As MWPONTER correctly observes there is a need for the voice of the Australian Environment Foundation. An organisation launched at Tenterfield NSW in 2005 after an inaugural forum at Ballarat on the 150th anniversary of the Eureka Stockade at Ballarat. We need to hear from those scientists, professionals and skilled workers that earn their family income from the sustainable use of our natural resources.

Yet when they do, they are often vilified as being stooges or front groups by organisations such as sauce-watch and the political environmental lobby. The sauce watch entry is not very accurate when it comes to the AEF, but although it is a wiki, you cannot edit it to correct errors.

One of the reasons the AEF and like minded groups such the Institute of Foresters (http://www.forestry.org.au/) or Timber Communities Australia [http://www.tca.org.au/ ] are determined to have their say is that the green groups are now so well funded and resourced by an army of highly paid spin doctors and lobbyists. The Canberra Times in a front page report on 19 December last year identified the big four WWF, Greenpeace, ACF and the Wilderness Society generating $70 million in annual income with more than 60% spent on fundraising, admin or lobbying. Even the Victorian National Parks Association that campaigned against the community Red gum group had a 2006 income of $7 million.

None of this massive income is spent on forests or wilderness once it is ‘saved’. Not even a dollar of its $15 million income is spent by the Wilderness society on the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The taxpayer pays instead.

Just like the River Red gum, the Valley of the Giants in TWWHA lies forgotten as the protest industry moves onto another marketing venture to drive their fund raising. Perhaps instead of attacking the AEF, rstuart, who enjoys playing the man, not the message, could advise on the corporate governance issues that have arisen out of the AGM of the Wilderness Society and wether its membership is going to get a real say in how the money is spent

@MWPOYNTER: how does this differ from The Wilderness Society forming a union with part of the ANU and using the credibility of 'green academics'?

It doesn't. I didn't say it did, nor did I say it is a bad thing.

The difference is it is perfectly plain from their name what the Wilderness Society is, and what viewpoint they will push. Thus if someone from the Wilderness Society posted a pro-conservation view here I would not feel the need to point "hey, beware this group has an agenda". Is it not perfectly plain from the AEF's name, nor from the way Max wrote his article what viewpoint he is pushing. All I did was describe the agenda the AEF invariably pushes. I do think hiding it is a deliberate ploy on the AEF's part, and so it does need to be spelt out for casual reader.

@MWPOYNTER: This is a disturbing phenomena because it is basically an attempt to invalidate the viewpoints of those who actually know the most about particular topics through working within them on a daily basis.

Rubbish. You are effectively saying forest workers and their companies know more about forests than say park rangers or CSIRO scientists. Certainly they bring a unique viewpoint and that viewpoint needs to be heard, but to say that viewpoint deserves to be rated more highly that everybody else's is an insult to our democracy.

@byork: rstuart, stop pretending to be part of some battling under-dog group.

Where did that come from - little voices in your head? I don't know enough about the River Red Gum issue to choose sides. I made that plain.

@cinders: there is a need for the voice of the AEF

I agree. We would all be far worse off if industry didn't get to put their side of the story. We have the greenies selectively handing out only the facts that support their agenda, so we need someone handing out all information they so conveniently omitted, and that is what the AEF does. I just wish they were more transparent about it.

rstuart
Far from being deceitful, the AEF would argue that because they include scientific expertise, they are far more on an environmental group than the mainstream "green" groups which generally have no expertise themselves, although one (the TWS) has formed a union with some favourable ANU academics.

The fact that you don't regard the AEF as an environmental group says more about the conventional expectation of what an environmental group is.... that is, a group that opposes most human resource use rather than a group that pragmatically sees the need for a balance between conservation and use .... which is the position of the AEF.

Even if you still believe the name AEF to misrepresent their aims and activities, lets not kid ourselves that such a play on words is restricted to non-green environmental groups. What about the Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Tasmania, or Environment East Gippsland. The general public could be forgiven for believing these to be government agencies rather than 'green' lobby groups. Deceitful??

Yes, I am saying that those who work in the forest industry know more than their critics about forests - certainly they do about the breadth and practical management of their day-to-day activities. You have been conditioned by the mainstream environmental groups to think of everyone who works in the forest industry as a chainsaw weilding red-neck - when in reality these companies are managed and staffed by university educated forest scientists, as are the government agencies such as Forestry Tasmania who actually plan and regulate the management of public forests. These companies and agencies are linked with and influenced by the research findings of the CSIRO and other researchers.

These are the sort of people who find a group such as the AEF attractive because it actually recognises the extent of the science that already underpins forest management, and doesn't just wrongly assume that our forests are subject to uncontrolled exploitation which is typically how forestry is portrayed by the mainstream environmental movement.

A little disingenuous of Max to be writing an article under the guise of better "management" of national parks - when Mr Rheese is in fact part of the IPA, which is a recipient of Gunns funding.

I would've hoped that On Line Opinion would require such conflicts of interest to be clearly stated?

I would have also hoped that independent ecologists are better qualified to make comment on our national estate, rather than right-wing thinktanks and people with no knowledge of biodiversity or ecological systems?

HelenL, the argument put forward by Max Rheese is evidence based and cogent and supportable from a left-wing point of view. This is because (what's left of) the left opposes Nature worship and supports economic growth. The Marxist slogan of "Abundance for All" sits far better with the AEF position than the obsession with sustainability of the hard green ideologues.

Also, if you believe in evidence-based argument, you need to be able to prove not only that there is a direct connection between the IPA and Gunns on one hand, and the AEF on the other, but you need to show how any such connection (if it exists - and no-one has presented evidence here) influences Max's argument and evidence.

My guess is that you are incapable of arguing logically and in an evidence-based way against his article.

By contrast, the tone of Max's article invites discussion and debate. That's why I, as a long-time leftist, prefer the AEF to the ACF (of which I was once a member for about a decade)

@byork: Also, if you believe in evidence-based argument, you need to be able to prove not only that there is a direct connection between the IPA and Gunns on one hand, and the AEF on the other, but you need to show how any such connection (if it exists - and no-one has presented evidence here)

- The AEF's address and phone number for the website registration are identical to the address and phone number for the Victorian office of the logging industry front group, Timber Communities Australia.

- The AEF's ASIC registration listed it business as the IPA office.

- The head of the AEF admitted that it is a group set up to protect timber interests and stop resources being taken away from the industry in an interview on ABC Radio station Triple J's Hack program.

All this information is listed on http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation , which _was_ given above.

@MWPOYNTER: What about the Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Tasmania, or Environment East Gippsland. The general public could be forgiven for believing these to be government agencies rather than 'green' lobby groups. Deceitful??

Nope. It is pretty clear which side they are batting for.

@MWPOYNTER: Yes, I am saying that those who work in the forest industry know more than their critics about forests - certainly they do about the breadth and practical management of their day-to-day activities.

No one argues that when it comes to managing forest for timer extraction, the people work in the industry know most about it. But I assume you realise that saying the timber industry is the best authority on managing forest for recreational style usage, species protection, rainfall catchment puts you at about the same level of extremism as the "save the lesbian whales" greenies.