Sadly Alzo

You don't know a POP from a VOC!

While the debate rages on, I wanted you guys to know that there are people in far away places who will also be trying to disperse the facts about the situation.

Although it may seem like this is a local or perhaps now a national issue, I would argue that it is in fact an international one.

Aside from all the arguments about the Mill being allegedly the cleanest ever built in the world- where are the trees going to come from to feed its insatiable appetite?
How many wild forests can we actually afford to lose to the paper making industry?
How many animals' habitats do we wish to see destroyed?
Haw many tourists will have to discover that in fact the forests and trees they came to see are under threat of clearf-elling and even worse poison spraying?

Some of the trees which are taken as collateral damage are not successfully grown in plantations- King Billy Pine for example.

In Scotland there are no wild forests left -they were taken hundreds of years ago. You have an incredible natural resource at your doorstep and noone on the island should be allowed to believe that they are expendable.

Rest assured Nat Fae Scotland that your fears are unfounded. If you believe the spin on the forestry debate in Australia without trying to find out for yourself the facts, then your anguish will come to nought.

Just to quote your good self here, Tragedy "And Sir Vivor dear, the main reason both political parties support the pulp mill is that they know the majority of the punters support it as well."
Maybe you should knuckle down on some of the facts yourself. If I remember rightly, in recent petitions sent to the Tasmanian Government, there were approx 21,000 names who signed against the Mill, while just 1,900 were in support. (Forgive a few hundred here or there). I believe this may suggest that quite a few more 'punters' are in fact against the building of the Mill.

And just so I don't waste more energy in worrying unneccessarily, perhaps you could enlighten me as to how Gunns propose to feed the voracious Mill if it is not through clearfelling old-growth forest? Tasmania already has an alarmingly high rate of old growth forest clearfelling.

To quote the Infrastructure and Resource Information Service (IRIS):
http://www.iris.tas.gov.au/resource_industry/forestry/supply/processing

"In 2002-2003, Tasmanian woodchip exports exceeded 5.1 million tons.
Australian deciduous woodchip exports to Japan in 2002 totalled 7.7 million tons, so exports of hardwood chips from Tasmania accounted for no less than two-thirds of the total for all of Australia.

Tasmania is also an important source of wood- chips for Japan. Currently, most natural wood- chips used for Japanese paper production come from Australia, with Tasmania’s native forests supplying the bulk of woodchips for Japanese paper. In 2003, Tasmanian woodchips from Gunns accounted for approximately 20 per- cent of Japan’s imports of deciduous wood- chips, which serve as the main raw material for fresh pulp production. "

.....Therefore, the majority of natural woodchip imports to Japan are supporting the destruction of high conservation value forests in Tasmania by Gunns Limited. "

This is exactly what I am talking about Nat Fae Scotalnd - you make the assumption that sourcing wood from native forests equals old growth and that the old growth is disappearing. Its all about perceptions and perceptions and individual biases dominate the emotional arguments about forestry in Tasmania. Debating with someone who lacks knowledge of how our ecological systems works is like trying to argue that my God exists over your God - a pointless exercise.

As far as the most support for forestry. You missed my point. My argument is the election told us the story. The biggest issue in Tassie at the last federal election was Howaard's forest policy Vs Latham's. Howard won 2 seats from Latham in Tassie at that election with an overall swing against Latham in all 5 seats. Polls mean nothing. Any fool can run a poll and any fool can construct questions to get the responses to those questions which favour the result they want. The only poll which is relevant is the voting patterns at an election. For every report or poll the greens produce, the forest industry produces their own in their favour - polls and biased reports are a mugs game and only the most ignorant punters take notice of them. Surely you are not one of those Nat Fae Scotland?

Nat fae Scotland

if you want to know more there is a whole heap of web sites like Forestry Tasmania or Gunns Limited that can tell you about wood supply and management.

for a quick over view of the forest debate in Tasmania and a bucket more links why not read last year's article on the Tasmanian forest debate at
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4258