Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[ILUVSWTAS]

The recently added areas they have added to the WHA are area's that have in the past been logged quite heavily. Hodgeman said he cant see the benefits in having WHA status to an area that's been logged in the past. Thing is, these are areas that DESERVE WHA status and should never have been logged in the first place. Hence the protests. Peaceful or otherwise.......

[stepbystep]

The recently added areas they have added to the WHA are area's that have in the past been logged quite heavily. Hodgeman said he cant see the benefits in having WHA status to an area that's been logged in the past. Thing is, these are areas that DESERVE WHA status and should never have been logged in the first place. Hence the protests. Peaceful or otherwise.......

Yep, it's something like a massive 4% previously logged and what FT would cunningly do is push through a single coupe as far up the Weld or Picton just so they could make this claim, all the while there being vast tracts of unlogged forest lower in the valleys. Ultimate conservationists!

[north-north-west]

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.

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.

I can't see it happening, but it would be wonderful.
Fact is, the pollies will be looking for a way to win on both counts - de-list & thus open up the forests, and delegitimise the protests.

[north-north-west]

The recently added areas they have added to the WHA are area's that have in the past been logged quite heavily. Hodgeman said he cant see the benefits in having WHA status to an area that's been logged in the past. Thing is, these are areas that DESERVE WHA status and should never have been logged in the first place. Hence the protests. Peaceful or otherwise.......

Someone needs to explain to the politicians the concept of contiguity of habitat.

[ILUVSWTAS]

The recently added areas they have added to the WHA are area's that have in the past been logged quite heavily. Hodgeman said he cant see the benefits in having WHA status to an area that's been logged in the past. Thing is, these are areas that DESERVE WHA status and should never have been logged in the first place. Hence the protests. Peaceful or otherwise.......

Yep, it's something like a massive 4% previously logged and what FT would cunningly do is push through a single coupe as far up the Weld or Picton just so they could make this claim, all the while there being vast tracts of unlogged forest lower in the valleys. Ultimate conservationists!

That's right. Politics at it's best! Such waste of obviously smart brains.

[Nuts]

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.

You'd make a good political strategist (imo), I can think of a few parties in need. Anyhow, indeed, this would seem a best case scenario- just back down.

I'd doubt this would be dramatically unpopular with liberal voters. I feel it's the loss of industry as much as the promise of jobs driving liberal voters- all those swingers... ie 'just the feeling'.

That and the smouldering clash of attitudes. It would seem sensible to avoid a further clash of attitudes in the short term.

[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.

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.

I can't see it happening, but it would be wonderful.
Fact is, the pollies will be looking for a way to win on both counts - de-list & thus open up the forests, and delegitimise the protests.

NNW,

I think you will find you may have a little more in common with the original conservationists than you realise. Right now both the unions and the environmental groups have been locked out of the talks, I suspect they are talking to each other. Taking the high moral ground would be of some political benefit at a time they are under attack from the current government. Take note of the current view of the CFMEU:

http://www.cfmeu.net.au/news/cfmeu-fore ... orest-plan

And a little more on 'green bans'

https://newmatilda.com/2011/07/19/green ... ved-sydney

http://www.grlc.vic.gov.au/sites/defaul ... omason.mp3

Have a good night

[Pteropus]

You'd make a good political strategist (imo), I can think of a few parties in need.

Yeah I've watched The Hollowmen, that would give me enough insight right? lol

[stepbystep]

I don't think Pteropus is far off the mark. face saving is even more important to the average politician than ideology. A best case scenario. However with the 'perfect storm' of Abbott/Hodgman I discount nothing.

[Nuts]

Of course hollow- "stop worrying about tomorrow's headlines, and focus on next week's" Either way I think I prefer your scenario pteropus, demise by short term fiscal reality. Unionists and greens need lovin' too!!

[maddog]

[Nuts]

Is there no more prominent place in history for moocher and his mates? Will stubbies be popular again? Will all conservationists ultimately be hard to tell apart? or.. will we all be extinct? Zombied?

I'm abt 20mins in 'mdog, fair suck of the sav! Bombarded by interesting and not so interesting links*- from everywhere- and so much else to do!

(*so.. considering old trees and the issue at hand, here's one back at ya- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-21/n ... ection=tas spoiling for a green ban?)

[Ent]

Of course he will. People are unbelievably stupid.

