I am compelled to agree with DavidL, it is time for the resource industries to develop and implement a strategy to rebut the continuous flow of misinformation and emotional tantrums exhibited by the Big Wilderness industry.

They exhibit the very worst of what they accuse other 'Big' corporations of doing.
Perhaps the timber and other extractive/resource industries need to 'muscle up' to this destructive crowd.

Develop a 'counterpoint' to 'getup'. I would certainly be happy to put a few $ to that group.

Typically, the green movement quite mischievously and mendaciously went abroad and virtually blackmailed tiny Tassie's timber customers to place a black ban on tiny Tassie's timber products!?
That is the sole reason why tiny Tassie is no longer making enough money from their timber products, for TFP to stay in the black!?
Not all that long ago the greens governed in their own right; the economic engine house of Europe, Germany.
Their preferred policies all but economically crippled Germany!?
Fortunately, they were thrown out after just a single term; and, before the damage done became terminal?
Unfortunately, nobody in tiny Tassie was sitting up and taking notice, of what could quite easily be their future?
Albeit, tiny Tassie had/has nothing like the capacity, to come back from that sort of economic harm or contraction.
We also see in Europe, the harm that is possible, by myopically focusing on plantation timber production?
This very same monoculture, has destroyed once super large Elm forests, and is now wrecking havoc in English Ash!
That said, the way forward for tiny Tassie now, is in high value high labour density agriculture, and quite massive transition to broadacre irrigation!
Tiny Tassie has very large unused water capacity, well beyond what a healthy environment needs.
However, a stretch of water separates them from their major market, the Mainland!
What is required is a tunnel and rapid rail rushing fresh produce to market, and given time, just this level of commercial activity alone, would repay/recover any and all outlays?
Other than that, we need to rethink/reinvest in a refigerated national shipping line, which logically, needs to be nuclear powered, to remain viable in a future, which includes peak oil!
Rhrosty

Thanks for another insightful article Mark.

I am amazed by the statistics quoted regarding the budgets of the Big Environment groups...

"In 2009, the combined expenditure of Australia’s four largest environmental groups was reportedly $70 million per annum, of which 60 per cent (or $42 million) was used for political lobbying, fundraising, membership drives and office expenses"

Imagine the good that could be done with this money if it were spent on the ground to deliver land management outcomes... instead it goes into hot air (campaigning) & carbon intensive office jobs: And their number one target is free range, organic, carbon positive, 100% natural timber!

We live in strange times.

In his excellent article, Mark Poynter raises a major question:
" What are the consequences of allowing unelected, unaccountable and largely unscientific-illiterates to effectively determine our resource use policies?" His article provides the answers.

Extremist groups such as The Wilderness Society clearly must 'maintain the rage' in order to keep their funds flowing in, even if it means debilitating a local, highly regulated, sustainable industry. Is the TWS aware that a side effect of their actions is increasing deforestation in tropical countries? If they are aware, then they are hypocrites; if they are not aware, then we need to pity their terrible ignorance.

The timber industry and the wider community must work to change the 'environmental protection' exemption in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, that allows the TWS and similar groups to incite boycotts on genuine traders.