@Shadow Minister: I have never heard of the AEF before

You can get an idea of what way the lean from their web page http://aefweb.info

As I pointed out in here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10214#166413 their viewpoint is pretty obvious from that page, and it ain't "protect the environment at all costs". Quite the reverse.

You can also get background of the AEF from here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation although Mark says that sites characterisation of the AEF is unfair. Unfair or not, I haven't actually seen anyone demonstrate the supporting facts they quote are wrong.

@Shadow Minister: the greens which are a large organisation with a political front are alse guilty of deceptive behaviour.

No Shadow, not at all. The only issue I have with the Australian Environmental Foundation is name and often their writings imply they have a deep, heartfelt connection with the environment. Well perhaps they do, but it is the same deep heartfelt connection cattle ranchers have with their cows.

It is clear from the Liberals name what sort of politics they push, it is clear from Labour's name who they represent, it is clear from the Green's name what they do, it is clear from the Wilderness Societies name what their chief concern is, and it is even clear what Mark's own society, the Foresters of Australia does. Despite what Mark says, it is unlikely the anybody will mistake Wild Countries Science Council as a mob pushing for jobs and industry. Good luck to them all - their all entitled to their say.

The Australian Environmental Foundation present themselves as an environmental group, championing the environment, just as the Australian Conservation Group champions conservation. And to be fair they do exist primarily to give a soap box to academics and others that discuss environmental issues. The only problem is, they are very careful to choose people whose views happen to dovetail neatly with those wanting to exploit the environment for commercial gain.

rstuart
I am reticent to respond to you as I am acutely aware that drawing attention to the author of an article and his/her associations seems to be a tactic to avoid addressing their arguments.

I have never been a member of the AEF but have attended and been a guest speaker at several of their annual conferences. However, I am very supportive of their aim to have environmental policy and management formulated on the basis of evidence rather than skewed popular opinion based around emotional rhetoric.

You said: "That is _exactly_ the same tactic a mob who Mark is/was associated with, the AEF"

I have it on good authority that the AEF has never assembled a group of academics to sign an 'open letter' to politicians published in the media, let alone a few days before an election.

You said: " ... Poynter vigorously defends the AEF employing these tactics, but attacks the greenies for doing the same thing"

As above, the AEF have never used this tactic. In this case, it wasn't 'greenies' who published the 'open' letter. It was a group of academics - although perhaps at the behest of an environmental lobby group.

You said: "I don't see how getting knowledgeable academics from either side engaged in the debate could possibly be a bad thing."

Are these particular academics appropriately knowledgable about forestry?

You said: "and .... as Mark did in that other thread, .... imply that the ACF / Wilderness Society .... are not truly concerned for the environment"

Where have I ever said that the 'greens' are not concerned for the environment? I believe they have great passion for the environment, but lack perspective by being unable to envisage an appropriate balance between the conservation and wise use of resources.

However, the major 'green' groups are deceptive in deliberately framing campaigns that avoid mentioning key facts that could detract from their message, such as for example, how much forest is already reserved. Consequently, the vast majority who simply support 'green' causes do so on the basis of an inaccurate view of the reality.

Pelican @The author seems more concerned with the 'eminence' of the contributors rather than their concerns.

Anyone may lodge their concerns, as citizens, or amateurs - even you; but some try to pass themselves off as experts.

The professional case mounted by these governance jokers has been easily dismantled by Mr Poynter, leaving them in the position of amateurs making an inappropriate appeal to their own authority.

They therefore deserve no more influence on this set of public affairs than the:

1. performance art of the southern forest tree angel;
2. near martyr-inducing escapades of the un-jobbed at camp Flozza;
3. Still Wining's hijinks over dangerous machinery at Triabunna;
4. the relatively mild socio-politico impact wreaked by the Huon Valley Enviro Cong's act of group weaving an eco-macrame forest protest tapestry.

But by buying into the native forest utilisation argument the academics have just used the same old trick to hijack the public sphere.

Note that 1 to 3 above at least show physical commitment, although the activities pose interesting questions of how land managers might deliver their duty of care obligations in the face of the HS risks trespassers pose to themselves. This is something that ideologically unbiased governance academics might have been validly able to go public with.

Strangely, not.

Rstuart,

Reading a little into the AEF it is true, it ain't "protect the environment at all costs".

However, that is exactly what the greens are about. No expense (not theirs) is too much to pay for even the tiniest impact on the environment.

The AEF would appear to be a reaction to this. Whilst I don't endorse everything they propose, (climate change) There certainly have been wild excesses on the part of the greens, and the AEF is calling for the environmental decision making to be done on a scientific basis and not an emotional one.

The only way to completely protect the environment is to stop all human activity, what is needed is reasonable guidelines that are applied to everyone and not just the greens' target of the day.

The advertisement that republished the open letter the very next day was part of a campaign by the internet activist group Get Up. They also hosted a public forum a day later featuring the “organiser of the Open Letter”.

Get Up raised over $140,000 for its campaign, this is in addition to money spent by the Greens, wilderness society, Environment Tasmania or our common ground. In fact they claim they spent more than one of the major parties on advertising.

According to their web site, https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/NoPulpMill&id=937 when asking for donations to fund this massive political campaign, Get up claimed that it was influencing the election results as a poll was already showing that “Tasmanians have rejected the parties who approved the pulp mill process and approved the legislation written by Gunns' lawyers.”

For any one that actually followed the pulp mill assessment process will know that the Government bill, drafted by its legal experts and not Gunns, was actually amended in the State’s Upper house to ensure that common law rights were protected. The amendments came after publication of an opinion written by one of the Open letter’s signatories, and was designed to protect the rights of ordinary Tasmanians.

Surely the raising of money for a political campaign based upon false claims should be of greater concern to the academics that signed the open letter. It would also appear judging from a copy of another TV advertisement on the same Get Up web site, that the organisation has little regard for accuracy in its campaign. The Planning Commission was asked to verify the accuracy of the advert and the Commissioners reply at http://www.tca.org.au/statenews/tas/2010/MediaReleases/TAS_Letter_PlanningComm_to_TCA_170210_BC.pdf shows that the advertisement fails governance and ethical standards.

Mark’s questions on academic activism need answering. So too does the role of activist group that appear to be bankrolling a campaign to influence the outcome of an election that the academics have key participants.

As I speak there is a pall of smoke from forestry burnoffs. I suspect it covers tens of square kilometres but I can't see that far. Whether it exceeds EPA air quality guidelines or is dangerous to asthmatics I can't say. I'm sure of one thing though; if a factory put out that much smoke it would be quickly shut down.

You'd think to reinforce the industry's claims of carbon neutrality or better they would find some alternative to burning. That is on existing plantations while pristine areas remain untouched. Forestry not only trashes our natural heritage but gets away with what should be illegal levels of pollution.