Nothing like not accepting the umpires decision! As Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government" and it appears that you agree. For me the full quote is my position ", except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

One rather fire and brimstone preacher once said, that issues are like a pendulum, with force of will by a few they can be pushed one way, or the other, but ultimately they will always try to come back to their natural position. Might be this is forestry's natural position within the state?

Forestry in this state at the moment is very much like the Apple industry was in the fifties/sixties. At the time it was decided that the best thing to do was destroy it, and then rebuild it. Forestry now needs to be rebuilt. On what model? Me thinks economics will decide that. We have huge areas of "tax effective" plantation heading to harvesting and no down stream processing facilities. At the moment the huge Russian and Asian forests along with South America are been plundered so prices for wood is artificially low. Until, this stops then Tassie Forestry can not compete on price.

As for what is the future? Well without planning and willingness to make it happen then the limbo will continue. While I have my doubts what is possible I am prepared to grant the slack for a plan to evolve as the past has not been good.

Strangely, many parks came about from hunters, but you would think it was due to people chaining themselves to tigers and bears. Much the same with reserves coming from the people that work in the bush. But it appears that one side is never prepared to give credit to them.

[MrWalker]

I've walked across Tasmania from north to south and been through a lot of forests on the way and I believe that one of the worst thing the Green groups have done is to push forestry into excessive use of plantations.

Native forest regrowth is far better than monoculture plantations. We should be encouraging forestry in Tasmania to use native forests with regrowth cycles of 50 years or more. Instead they have been forced into replacing native forests with plantations in case someone classifies the regrowth as old growth and they can never go back there.

[Pteropus]

...they have been forced into replacing native forests with plantations in case someone classifies the regrowth as old growth...

Were forestry forced or was that part of their business model? Just curious.

[photohiker]

...they have been forced into replacing native forests with plantations in case someone classifies the regrowth as old growth...

Were forestry forced or was that part of their business model? Just curious.

Exactly. They were not forced to bare-earth the native forest, and they were not forced to replant a monoculture plantation as a replacement.

Blaming the people who did not make those choices doesn't stand up IMHO.

[north-north-west]

Of course he will. People are unbelievably stupid.

Nothing like not accepting the umpires decision!

Because, of course, absolutely everyone who voted Liberal did so over the Tasmanian Forestry/WHA issue - or at least agrees 100% with their stance on it. Of course.

[Nuts]

I have a bit of faith in plantation but as it occurs it does encroach onto otherwise useful land and in monoculture obviously doesn't function in a native state with all levels of habitat. The more it can be made to look and function as a native forest I'd imagine the less return for land which as other economic value.

There very much is a place for green groups. It's not really them to 'blame' for added pressure on natural areas and good on people being vigilant and speaking out for whatever they (personally) see as 'unjust'. At the same time the pervasive attitude (between people going about everyday work-lifes and seemingly unsatisfiable greenies) doesn't lend itself to a considered balance of resource use. Iv'e seen similar trying to implement conservation fencing and replanting on private land. The biggest hurdle isn't convincing farmers of practical benefits, it's not the funding (the money was there), it's not the time and effort (we were offering that). It wasn't even for the intrinsic value, some of them do just like old trees and wildlife.. The biggest hurdle was simply the 'attitude', however clumsy, that they should do something 'green'. Even for the kids involved in these token projects, almost all of them had some aspect of the bush they cared for, would make their day purposeful, so long as nobody accused them of being 'green'.

Keeping check of the extremists (on both sides) i'm sure a lot more would be possible. Better results could come about a lot quicker.

It starts by giving appropriate respectful credit, not dissing the majority as 'stupid' because the outcomes from a small portion of their vote is distasteful. I stumbled across this in checking the facts of yet another f'book 'attack of the day'..
(no, i'm not subscribed ): http://www.philosophersmail.com/120314- ... abbott.php

[Clusterpod]

My objection to the blame game going on in regards to environment groups and The Greens, is that far, far too much power is being attributed to them. Some organisations and a few seats in a minority government have somehow managed to overturn the perceived will of the people and the best interests of the social and economic standards of the island, indicating a somewhat vast conspiracy of backroom deals and payments which, frankly, neither the environment movement or The Greens party could afford.

The idea that either could somehow force these situations upon Tasmania is pretty ludicrous, given the way legislation works, and the role a minor party played in the politics of the minority government.

It does, however, illustrate the effectiveness of money spent in political marketing outside of straight election campaigns.

Someone from up north was telling me the other day that its now more socially acceptable to be gay than it is to be a "greenie". Pretty hilarious state of affairs, and one born from campaigns based on divisiveness and hate.

Not truth.

