“Cinders, you are with TCA”, is the start of a rant by Dreem last year, against one of my posts. I explained at the time that TCA is Timber Communities Australia, a nationwide organisation of community groups that depend on the sustainable timber industry and draws its membership from people in small business, that work and care for our forests, and folk that seeks to promote the environment, economic and social benefits of the renewable resource management.

At the time I advised Dreem and other readers that details of TCA can be found at http://www.tca.org.au/index.shtml where you can also find detailed analysis of claims (myths) made against the modern value adding pulp mill and tasmanian forestry.

TCA people are proud of the fact that a balance was achieved a decade ago in Australia’s forest management that has seen reserve levels, such as 1 million hectares of old growth in Tasmania, exceed targets set by international groups such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the IUCN and WWF target of 10% managed for protection.

Whilst no longer an employee, I am still a proud volunteer for this organisation of real timber communities and still passionate on the real conservation achievements of my State, yet my affiliations are irrelevant to the error riddled and flawed article being discussed. My criticism are mine, and do not reflect any of the organisations that I am associated with, which is the main reason for using a screen name, to encourage a variety of opinion!

But it is not TCA that I quoted to discredit the claims made in this article but official government figures that have been published time and again and are readily available but studiously ignored by the green movement.

Perhaps Dreem and fellow critics that try to play the man rather than argument can also out themselves. Or perhaps provide a dossier on the cabal in charge of the much divided green movement as it squabbles for the control of the $80 million donated to the big four “conservation” charities each year?

Mr Bolan
With all due respect, the central tenet of your article - that “the stories of communities and ordinary individuals have been swamped by paid (forestry) spinmeisters” - is almost laughable.

Just who’s swamping who? I note that you normally write for the Tasmanian Times which has already posted around 600 purpose-written anti-forestry articles on its website this year. Where is the equivalent outlet for the views of these 'paid forestry spinmeisters'?

I have written about forestry matters on a voluntary basis for the Institute of Foresters on Online Opinion for several years - so far this year I have written about 4 articles - it seems that the last of these (last week) has stimulated your article. I probably should be flattered as it only confirms my view that those opposing forestry simply can't handle being challenged, largely because they are rarely faced with it, but also because it is difficult to deal with inconvenient truths.

Despite your attempt to distinguish the concerns of “communities and ordinary individuals” from those of activist groups like The Wilderness Society and Environment Tasmania, they are essentially the same. These groups have substantial resources. Indeed, TWS has a $15 million budget and 140 paid staff employed solely to maintain conflicts such as that in Tasmania’s forests. Sadly, this is far greater than the resources devoted to challenging their misinformation which unfortunately, the forestry sector has never regarded as core business.

Indeed, much of this is done voluntarily by Timber Communities Australia which has a couple of paid people, but is mostly comprised of people living and working in the same communities whose anti-forestry concerns you are purporting to highlight. The difference of course, is that these people largely work in the forestry sector (or are friends or relatives of those who do).

They should be respected as people who actually know what's going on - but you've only got to look at some earlier responses to your article to see how they and their views are routinely disrespected by the demographic you are representing - another tactic to dodge inconvenient truths.

Mr Bolan .... continued

You also neglect to mention that those opposing Tasmanian forestry virtually have a media network at their disposal – our ABC.

Whether its a double episode of Australian Story devoted to proving that plantations are toxic, or a cosy one-on-one fireside chat between the host of Lateline and anti-Gunns crusader, Geoffrey Cousins, the ABC continues to demonstrate its bias in favour of disaffected communities and individuals over government and industry viewpoints which could actually clear-up much of the conflict, but are either just ignored or are given little airtime and so effectively dismissed as industry ‘spin'.

For example, for a recent 7:30 Report piece on Tasmanian forestry, the National President of the Institute of Foresters was extensively interviewed, but none of this was shown on the program which drew heavily on the views of disaffected communities and individuals. Consequently, the program gave further credence to misleading views that effectively maintain or attract new outraged recruits to the cause. Again, where were the 'paid forestry spinmeisters'?

Undoubtedly, there are some legitimate concerns about forestry, but the reality is that many of those being publicly promoted are either hugely exaggerated, simply not real, or stem primarily from an ideological opposition to the cutting down of trees. Meanwhile formal attempts to address anti-forestry claims are too often simply dismissed by those who are pushing them – one only has to read the many irrational rants of many of those opposing forestry on the Tasmanian Times to see this.

Because those opposing forestry simply reject the official facts and information put forward to explain and rationalise their concerns, they maintain the conflict by coming up with their own 'facts' based on a wide range spurious assumptions. This article seems to fit this profile, although quite frankly I have neither the time nor inclination to read it in detail. Indeed, it is articles such as this which comprise the real forestry assault.

@ "Mark Poynter’s article goes a long way to showing how that conflict is inspired and maintained. Instead of recognising the damage that forestry is doing, he takes the simple-minded approach of attacking critics as being “deep greens”. In doing so, he extends the problems for forestry and for communities"

So, if an article merely pointing out the lack of perspective amongst those opposing forestry in Tasmania is enough to extend the conflict, what can be said about Bob Brown's announcemant last week that a central plank of the Greens Federal election campaign is the closure of Australia's hardwood timber industry?

Could it be that the real reason fot the continuing conflict is the uncompromising efforts of one side (those opposed to forestry) to end the very existence of the other side? Simple, but true.

Mark and others.

I have tried to describe why around 65% of Tasmanians oppose the pulp mill and wood chipping by using reported impacts and published information regarding the cost pressures that exist, and that will worsen, from 'industrial forestry'.

I have done that by presenting evidence.

Your objections and your article, (as with 'cinders' and others) offers no evidence whatsoever. You simply repeat the idea of forestry as some hard done by industry that's misunderstood by most people. I view Industrial forestry as a cosseted industry that has failed to work in the free market.

I support those aspects of forestry that provide real value to the community - shipping fibre to distant countries and relying on public subsidies doesn't do that.

Your explanations seem to revolve around 'irrational' extremists misunderstanding your industry.

Modern marketing explains forestry's situation in simple terms - your products are not worth much, your activities are making people hostile, and your future is looking dim unless you start to change.

Ignore that at your peril.

As to the various conservation groups, many in the community (including me) have nothing to do with them, their budgets or their messages. The fact that you don't seem able to distinguish between the community and the more extreme greens within it, says more about your than anything else.

Mikester
With respect, it is pretty difficult in 350-words to respond in any detailed way to a 4-page article, and quite frankly, some of your early thoughts display your biases, despite your purported desire "to go beyond the name calling, accusations and assumptions of entitlement that are usually contained in forestry’s self-interested narrative"

@ "The ongoing efforts to shoehorn the idea of turning trees into their lowest common denominator of fibre, has corrupted our political system and threatens a massive community revolt"

Some major assumptions here - but what are you talking about - plantations, native forests, or both. It is this confusion that is so common amongst forestry critics which makes it difficult to answer because it is so time consuming to have to go back to first principals.

@ "The forest industry … which dominates Tasmania’s landscape, resources, infrastructures and governments and enjoys multiple exemptions from the laws that apply to, and protect, the rest of us; that judges public grievances against it and finds itself blameless; that depletes the landscape and our water catchments at our expense; and that constantly expects more money and more resources from us in order to feed global fibre markets and line the pockets of a few"

How can anyone quickly respond to such a diatribe. You say you have presented evidence, but this is just repeating as a 'given' a whole litany of the usual unsubstantiated claims made by those opposed to Tasmanian forestry.

@ "Modern marketing explains forestry's situation in simple terms ..."
Yes it does, if things are repeated often enough they assume a factual status that they may not deserve.

OK, so change occurs as you hope, my point is that closing down major parts of the forestry sector will do little for the environment, will substantially weaken Tasmania's socio-economic base, and will not remove the hostility simply because the complainants will shift the goalposts as they always do.