"With regard to its native forest operations, Gunns has never acted illegally or corruptly."

Ha ha ha, that's very funny, but are you serious? This is the same company that bribed a Tasmanian Gov't minister, employed a former Premier (no chance of undue political influence in tiny little Tasmania now is there?), is exempt (along with FT) from FOI legislation, claims it is harvesting sawlogs when in fact everything possible is woodchipped and walked away from the RPDC claiming approval delays were costing it $10million a month. Legislation approving the pulp mill and exempting it from the normal planning approval process was then passed by then Premier Paul Lennon - the same Premier who had Gunns renovate his own home. Three years later there is no progres on the pulp mill but you don't hear Gunns bleating that they are losing $10million a month. This is the same company on whose behalf the Tasmanian Gov't have resumed land along the Tamar Valley Hwy for a 'road expansion' that not only is never going to happen but does follow the route of Gunns' privately owned pulp mill water supply pipeline across PRIVATELY OWNED land which Gunns as another private entity would not normally be able to compulsorily acquire. I could go on and on - the list of corrupt and environmentally disastrous practices by Gunns and their Gov't facilitator Forestry Tasmania are long and known to everyone except (it seems) the author.

Australia, and believe or not, Tasmania, are democratic societies. Moaning that Gov't and Industry (or in this case just industry) should just tell the members of that society to bugger off and accept the Industry's "science" is arrogant in the extreme and demonstrates a profound ignorance by the author of the needs of a mature and functioning democracy. If the people want forests to be left alone 'worth virtually nothing' then that is their choice and their RIGHT. I suspect 'science' will soon enough be available to show these forests are 'worth' far more as functioning forests than as dirty piles of privately owned and taxpayer subsidised woodchips.

'The visual and moral imagery of "saving" beautiful forests from the grim - albeit temporary - devastation of logging...'

There is nothing temporary about the destruction of habitat, mass posioning of native wildlife through the use of 1080 and species extinction that are the products of Tasmanian clearfell woodchipping. Not to mention massive carbon emissions. The spectacle of thousands of log trucks annually plying public roads in Tasmania, the piles of woodchips on wharves in Burnie, Triabunna and elsewhere, the denuded hillsides, the distorting of priorities and the corruption of pulitical life caused by the dominance of logging in Tasmania have trashed the tourism and brand appeal of Tasmania and the morale of its people.

Paulie

You have illustrated the truth of the article's central theme that campaigns against Tasmanian native forestry, including Gunns, have been driven by misinformation.

Like an earlier poster, you have linked Gunns planned plantations-fed pulp mill to its native forest operations, when they are two different issues. Native forests are not going to be used in the pulp mill. Your misconception about this illustrates the success of anti-mill campaigns.

The following is a list of your other misconceptions about Tasmanian native forestry:

"mass posioning of native wildlife" - 1080 was rarely ever used in native forest regeneration - you are confusing this with plantations

"species extinction that are the products of Tasmanian clearfell woodchipping" - There is no evidence of any species extinctions in Australia due to forestry. Clearfelling produces both sawn timber and woodchips.

"Not to mention massive carbon emissions" - Carbon emissions are recouped in subsequent regeneration, and the carbon in the wood products remains stored for variable periods. Also, wood products save infinitely greater carbon emissions where they reduce demand for steel, concrete and aluminium and plastic.

"the denuded hillsides" - Where? You are confusing forestry with land claering for agriculture.

"the distorting of priorities and the corruption of pulitical life caused by the dominance of logging in Tasmania have trashed the tourism and brand appeal of Tasmania and the morale of its people" - I would contend that with respect to native forestry this is due to over-the-top opposition driven by ENGOs who deliberately disregard its scale and extent. Around 75% of Tasmanian public forest won't be used for timber production. When this is recognised, it makes a mockery of unsubstantiated claims about the supposed effect of forestry on democracy and tourism.

The article is not necessarily saying that people should agree with all aspects of Tasmanian native forestry, but is making the point that if people are intent on opposing it let them do so on truthful grounds. If the truth had been known from the start, far more people would be comfortable with Tasmanian native forestry than is currently the case.

'Like an earlier poster, you have linked Gunns planned plantations-fed pulp mill to its native forest operations, when they are two different issues.'

How convenient. Who says they are two different issues? It's the same company with the same corrupt practices facilitated by the same incompetent and compromised Forestry Tasmania isn't it? Gunns has worked ferociously over the last 14 years to destroy as much high conservation old growth forest and replace it with plantations. Does that now mean that these same plantations are now environmentally friendly and sustainable?

'Carbon emissions are recouped in subsequent regeneration'. Oh how simple. What about the massive 'regeneration burns' is that carbon recouped too? These forests will take hundreds of years to 'regenerate' if ever. I don't see too much evidence of huon pine, celery top etc regeneration personally, just like the great kauri forests in NZ and Qld, the red cedars etc have NEVER recovered. There isn't a clear felled forest anywhere in the world which has recovered from clearfell woodchipping, except as a narrow economic resource.

MWPOYNTER, your central argument that Gunns has never acted corruptly or illegally is demonstrably false as the public record attests. Stop repeating your self-serving narrow 'truth' mantra and address the issue

Question- why did such a 'lie' about Gunns not intending to log native forests not get through the court? (which ignores that natural forests would still need to be cleared to make way for the regen forests)
Also, there have been plenty of truthful grounds that locals and people who used the nearby area simply didn't want it as a potential personal detriment.
And this, just as Paulie says, is a perfectly valid ground for preventing this plant from being constructed if we are supposed to be a democracy.

Oh puhleese!

The foresters, whistling while they toil to save our economy (by selling our trees as wood chips), while evil environment groups go behind their backs to drag this promising industry down.

Forestry is the virgin maiden (a billion dollar a year heavily subsidised industry) that is overcome by greasy ferals. International bankers so easily duped and hypnotised by young Aussie environmentalists that they ignore the windfall profits available if they would just loan out a couple billion dollars for 20 years (to a company already in debt for nearly a billion).

What fools they all must be to not trust the likes of Michael Aird, Bryan Green, Paul Lennon, Robin Gray and John Gay. What idiots not to appreciate how Forestry Tasmania cares for the land and the people. What dolts to fail to see the vast profits that eluded Great Southern, FEA, TimberCorp and Gunns.

It takes someone of Mr Poynter’s insight to realise that the bankruptcies, the social odium, the smoking scenery, the rejection by banks all over the world plus the anger of thousands of fleeced MIS investors; these are all the result of outside forces.

What fools we are not to see that forestry is the innocent victim and played no role whatsoever in its own demise.