rstuart, This is just sad. You clearly ignored my key point: "you need to show how any such connection (if it exists - and no-one has presented evidence here) influences Max's argument and evidence".

I checked out your link and neither it nor you establish any connection between AEF and Gunns, yet you claimed one existed.

The link, and your line of argument, reminds me of when I was in the communist party in the 1970s and those on the far-Right relied on revealing 'sinister' interconnections and attempting to isolate individuals as a ‘fall-back’ position when their arguments failed.

You fail to dent the integrity of Max Rheese’s argument about national parks. Were you to accept his personal integrity, you might have to actually argue against his line.

I'm persisting with this because it strikes me that it is a common fallacious way of arguing on the part of greenies who seek a harmonizing, rather than a progressive, relationship between humans and the natural environment.

What's needed is open and free discussion and debate of the actual issues.

By the way, thank you for drawing my attention to Timber Communities Australia. Far from being our own local 'Great Satan', the TCA believes in the following, and I urge readers to check out their website: http://www.tca.org.au/abouttca/index.shtml (Good on the AEF is they have a close relationship with TCA).

"Mission statement
Our aim is to secure long term access to natural resources to generate employment and a future for regional communities, and to ensure our unique Australian forests are scientifically evaluated and sustainable managed for the benefit of future generations and genetic diversity".

I might post the TCA's "Aims" later, as I'm exceeding the word limit now.

@byork: I checked out your link and neither it nor you establish any connection between AEF and Gunns, yet you claimed one existed.

No, at no stage have I said there was a link between Gunns and the AEF. A direct link between the AEF and the IPA - yes, but not Gunns. Nor did anyone else here. Seeing such a claim comes from someone who is making his stand on "the evidence" is, as you say, just sad.

@byork: You fail to dent the integrity of Max Rheese’s argument about national parks.

I would be surprised if I had, as it was never my intention to do that. You know this, so do you repeatedly bring it up? I was just advising casual readers here whose whose interests the AEF is representing, and it ain't the Environmentalists and greenies. It is such a simple thing, it is a statement of fact and is based on evidence, and yet you seem to have such a problem with it.

Just so there is no confusion on what is claimed here and what isn't, I do claim the links between the AEF and those who want more commercial exploitation of our environment have been very clearly shown. I am not claiming commercial exploitation of our environment is a bad thing. On the contrary, it is an absolutely necessary thing. It is just a question of getting the balance right.

The thrust of this article is built upon practical knowledge of the impacts of creating reserves in a search for political support by the greens. Well done to byork for spotting the weakness in rstuart's attack on the man rather than the message. He seems to be denying that he said in his first post that Max was "a executive directory of the the Australian Environmental Foundation, a group created by the Institute of Public Affairs, which is a turn a group primarily funded by Gunns. The AEF foundation was announced during the May 2005 Annual conference in Launceston of Timber Communities Australia."

Whilst these incorrect claims are attributed to saucewatch, they are wrong as the AEF was launched at Tenterfield in NSW and is funded by its members. If you look at its web site, AEF policies in questioning human caused climate change are in direct contrast with the forest industry who are promoting timber as an effective way to mitigate greenhouse gas emission. Tasmanian integrated timber company Gunns states that its approved modern pulp mill will save one million tonnes of GHG each year.

The AEF promotes real balance between environment, society and the economy, and promotes sustainable development as defined by the Brundtland Commission to alleviate poverty. If I can borrow from an articulate web site, "green ideology opposes rapid development, fears change and romanticises pre-industrial life". Locking up the environment in national parks by the greens destroys jobs, undermines communities and causes distress to families that take pride in managing their environment.

rstuart
How do you propose to get the balance right?

And what is the balance between?

@cinders: [rstuart] seems to be denying that he said ... Australian Environmental Foundation, a group created by the Institute of Public Affairs, which is a turn a group primarily funded by Gunns."

Why would I deny it? The statement is correct. John Roskam, an Executive Director of the IPA, described the AEF thusly: "an extension of our work on the environment, agriculture, genetically modified crops and water issues". http://books.google.com/books?id=sBaH8j_Qs-IC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=AEF+was+launched+at+Tenterfield&source=bl&ots=kN0jy5B1Hz&sig=fmv4AAPNrbXaC4JI9b5ai8_Ygmg&hl=en&ei=GyywS9P9FdCGkAWxo6GaDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=AEF%20was%20launched%20at%20Tenterfield&f=false

If you, or byork think that means the AEF is linked to Gunns then fair enough - but don't attribute that claim to me. They did give Gunns an environmental award, though. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1752110.htm

@cinders: they are wrong as the AEF was launched at Tenterfield in NSW

An formation of an organisation can be announced in one place and launched in another. There is no conflict in the two claims. Besides, SourceWatch does also say it was launched in Tenterfield. John Howard attended the Launceston function where it was announced. http://www.greenwashreport.org/node/34

From http://aefweb.info/articles53.html:

"For the record, IPA along with about a dozen other interest groups initiated the Eureka Forum in December 2004 which saw the formation of the AEF. This was a widely advertised and supported forum open to anyone. The inaugural board of the AEF had two IPA directors elected by democratic process. Other “interest groups” represented on the AEF board included the Landholders Institute, Timber Communities Australia and Bush Users Group."

Pity he didn't see fit to mention the Eureka Forum was organised by the IPA. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Institute_of_Public_Affairs_Eureka_Forum

@cinders: Locking up the environment in national parks by the greens destroys jobs, undermines communities and causes distress to families that take pride in managing their environment.

Thanks for being so honest on where your sympathies lie in the nature versus commercial exploitation debate. I can see your ideals mesh with the AEF's very neatly. I hope you don't label yourself an Environmentalist, as to do with would be to bastardise the common usage of the word. That is of course exactly what the AEF tries to do.

@rstuart: "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"

If you go back to my post you will see I didn't say the timber industry is the best authority to managing the full suite of values. I said the 'forest industry' which is an amalgum of government forestry agencies and the industry, and the foresters who staff them.

Despite your view to the contrary, critics of the timber industry have never accepted that they know less about logging than those who actually undertake it. Isn't that why they claim it is unsustainable, uneconomic, and a drain on the taxpayer, etc - but, how would they know?

The forestry profession which ultimately plans and regulates forest management, including the areas managed for timber production, is a scientific discipline which embraces study of related disciplines including botany, zoology and ecology. So agencies such as the former Forests Commissions in all states successfully managed the full suite of forest values for decades in the days when they had responsibility for managing most of the public forest.

Again, this is far different to the conventional wisdom which sees foresters as knowing only about timber, and all public forests outside national parks as being 'exploited' for this purpose. In reality, only a minor portion of the State Forest estate has ever been available and suitable for timber, so foresters did actually manage recreation and ecological protection through the management of fire.

In Tasmania, Forestry Tasmania still successfully manages recreation -think of the Tahune Air Walk and the Dismal Swamp facility. In other states, recreational management has generally been passed over to new agencies created for that purpose over the last 15 - 20 years.