Chain smoker

That is a question you should direct to your forest activist colleagues in Victoria, as it was one of them Ms Geraldine Ryan who admitted on national television its common practice keep road kill animals in a fridge to use latter to “to make it, sort of, real to the public”

Just for your benefit here again is the quotable quote;

GERALDINE RYAN, FORMER VOLUNTEER, ENVIRONMENT VICTORIA: : I remember that was more than once. That he...he used to collect, if a possum was a road kill or an animal was a road kill, would collect them and keep them in the fridge. It was just again...to make it, sort of, real to the public.
SALLY NEIGHBOUR: What, animals out of the forest campaigner's freezer?
GERALDINE RYAN: Yes.

Bas, I don't personally know any forest activists anywhere, and I did read your quote. So they pick up road kill, keep it in a freezer, then take it all out and put it on the road again to show that animals get run over.

The fact that animals get killed on the road is still a fact, whether they're fresh or defrosted.

What's that got to do with Lennon letting Gunns run Tasmania?

Chain Smoker

Can understand why you are so desperate to direct the focus away from the totally underhanded (could say dishonest) tactics of your forest activist mates, their admitted reason for keeping dead road kill animals in fridges was to, when it suited their job destroying anti forestry campaigns to then use these poor dead animals to mislead the public into thinking timber harvesting caused their death.

In a court of law I do believe this is called fabricating evidence.

Going on what Ken Jeffreys said in the opening to this thread its clear that this type of dishonest tactic by forest activists is not new and that’s backed up by a previous post from Rod up the Road where the ABC admitted it was mislead by Doctors for Forests over the origins of news footage supplied to it by this anti forestry activist group.

To me with this on going need by anti forestry activists to mislead the public by fabricating evidence, then perhaps there is no real case against the forest industry, the real aim of these activists is to create fear then cash in on it to maintain a very profitable tax free marketing business based upon this fabricated fear. .

Well done, Ken, for an illuminating article.
During the late 1990s when the RFA debate was taking place around Australia, Dick Smith's name keep on getting mentioned as a person who was funding the forest activists. Rumours only, of course, but many people wanting a bit of honesty in the debate were keen to know who was funding the protesters.
Three years ago, there was another relatively minor forest confrontation over another eucalypt known as tuart, located in an area of state forest between Bunbury and Busselton in the south west of WA, as a result of a mining proposal. This time, I was told unequivocally by a local businessman than one of the forest protesters purchased various items using a cheque with Dick Smith's name on it.
Now, I don't have a problem with Mr Smith or anyone using their democratic right to fund any legal activity or process in our country. But, like Ken, I believe it's outright dishonest when the people providing such support are able to hide their names and affiliations, while the targets of their campaigns are open to almost total scrutiny.
The greatest weakness of our democratic system is that its openness and commitment to public participation and honesty can be so easily manipulated by the media, special interest groups and individuals who can fund campaigns for change without having their motivations understood and challenged.