[maddog]

I've walked across Tasmania from north to south and been through a lot of forests on the way and I believe that one of the worst thing the Green groups have done is to push forestry into excessive use of plantations.

Native forest regrowth is far better than monoculture plantations. We should be encouraging forestry in Tasmania to use native forests with regrowth cycles of 50 years or more. Instead they have been forced into replacing native forests with plantations in case someone classifies the regrowth as old growth and they can never go back there.

I fully agree. Another unintended consequence can be found with rainforest. It has at times been alleged that foresters plant eucalypt (e.g. flooded gum) after logging rainforest communities. While the rainforest understory comes back, the community is defined by it's canopy which is dominated by Eucalypt. The correct classification becomes wet sclerophyll, which is a less controversial to log in the future than rainforest. The belligerence of environmental activists make such 'business plans' attractive.

Because, of course, absolutely everyone who voted Liberal did so over the Tasmanian Forestry/WHA issue - or at least agrees 100% with their stance on it. Of course.

It could be argued that citizens voted out a government that had been in too long. However they did so with full knowledge of what the Liberal's planned to do (at least with respect to forestry). People either voted them in supporting this policy or they were not too concerned about it. Either way, the government can claim a democratic mandate.

Cheers.

[Nuts]

Someone from up north was telling me the other day that its now more socially acceptable to be gay than it is to be a "greenie". Pretty hilarious state of affairs, and one born from campaigns based on divisiveness and hate.

Not truth.

He could be right, i'm no pollster! and most people I know are probably green..

.but I get the feeling, generally, that the latest election result (at least) was less about campaigns or apathy and more about history than some voters would care to admit. Once again it seems, the election itself was lost more than 'won'... it seems.. to me here in the north.

[Clusterpod]

It could be argued that citizens voted out a government that had been in too long. However they did so with full knowledge of what the Liberal's planned to do (at least with respect to forestry). People either voted them in supporting this policy or they were not too concerned about it. Either way, the government can claim a democratic mandate.

Cheers.

Well, sure, if "full knowledge" means knowing that they intended to "tear up" the TFA and "unlock" the WHA.

There was actually little to no policy development or discussion on the first, and the last came way, way to close to election day for there to be any policy development or discussion.

At least as far as was released, launched or declared.

So, I would argue that they did so with next to no knowledge of what the Liberal party planned to do, how they intend to do it, nor indeed what they hope to gain by it.

Granted, the Liberal party can now form government with around 52% of the state's vote.

This does not, by any means, give them any kind of mandate beyond being responsible to the electorate, and accountable to the electorate.

Rules of parliament must still be followed. Bills must still be passed, legislation must be enacted on.

52% (ish) of the vote got them the seats they need, but it sure leaves an awfully large proportion of people that didn't vote for them that still need to be accountable to, that are still to be governed in a responsible way.

The premier and his Government would do well to remember that when they start bandying the word "mandate" around, because the real mandate is to the people.

All of the people.

They've had sixteen years. I expect they are extremely well prepared and it hasn't all just been sloganeering.

Last edited by Clusterpod on Tue 25 Mar, 2014 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Clusterpod]

Someone from up north was telling me the other day that its now more socially acceptable to be gay than it is to be a "greenie". Pretty hilarious state of affairs, and one born from campaigns based on divisiveness and hate.

Not truth.

He could be right, i'm no pollster! and most people I know are probably green..

.but I get the feeling, generally, that the latest election result (at least) was less about campaigns or apathy and more about history than some voters would care to admit. Once again it seems, the election itself was lost more than 'won'... it seems.. to me here in the north.

I'm a new-comer, and playing catch-up for many things especially region-specific issues.

But I wouldn't argue that historical division and wanting change were major factors in the election results.

[maddog]

It could be argued that citizens voted out a government that had been in too long. However they did so with full knowledge of what the Liberal's planned to do (at least with respect to forestry). People either voted them in supporting this policy or they were not too concerned about it. Either way, the government can claim a democratic mandate.

Cheers.

Well, sure, if "full knowledge" means knowing that they intended to "tear up" the TFA and "unlock" the WHA.

There was actually little to no policy development or discussion on the first, and the last came way, way to close to election day for there to be any policy development or discussion.

At least as far as was released, launched or declared.

So, I would argue that they did so with next to no knowledge of what the Liberal party planned to do, how they intend to do it, nor indeed what they hope to gain by it...

I am afraid this is just not the case Clusterpod

Abbott to chop forest deal (The Examiner 22/12/13)

CONFIRMATION the historic forest peace deal is in the process of being unwound has been revealed in a letter from Prime Minister Tony Abbott and obtained by The Examiner.

Mr Abbott wrote to state Opposition Leader Will Hodgman on Thursday confirming the federal government's intention to tear up the deal.

Mr Abbott revealed that Environment Minister Greg Hunt will write to the World Heritage Committee as soon as January to try and de-list 170,000 hectares added to the Tasmanian World Heritage Area.
…
State opposition forestry spokesman Peter Gutwein said the Liberals would be seeking a mandate from the Tasmanian people at the election.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/198886 ... rest-deal/

Cheers.

[Clusterpod]

It could be argued that citizens voted out a government that had been in too long. However they did so with full knowledge of what the Liberal's planned to do (at least with respect to forestry). People either voted them in supporting this policy or they were not too concerned about it. Either way, the government can claim a democratic mandate.

Cheers.

Well, sure, if "full knowledge" means knowing that they intended to "tear up" the TFA and "unlock" the WHA.

There was actually little to no policy development or discussion on the first, and the last came way, way to close to election day for there to be any policy development or discussion.

At least as far as was released, launched or declared.

So, I would argue that they did so with next to no knowledge of what the Liberal party planned to do, how they intend to do it, nor indeed what they hope to gain by it...

I am afraid this is just not the case Clusterpod

Abbott to chop forest deal (The Examiner 22/12/13)

CONFIRMATION the historic forest peace deal is in the process of being unwound has been revealed in a letter from Prime Minister Tony Abbott and obtained by The Examiner.

Mr Abbott wrote to state Opposition Leader Will Hodgman on Thursday confirming the federal government's intention to tear up the deal.

Mr Abbott revealed that Environment Minister Greg Hunt will write to the World Heritage Committee as soon as January to try and de-list 170,000 hectares added to the Tasmanian World Heritage Area.
…
State opposition forestry spokesman Peter Gutwein said the Liberals would be seeking a mandate from the Tasmanian people at the election.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/198886 ... rest-deal/

Cheers.

Yes. They told us what, but not how, or when, or why. No policy, no detail, no costings, who the advice came from, who will benefit, etc etc.

Just by saying "mandate" does not create one. Peter Gutwein could have pleaded with the moon to be made of green cheese, but he would still have to deal with it within the processes of Government.

Claiming that they have a mandate on a single-issue from a state-wide election is disingenuous, deceptive, misleading and just flat-out wrong.

Whats of greater hilarity, is the seeming blurring, if not removal, of the line between state and federal jurisdictions in the matter.

Successful politics.

We'll see if it translates into successful governance.

[Nuts]

I'm a new-comer, and playing catch-up for many things especially region-specific issues.

But I wouldn't argue that historical division and wanting change were major factors in the election results.

Do you think we swallowed those 'i'm votin' librl' adds LoL..
Me neither, and at the end of the day I think it's a bizzare world where conservation issues are even the subject a political argument.
Not major.. no. It obviously wasn't just rural Australia driving results this time.

[Clusterpod]

Not so bizarre if you consider conservation and environmental concerns the most important.

And I don't think everyone swallowed those ads, but I think those ads certainly influenced the "yay team!" aspect of the election, especially for those that may be less politically aware than optimum for a functional democracy.

The six or seven years of national hate-campaign towards environmentalists, conservationists and to "destroy" The Greens has borne fruit.

But despite the massive expenditure and sacrificing much of the ethics of the fourth estate, they haven't succeeded.

It will be funny watching them trying to blame "The Greens" or "luvvies" for their failings now that they are in Government. They will, you watch. Every possible excuse to blame the previous government will be used.

Australians seem to buy it, but its snake-oil, so we shall see.

[Nuts]

Very bizzare if you think conservation and environmental concerns are too important for politics. Of course they are only 'unimportant' to 52 % of voters right
I saw Nik McKim blame Labor on March 16th..

[Clusterpod]

Um. Politics is how we get government. Government makes our decisions. How do you propose to separate conservation and environmental concerns from government?

"Of course they are only 'unimportant' to 52 % of voters right "

When a political party is setting itself up to be anti-environment and anti-conservation, then it most certainly seems unimportant to those 52%. Of course, it could mean that its just less important than the other things that same party sets itself up for.

Nick McKim wasn't in Government on the 16th, blaming the previous government for why they can't fulfill their election promises.

[stepbystep]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-26/t ... ut/5345072

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels