when the mill is not part of a discussion about Gunns decision to exit native forests.

The financial failings of the MIS plantations industry is also irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes, banks and financial institutions rejected Gunns and the GFC played a part, but the point is that this was far more likely when the company's reputation has been so demonised by decades of misrepresentation of their activities.

With regard to native forests, there is no doubt that the company's activities and Tasmanian forestry in general have been badly misrepresented to the broader community, as well as investors and company stakeholders. You only have to read some of the previous posts to this article to see that forestry stands wrongly accused of all kinds of impacts due to concerted campaigns of misinformation.

This has occurred over a long period and has specifically targeted Gunns and Tasmania. Eventually Japanese customers rejected Tasmanian woodchip exports, while during the same period exports of the same product from NSW and Victoria were virtually unaffected.

The issue is not so much Gunns departure from native forests as the opportunity this has presented to permanantly and substantially reduce Australia's native timber harvest - surely a madness given the far worse environmental implications of importing more timbers from the Third World and encouraging greater use of steel, concrete, etc.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 28 September 2010 2:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But these regrowth forests would first require the clearing of an existing forest space to use. Hence the old growth accusation is perfectly valid.

And that's only the (old) forest preservation side of the reasons why people opposed it.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 28 September 2010 6:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza
As I said earlier, the community has every right to disagree with forestry activities such as the logging of 'old growth' forests. However, thus far, this disagreement has been driven by misrepresentation, particularly of its scale and extent.

Understandably the community strongly supports closing the timber industry when it is repeatedly told or given the impression that Tasmania will lose its old growth forests to woodchipping. However, the communnity would be far more comfortable with the timber industry if it was widely appreciated that 80-90% of Tasmanian old growth forest is reserved and will never be logged, and that the logging that does take place produces high quality sawn timber as well as woodchips.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 28 September 2010 10:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That may be a relief for the broader community, though the local community deserves the right to still be unhappy about it- even if that means they simply use the space within the general area.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 29 September 2010 1:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MWPoynter

Did you create the title for your article?:

"Gunns capitulates to misinformation and bullying"

Kind of like saying "Murdoch's Newscorp capitulates to misinformation and bullying"

Projection?

Much.

When I stop laughing I may post a few FACTS about Gunns.
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 29 September 2010 2:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy