Mark,
You must be getting increasingly desperate that your gravy train from FT is coming to an end. Yet another spin article so soon after the last one. The Triabunna mill deal has really got to you and the eminent demise of FT as the corrupt financially losing entity that it is.
Not to worry, keep trotting out all the statistics that you can cherry pick and there might be a job for you at ABARE one day.

Sarnian
Sorry to spoil your little personal attack, but this article was obviously written before news of the Triabunna mill sale came through. Just for the record I live in Victoria, so do not and never have worked for FT, and I write these articles on a voluntary basis.

As the article clearly says, the money lies on the other side of the debate and it seems that the $1.6 million pre-election donation to the Greens by Wotif entrepreneur, Graham Wood, has been paid back in full by behind-the-scene's political interference which seems to have enabled him and his bus partner to buy the mill.

I would be surprised if we've seen the end of this affair just yet - if the roles were reversed, I'm pretty sure the likes of you would be calling for a Royal Commission.

MWPOYNTER

The last thing that FT and the present Tassie government would ever want is a Royal Commission. Imagine what would come out of the woodwork?

Mark, another informative article that exposes the hypocrisy of the greens and their activist groups. Despite their claims of high ethical standards the fund raising tricks that you expose show a need for scrutiny.

The greens normally demand openness and transparency yet many of the activist groups don’t produce an annual report showing income or listing donors. Groups like Still wild Still Threatened, and the Huon environment Centre who appear little more than front groups make no attempt to disclose their funding sources.

Those groups that do publish annual statements show a minimum combined income of $70 million but avoid listing the donors. How much is from overseas or from Australian charities that have been ‘invited’ to fund their activities. One charity, the Reichstein Foundation, gave money to create “community” groups in the Tamar Valley to oppose the pulp mill.

You also mention the Triabunna Chip Mill purchased by a tourism investment company created by millionaires Jan Cameron [Kathmandu founder] and Graeme Wood [Wotif founder]. According to the ABC last year Cameron channelled her bank balance towards Animals Australia, the organisation that supplied Four Corners with the footage of the Indonesian abattoirs.

Wood gave $1.6 million to the Greens at last year’s election, to buy TV advertising that resulted in the Greens having one Representative and nine senators holding the balance of power. According to the Greens the first condition to support the Gillard government was for a “price” on Carbon “pollution”.

In State and Federal Parliament in the last weeks the greens raised questions that undermined a rival [industry] bid to buy the chip mill. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/saint-bob-brown-steps-into-spotlight/story-e6frgd0x-1226086702210

In fact the rival bidder told the ABC that “He blames the Greens for his company's failure to secure the deal "You've got the Greens, Milne and Christine in Parliament and Booth all having a go at us".
He also stated that Australia's major banks are not interested in lending to companies working in Tasmania's native forests."A lot of the four major banks are shhh, I better not swear, are very scared of their image, public perception." see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-13/20110713-rival-mill-bid-company-in-shock/2793630

More corporate brand mailing!

Sarnian
Just wondering what has made you so distrustful of government and scientists. You seem to believe that anything from state or federal government is a conspiracy. It would be good to see you take in the articles and just for a second believe there may be at least some element of truth behind mpoynters articles before dismissing them.

Rumpelstiltskin.

I may not be a “rocket scientist” but I think I am endowed with a reasonable IQ. I do not like being taken for a fool by either a Government or an individual.
If you are seriously asking me to take everything that the Tasmanian Government has done in it’s stint in power as above board and not done in some backroom or restaurant” deal, then you are taking me for a fool and I do not appreciate it.
The Original deal for the pulp mill, cooked up by Gay and Lennon at a popular restaurant to the “fast forwarding” of the RPDC process over the same mill, are cases in point.
There have been so many of these that I do not care to list them and anyone who was not living in Lala land would know about them.
I do not know where you get your distrust of “ scientists from”. Have a lot of respect for genuine scientists. I hope you are not including persons who have sold their services to a group, knowing that they are expected to produce results and toe a line that is set by management, regardless of the veracity of those result.
I do not have any respect for politicians except for a very small number who I consider to have integrity.
In the main I think that politicians have only one train of thought, “how can I obtain power and how can I get re-elected, having gained that power”.
This I might add goes for both main parties and now I even add some minor party members
I consider mpoynters articles to be nothing more than propaganda pieces that are of no value whatsoever.

