Mark, I am advocating for communities in Tasmania that have asked me to support them. In missing the core points that I'm trying to get across, you keep proving that 'industrial forestry' has real and serious problems that are affecting the whole industry.

1) 'Industrial forestry' isn't working in Tasmania, requiring major subsidies to keep it in operation. the result has been corporate bankruptcies and severe disruption of forestry operations.

2) The supply chain for 'industrial forestry' (plantation or forest) requires operation at very low margins because of the characteristics of the global fibre markets (prices non-negotiable and trending down)> The effect is disenchanted contractors, investors and taxpayers. You'll be able to add banks and financiers to that list too I'd say.

3) Resistance to 'Industrial forestry' has strengthened opponents (e.g the greens) and contributed to financial support for TWS and others. That resistance is creating more pain for forestry, even the parts valued by communities such as timber production.

4) Community antipathy to 'industrial forestry' is starting to affect other political systems and accelerate resistance for 'industrial forestry' plans.

5) 'Industrial forestry' projects cannot get funding in Tasmania, probably due to some combination of the foregoing factors.

Your approach to this is to deny there are problems and rubbish the objections to 'industrial forestry' that are causing you so many problems. Whether you like it or not, many people reject 'industrial forestry' on both socio-economic and environmental grounds. That is the right of the community of taxpayers - to make up its own mind.

Solution - reduce the 'industrial forestry' efforts (because they're not working and don't promise serious or reliable profits) and start using forestry land and resources to provide solutions to Australians.

There's lots of ways to do this, the only constraint is your imagination.