Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[Nuts]

Oh, look who it is! A southern covern attack from the lower flanks??
A discussion with obstinate chosen sides becomes a debate. If some of you guys would just stop trying to second guess members here (who you hardly know other than by sound bites) then we might actually have more discussion- less heated 'debate'

[ILUVSWTAS]

I'd love to respond to that in kind Nuts, but you seem to be able to reflect the type of person you are so well I dont need bother.

[stepbystep]

If some of you guys would just stop trying to second guess members here (who you hardly know other than by sound bites) then we might actually have more discussion- less heated 'debate'

That's exactly what you've done nuts! You don't know me and have made your judgement. Pot. Kettle. Black.
You chose to quote a remark on page 1 of a long thread. A provocation I believe?

People are allowed whatever view they like on any issue, as am I.

Glad you like my pictures, I have lots of them

[Nuts]

You could be right, I don't see my effort as a personal attack sbs. I was taking issue with some of the language and attitude, observations not judgement. If you don't have more to contribute then why not just accept so and get something from other points of view. An image isn't a point of view, it's just an image

I do see this as a personal attack:

I'd love to respond to that in kind Nuts, but you seem to be able to reflect the type of person you are so well I dont need bother.

But, really, don't hold back on my account ILUVetc. You never appear to bother saying much at all (observation) so this should be interesting. What kind of person am I?

[Nuts]

Here's one of mine from last week:

Outrageous!?

[doogs]

Outrageous!?

Wowsers you've got a real talent for photography there Nuts

Currently it seems the best way for people to “give a toss” is to put monetary value on everything. It’s not optimal but people seem to listen when money is involved.

A very good point. One which I tried to make earlier in the thread, my comment was less clearly stated though and was chopped down (so to speak). People need to be taught the value of our forests and the ecosystem services which they provide.

[stepbystep]

I'm not actually a pessimist, hopeful in fact and I mix with people that give me inspiration and hope. This is worth a listen.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... th/5303742

[Nuts]

Outrageous!?

Wowsers you've got a real talent for photography there Nuts

Thanks doogs. I planned even better ones but was worried the guy with the baseball bat might make assumptions.

[maddog]

So OJ really was innocent. It's so nice to know that.

'Lack of evidence' is not the same as 'incorrect". The Forest Industry in Victoria often go out of their way to ensure there is no evidence.

G'day NNW,

OJ was acquitted (by a jury), in a criminal trial where the prosecution were required to prove guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'. OJ was subsequently successfully sued in a civil action, where the evidentiary burden is lower ('the balance of probabilities'). In regards to the case of interest here, the bar is set lower still. All MyEnvironment had to establish to proceed with their case via the 'precautionary principle' was:

(i) a threat of serious or irreversible damage, and

(ii) scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage.

MyEnvironment could not demonstrate there was any threat of serious or irreversible damage to the possum. As their case stumbled at such a low hurdle, we may safely conclude it was frivolous. After all, the money could have been spent on nesting boxes.

Cheers.

Suggested readings:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/ ... 6/285.html

http://www.edovic.org.au/downloads/file ... e_bell.pdf

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR04038.htm

Last edited by maddog on Thu 20 Mar, 2014 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Clusterpod]

An image isn't a point of view, it's just an image

I strongly disagree.

[Nuts]

Would you settle for 'an image shouldn't be a point of view, after-all it's just an image' ?

I didn't catch this either but the reality maybe of interest (or concern to some):
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 967500.htm

[Clusterpod]

Would you settle for 'an image shouldn't be a point of view, after-all it's just an image' ?

No, I wouldn't.

It attempts to negate such minor aspects of human existence as "art" and "communication".

[Clusterpod]

I didn't catch this either but the reality maybe of interest (or concern to some):
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 967500.htm

Yes. Hideous.

We've had decades to develop policy and procedures to deal with increasing numbers of threatened species.

Successive governments have done little or nothing.

What little has been done is now being destroyed in broad pen-strokes, celebrated as removing "green tape".

Triage unique species for financial efficiency, when we have less than 25% of Australian fungi species even catalogued. So we are deciding which ones we can keep based on financial considerations, while species we don't even know exist yet will quietly pass due to political negligence.

[Pteropus]

Would you settle for 'an image shouldn't be a point of view, after-all it's just an image' ?

I didn't catch this either but the reality maybe of interest (or concern to some):
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 967500.htm

Nothing says "point of view" more than a photograph, especially if that photo was used to strengthen a particular point of view...after all, a picture says a thousand words...right?
The idea of conservation triage is not new, and its principles are based on putting a monetary value on things, as mentioned earlier, and deciding where money is best spent. This is what people tend to understand. It's not perfect, it's definitely controversial, and since we are not dealing with the cause of species declines (e.g., landscape change, introduced species etc) it's probably necessary. Once again it comes down to values and where we (or the government) are willing to spend money. If the pool of money is limited, put it where you get the best bang for buck rather than spreading the resources thinly and on lost causes. But of course for some species, declines could be avoided simply if we modified some of our own activities...which in some cases may be logging...

[Nuts]

No doubt. And no issue that change is needed. Less convinced with the object of blame. Don't agree that negative campaigning can drive conservation much further. It doesn't even appear to have any useful purpose other than somehow to a small number that get to pat each other on the head.. obviously doesn't win votes... Personally, by comparison, I find loggers at least easier to understand.

[north-north-west]

1962844_10152331654379602_577483200_n.jpg

I want a T shirt that says that. Thank you.

edit: Well, one that says what the was in the original image but, as it didn't reproduce here, that needs clarification.

[Nuts]

Mother Superior? Some of you peakbaggers crack me up.

[maddog]

Yes. Hideous.

We've had decades to develop policy and procedures to deal with increasing numbers of threatened species.

Successive governments have done little or nothing.

What little has been done is now being destroyed in broad pen-strokes, celebrated as removing "green tape".

Triage unique species for financial efficiency, when we have less than 25% of Australian fungi species even catalogued. So we are deciding which ones we can keep based on financial considerations, while species we don't even know exist yet will quietly pass due to political negligence.

Actually successive governments have done quite a lot over the last 40 or so years. Greatly expand the National Parks estate, the introduction of environmental protection legislation and regulation, Land and Environment Courts, etc, etc. Even Prime Minister Howard got into the act when he introduced the EPBC Act.

Apparently it hasn't worked. We've got a budget emergency, climate catastrophe and a extinction crisis. All at the same time. And we still believe in the boogie man. Bad news is good news when you're shaking the money tree.

Cheers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/a ... ge/5331908

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0718-hanc ... mmals.html

[photohiker]

Apparently it hasn't worked. We've got a budget emergency, climate catastrophe and a extinction crisis. All at the same time. And we still believe in the boogie man.

So 40 years ago, someone said if we do these things in Australia, our budget will be safe, we will single handedly reverse the looming challenges in the global climate and stop species extinctions?

I think you should put all that straw back in the hayshed.

[Pteropus]

In other news, today is the UN's International Day of Forests -> http://www.un.org/en/events/forestsday/

[stepbystep]

In other news, today is the UN's International Day of Forests -> http://www.un.org/en/events/forestsday/

Interestingly. Ominously for the likes of me, FIAT have shifted their language paving the way for the TFA to be ripped up. Not a happy day for 74,000Ha of Tasmanian forest.

The first shot of the latest battle in the forest wars has been fired, all hell will break loose soon. Poor Tassie.

[Pteropus]

Poor Tassie.

Poor Tassie indeed. Do you know what happens if UNESCO rejects the bid by the federal gov to delist the WHA? I imagine the government could potentially ignore the listing but they must have some legal obligations. Not that legal obligations have stopped them in other matters.

[north-north-west]

Interestingly. Ominously for the likes of me, FIAT have shifted their language paving the way for the TFA to be ripped up. Not a happy day for 74,000Ha of Tasmanian forest.

And Hodgman has apparently guaranteed Ta Ann that their contracts will be filled purely with plantation logs, so their environmentally-conscious markets are safe and they'll probably renege on their promise to pack up and leave if the TFA is reversed. Never mind that the rest of our forests will continue to be destroyed at cost to the taxpayer for the private profit of a few people.