I'm sorry you have become so bitter with the world.

Rumpelstiltskin

I am sorry you are so gullible.

Sarnian
Have you ever considered that someone else's point of view that may be different to yours may have some correct elements to it? Or do you always conclude that if the opinion is different to yours it must be incorrect?

Rumpelstiltskin,

No
and
YES

Sarnian
Now that you have discredited yourself by showing that you are unwilling to listen to other points of view, i will rest my case.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the article.

I have had a few close friends work as fundraisers for the Wilderness Society, and obtain most of their information from the very same source. I believe it is to create a more compelling story entice people on the street sign up for the monthly donations. To my friends credit, when presented with a more complete picture these typically intelligent people seem to absorb the information without prejudice.

However the cause of the green groups is just. Without pressure from these campaigns native forest logging practises would not be changing for the better. Still I thin exaggerating the threats is distasteful, and an even more serious issue is government using obviously biased reports from these ENGOs to guide policy decisions.

Mark:

agree with your sentiments, but not sure they will make much difference. Most Australians that get active on this issue have a fixed opinion based on well meaning but only partially complete experiences and frameworks. The quest for 'light over dark', 'good over evil' etc has been juxtaposed too cleverly by Dark Green activists since the 1970's. Imagery of forests being destroyed and never growing back have been firmly cemented in the Australian psychy through folklore, songs (John Williamson etc), images and cartoons and strategic advertising by vested interest groups.

I believe it is all a cycle and eventually once logging in Australian native forests is completely stopped - and once logging in SE Asian forests is finished through over-exploitation for cheap replacement imports (that groups like Get Up totally ignore) - people will again start realising that forests must be managed for multiple values and that 'locking up' or 'preservation' is a ridiculous and human centric ideal that really has no practical way of being achieved.

The responses to your thread (and previous similar posts) show that Australian 'environmental' groups in the main really are more about politics that science and exploit the basic (and well meaning) motivations of people who have not always had the benefit of seeing the global picture...eg from the perspective of a Dayak indian in Borneo, so called protection of Australian native forests is an absolute disaster.

By the way Rumplestiltskin you should not be so mean to poor Sarnian. You are a very naughty boy and need to be punished.

Naughty Forestry Tasmania. Naughty Gunns. Naughty Mark Poynter. Naughty foresters. All need a good smack over the knuckles and a good hard look at themselves for being such naughty boys.

Maybe all of the above could try holding hands and singing songs for atonement. That seems to be the course of action Greg LeStrange and Kim Booth are taking now. Very good boys those two.

Nervous Nellie
Just wondering what kind of punishment you are thinking of dishing out to me. Maybe you could cut off my supply of paper and timber products from countries with poor forest practices and replace it with Australian products from well managed forests. This would be a win win situation as you would get to punish me, and the Orangutans, the Tapirs, the capybaras and the Lemirs will get to keep their homes.

There is an environmental purposes exemption from the prohibition on secondary party boycotts (eg the campaign against Harvey Norman). However, strictly the the exemption the conduct of such a campaign should be based on facts.

ENGOs are, despite their not for profit status, trading businesses with multi-million dollar turnover. One day the ACCC will wake up to what is going on and it will start pursuing the ENGOs who are engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the campaigns they run. I look forward to seeing some of the possible remedies that may follow - such as a full page 'we were wrong' retractions in national newspapers.

It is about time that ENGOs are exposed to closer scrutiny of the claims they make.