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 > Conveniently ignoring the facts > Comments

Conveniently ignoring the facts : Comments

By Alan Ashbarry, published 17/3/2006

Environmentalists campaign besmirches Tasmania's world leading logging practices.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
For those like Taz, who want a good appreciation of the vegetation in Tasmania a reasonable map can be located at http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/soer/image/234/index.php

Don't get caught out like the ABC's Four Corners and be forced to apologise for not being accurate or for misinterpretation of the colour code of the maps in the SFM report! See
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1132297.htm

For a report on land use in Tasmania, may I suggest have a look at
http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/rural_land_trend_2003/index.html
Appendix 1 has some figure that might surprise.

For those interested in loss of vegetation cover, then
http://audit.deh.gov.au/ANRA/vegetation/vegetation_frame.cfm?region_type=TAS®ion_code=TAS
might be illuminating
Posted by cinders, Saturday, 18 March 2006 4:19:05 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
Alan, Its worth stating here what your link says about the radical Rainforest Network:

Rainforest Action Network is one of the most radical organizations in the environmental movement that has nonprofit status under the 501(c)3 section of the tax code. Its modus operandi is to harass and intimidate businesses into knuckling under to a radical agenda...

RAN President Randy Hayes co-founded the group in 1975 with radical Mike Roselle, who would later go on to found the Ruckus Society and Earth First! Hayes relishes the term “radical.” ...

Like all radical groups, RAN uses euphemisms like “non-violent civil disobedience” and “direct action.” It would be more accurate to say that RAN engages in force and disruption that violates the rights of others. RAN brings corporations to heel by using a never-ending string of protests and illegal activities that make it difficult for a business to function. For example, during its campaign against Home Depot, RAN organized a day of “ethical shoplifting” during which activists stole lumber from Home Depot, which they later handed over to the FBI. It is not uncommon for a RAN event to end in an arrest. President Randy Hayes has been arrested 18 times and Executive Director Michael Brune a dozen for crimes like trespassing and disorderly conduct.

The list of victims is a long one: Home Depot, Boise Cascade, Burger King, Trader Joe’s, Mitsubishi, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wachovia, Occidental Petroleum, Shell Oil and Scott Paper. RAN succeeds for two reasons. First, corporations worry over their public images, and a tarnished public image is bad for business. And an easy way to soil a corporation’s public image is to paint it as anti-environment, or more specifically, anti-rainforest. Second, is a compliant media. News accounts often neglect to mention RAN’s disruptive tactics or radical politics; there is no recollection of its involvement in the Seattle protests. RAN typically gets the saccharine moniker “environmental group.”

Compare this summary with actions described in the Gunns writ, and ask who is copying who?
Posted by Rod up the road, Sunday, 19 March 2006 7:54:44 AM
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
Alan or any fellow subscribers

I'm still keen to learn of the amount of forests Tasmania has reserved compared with world countries in percentage terms; doesn't any one have that data? I read in Alan's post what the UK has done and looks like Tasmania is light years ahead of the Poms in forest stewardship.

If this is the case for the rest of the world, it does then ask a big question, why is Tasmania being singled out by the likes of RAN and just about every other green group you can think of?
Posted by Chivers, Sunday, 19 March 2006 8:44:48 AM
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
"Compare this summary with actions described in the Gunns writ, and ask who is copying who?"

Rod Up the Road: I guess you must be making the point that the written statements and the court writs are both faithfully decribing the same reality?
Posted by d, Sunday, 19 March 2006 10:18:28 AM
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 actual area of oldgrowth forest within reserves remains pitifully small including the 120500 ha extra from 2005, as seen in the state reserve map on page 6 of this document sustainable forest management referred to by timberjack (not Alan as I said in my last post). My concern and I guess many others was the old RFA fell far short of any reasonable expectations for Australians in this vital part of our world

http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pdf_files/sfm_brochure.pdf

For Alans attention; I was particularly bothered by our collective history in knocking down the best forests of E obliqua and replacing them with what ever the industry fancied over time, examples pines and blue gums. Nobody it seemed wanted a natural mix in regrowth either. For too long we were focused on quick yields regardless of all else including long term fertility.

Alan may have the knowledge to discuss the forestry practice here as it was under the last of the pulp wood concessions granted to APPM and ANM but I doubt if others do. My association with some of these forests goes back six generations. I wish we had just some of the old photos my folks and others took with their bush in the background.

Alan may also reveal how we got into this miserable practice of 1080 poisoning of native animals. This nasty piece of modern forestry was introduced after I left the state by operators who knew nothing about the bush. Alan could probably tell why export woodchips now drives the business not value added products like we had with our own massive R&D before Bell Bay and Gunns got their way.

Needles to say I don’t trust the bastards with anything else to do with our future involving public lands until the Practice Board gets the upper hand.

Readers could also be made aware of how the seventh generation got behind the federal government probe into another value of the Tasmanian forests in their carbon sink, as it was and as it must be in the future. I reckon the RFA process still has a way to go.
Posted by Taz, Sunday, 19 March 2006 3:57:22 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
Taz
sorry old mate but it looks like you are out of step with the vast majority of Tasmanian voters and also the nations for that matter

Here in Tas we have just had a state election with forestry as key election issue promoted by the Greens with full on advertising support from the TWS.

Both the major parties held up for voter support the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement that has set aside 1 million ha of old growth forest. And guess what, both the major parties gained 85% of the vote. The Greens have lost one seat and may loose another.

I shouldn't have to remind that a key to the Federal Liberal party being returned in Canberra in 2004 was the balanced achieved by the same Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement (Howard’s policy)

So I guess you have a choice stay and cling to the old death and doom green view of the world or move forward with the rest of Australia with the knowledge that Tassies forest are more than ever being well looked after.

Up to you
Posted by Timberjack, Sunday, 19 March 2006 4:39:44 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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