[stepbystep]

Poor Tassie.

Poor Tassie indeed. Do you know what happens if UNESCO rejects the bid by the federal gov to delist the WHA? I imagine the government could potentially ignore the listing but they must have some legal obligations. Not that legal obligations have stopped them in other matters.

I imagine all effort will be put into influencing UNESCO to do just that. The first major action will occur on April 27, for those interested and available come on down. Camp Flozza, Gordon River Road.

Attachments

[maddog]

Poor Tassie.

Poor Tassie indeed. Do you know what happens if UNESCO rejects the bid by the federal gov to delist the WHA? I imagine the government could potentially ignore the listing but they must have some legal obligations. Not that legal obligations have stopped them in other matters.

G'day Pteropus,

Good question. I would think there would be no remedy if both levels of government (Commonweath and State) agreed with the decision. There does not appear to be a great deal of precedent for this kind of thing, but there are two cases where UNESCO sites have been de-listed. Both were at the request of sovereign governments (Germany and Oman). In Germany they built a four lane bridge through the heart of a cultural landscape. In Oman they discovered oil in their Oryx Sanctuary, so reduced its size by 90%. Presumably Greg Hunt has consulted Wikipedia before they hatched their plan. It will be interesting to see how UNESCO responds.

Cheers.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1105/URL= ... e13-en.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/document/124967

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/362/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522/

[Nuts]

You can also make a direct submission (in the conventional way) to UNESCO. They meet in mid June.
Iv'e seen mention of wider implications for WHA. Without precedent for reverting an annexed addition, without a significant change in the original WHA attributes I'm trying to understand the basis for concern of a more wide-spread effect? Lets hope not if it comes to that. I doubt this will be allowed to happen, can't see the economic loss (given WHA underpinnings for tourism) being palatable to even the meanest of governments.

[Pteropus]

If UNESCO upholds the current listing, perhaps nothing will be done? Such a decision could be somewhat of a get-out-of-gaol-free-card for both federal and Tas state government, where they could say they tried their best but were hindered by the UN. It could potentially save them spending more money, something they both want, and they can appeal to their voters by continuing to place blame on the previous governments for getting the forest listed in the first place. However, the government might instead want to appear strong on the issue since it seems Abbott doesn’t want to be seen to be breaking any election promises at any cost. The UN can sometime be treated like a toothless tiger and might not be able to do more than put pressure on a government that violates their decision. This is how violations of similar treaties such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is supposed to work, where international pressure can be applied if there is enough interested parties with the will to act. But I don't hear too much international rumbling about what is happening on the Great Barrier Reef, so what ever happens in Tasmania's forests could be less than a side-show in the scheme of things...

[north-north-west]

The first major action will occur on April 27, for those interested and available come on down. Camp Flozza, Gordon River Road.

Has the Camp been rebuilt already, or will they wait until the Govt's actually pushed the legislation through?

[stepbystep]

The first major action will occur on April 27, for those interested and available come on down. Camp Flozza, Gordon River Road.

Has the Camp been rebuilt already, or will they wait until the Govt's actually pushed the legislation through?

Not yet. Pretty sure there's a bit of planning going on!

[maddog]

If UNESCO upholds the current listing, perhaps nothing will be done? Such a decision could be somewhat of a get-out-of-gaol-free-card for both federal and Tas state government, where they could say they tried their best but were hindered by the UN. It could potentially save them spending more money, something they both want, and they can appeal to their voters by continuing to place blame on the previous governments for getting the forest listed in the first place.

G'day Pteropus,

I think that is quite possible. Another fascinating possibility would be if the CFMEU were to announce an intent to enforce 'green bans' (along the lines of those of Jack Mundey's BLF) on the areas of forest the government is seeking to delist. This could be justified on the grounds of protecting the integrity of the UNESCO system. Such a move may be of greater benefit to foresters than reopening a relatively small patch of forest to logging. It would also have the benefit of damaging a Prime Minister who is quickly loosing friends.

Cheers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ban

Last edited by maddog on Fri 21 Mar, 2014 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.