To "nickos"
I'm not sure where you get the Institute of Public Affairs from - the Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance is a conglomerate of 25 community groups (including four municipilities)that does not include the IPA.

It is I think unprecendented in the history of these land management disputes for a conglomerate of community groups to come up with a 150 page alternative plan outside the formal public submission process. That it was put together in a few months mostly by voluntary effort is a great credit. Comparing it with the VEAC process which involved 10 - 12 full time staff and several $million over more than three years is pretty non-sensical.

I would agree that the ABC Stateline program was not unbalanced in terms of time for particular spokespersons, but as I said in the article, its deception was in its omission of key information not to mention the VNPA spokesman being allowed to call the timber spokesperson deceptive - I wonder how he knew to say that in support of the reporter's view?

As for the DSE figures showing the need to reduce the timber harvest by 30%, why then is VEAC advocating an 80% reduction to the harvest? If you have indeed read the RRGEA Plan, as you claim, you will realise that VEAC's use of those figures is quite shaky - particularly the fact that they declined to take account of the improved growth and productivity of the forest resulting from the better water management they are striving for.

I am bemused why you and so many 'greens'focus on logging when it only occurs within a 15 - 20% portion of the public lands investigated by VEAC - but I guess that has been an enduring weakness of Australian environmental activism - a blinkered failure to see the wood for the trees (pardon the pun).

"I'm not sure where you get the Institute of Public Affairs from" Says Mark.

Well, for the uninitiated, which apparently includes Mark, The IPA set up the greenwash group, Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), whose last 2 conferences have been sponsored by logging and agri-chemical interests. The AEF is behind the Rivers And Red Gum Environmental Alliance, with their Executive director Max Rheese, who is also the head of the AEF. Jennifer Marohassey,who is involved closely in IPA launched the Red Gum Alliance 'Alternative plan' a few weeks ago. For all the dirt , go to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rivers_and_Red_Gum_Environment_Alliance

Which parts of this aren't you sure about Mark?

Nickos

You are only further confirming what my article was largely about - that the media focus on self-interest (which is usually at the behest of activist groups) overshadows proper public debate about the issues including the social, economic and environmental implications of proposed environmental policy changes such as in the case of Victoria's river red gum forests. I presume this occurs because environmental groups are largely bereft of scientific knowledge and so concentrate on emotional messages and diverting attention.

Reiterating what I said in my early post, the IPA is not a member of the Rivers & Red Gum Alliance. The Australian Environment Foundation is a member of the Alliance as you have pointed out.

Interestingly, your 'dirt' about the AEF on the SourceWatch website, is largely information that is freely available on the AEF website in the interests of transparency. Also, the AEF provided SourceWatch organiser Bob Burton, free and unfettered access to their first conference and he also used this to create the Source Watch entry you have linked to.

I am not a member of the AEF, but have attended their 2 conferences and am supportive of their stance on forestry matters which is my area of expertise. The AEF was formed at a 2004 forum at Ballarat hosted by the IPA and a number of other groups concerned by the increasing tendency for government environmental policy to be determined on emotion and populism, at the expense of evidence-based considerations. You refer to this as 'greenwash' because it questions the key plank of environmental activism which is simply based on idealism (ie. lets 'save' the forests) free from any understanding about the real state of the forests or how they are currently managed.

The AEF operates independently of the IPA - that is, its gets no funding or logistic support. Of course, there will be links between these groups through members who support both, but is this any different to say the Victorian National Parks Association and the Australian Conservation Foundation, or the Wildereness Society? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Mark re. your earlier comment about it being nonsensical to compare your report to the VEAC one. I agree too. So why are you comparing them. The VEAC report was an extensive piece of work conducted over many years with many views sought and included in the process.

How many non-RRGEA/AEF people did you talk to in the preparation of yours?

The beauty of the VEAC process is its independency. Whilst this may not deliver an outcome preferred by forestry advocates such as your self, it does cut through the spin and deliver independent recommendations. That a particularly industry perspective has not been promoted by an independent report actually highlights its independent nature. This should be seen as a good thing.

I really can't understand you advocacy for logging a river and its wetlands that are in crisis.

Nickos

Comparing the VEAC and RRGEA plans - agree that the processes can't be compared - one had access to plentiful money and resources while the other was done on a shoestring budget - but the recommendations are certainly there to be compared.

VEAC sought many views - can't disagree, but their are questions about the veracity of obtaining views from distant places where people were asked to put a price on improving conservation without being told the full story about the current management of the forest. I think 42% of these had never been to the forests. On the other hand, you would find many locals who believe their views have been virtually ignored.

VEAC independent? - yes, in an arms-length sense, but the justifications used for some recommendations certainly suggest the building of a case to support a preferred outcome. A great example, is comparison of the hypothetical value of 'willingness-to-pay-for-conservation' against the actual value of existing industries. Unsurprisingly, this devalues the worth of those industries even though there are no actual payments made for conservation.

Advocacy of logging a stressed environment? - you know as well as I do that most of the forests will never be logged under the current mix of public land tenures (without the VEAC recommendations). Also, it is a lack of water, not logging that is the cause of the stress. Parts of these forests have been selectively harvested and regenerated for 150 years, logging is hardly the bogey, you paint it to be. Forests are dynamic entities that are always declining and renewing (not static, fragile museum exhibits), thinning them is actually helping to alleviate their current stress.