One side is trying to save the old growth forests, trying to save native animals and birds - see what is happening to the Tasmanian Devil for one. One side is trying to act responsibly and save the little we have left for our descendants - our children.
The other side is in it JUST FOR THE MONEY! for filthy lucre. It seems that they do not give a stuff for the Tasmanian enviroment.
Surprise, surprise both state and federal goverments are, or appear to be on the side of Gunns.Remind me please - where do political parties get their funds? Oh! from big business - INTERESTING!!
Regards, numbat

I think that the "Gunns 20" legal action is an example of corporate bullying at its worst. The sheer obscenity of logging Tasmania's old growth forests to produce office paper and packaging is what has inspired opposition by those of us who care more about our children's futures than the short term profits of Gunns' shareholders. While I'm sympathetic to the position of Gunns employees, there is no excuse for decimating remnant pristine environments for the sake of unsustainable jobs.

The political opportunism displayed by both the Libs and the ALP on this issue demonstrates clearly why it is that we need the Greens to provide some balance to the neo-conservative adventurism that now characterises the major parties. Hopefully, this tawdry exercise by Gunns will attract considerable media attention, and hence the widespread condemnation that such corporate thuggery deserves.

The fundamentalist conservationist groups seem to think that the right to "save the environment" overrides all other rights. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but that right carries with it certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities I believe, is not to interfere with another's right to operate a legitimate business. I applaud Gunns for taking them on. They are holding society to ransom in a similar way to the Unions in the 1970's/80's. The Unions had their powers curbed - the same should happen to the conservationists!

Charlie, you don't have a problem with clear felling our remaining old growth forests? Or you're not worried about pollution of our waterways? How about mass extinction of our native flora and fauna?

As a landscape architect I consult with a variety of professionals from engineers to environmentalists. I have had some very heated exchanges with developers and have refused work with those who would impose inappropriate development on sites.

I know about Gunns. They can be very belligerent.

Ringtail, I was trying to highlight the intrusive MO of environmental activists. The Vegetaion Management Act in Queensland is a classic example. They deliberately set out to create a state of fear among urban voters of SE Qld in their attempt to have them re-elect the Beattie government who they knew would implement their ideologies lock, stock and barrel - Threats of polluting our waterways, the extinction of native flora and fauna eg little of which is supported by science or fact. They villified rural Queenslanders as "environmental vandals" and the legislation which they influenced has now interfered with our right to run a legitimate business. Our production will have to be reduced to meet the VMA codes (restricted development of areas of remnant vegetation) and our property values have plummeted - no one wants to buy land with remnant vegetation - an arbitary classification - all I might add without any financial compensation. And I am talking about Freehold land. The activists see their right to "save the environment" as subsuming the civil rights and liberties of rural Queenslanders. The provisions of the Act are horrendous.
The Gunn action will be keenly watch by rural Queenslanders.

Charlie, I understand your concern. Problem is there is not enough science in the environmental movement, it is overly passionate and often ill informed. However action by Gunns isn't helping either.

We need more balanced scientific involvement by the scientific community. To facilitate this our fed government really should providing the impetous via funding - at the present time they are taking a very narrow view.

We need courage if we are to live within our environment at a sustainable level. The irony is that there is potential for money and jobs in the long term. However, right wing politics has always been about maintaining the status quo.