PDA

View Full Version : National Parks Open For Logging, Thanks! Tony Abbot



Robo
7th March 2014, 01:46 AM
He's at it again,
How embarrassing is it to be a Aussie right now with this idiot in charge.

Last night, Tony Abbott told the timber industry that too much native forest was locked up in national parks -- and that logging companies were the ultimate conservationists.

Abbott's new forests policy? No more national parks, the destruction of Tasmania's World Heritage listed forests -- and an announcement that our pristine wilderness is now open for business. This is corporate power gone crazy: a Prime Minister bowing to the extreme policy of an industry lobby, instead of listening to the public. We have to show him that we won't just stand back and accept this.

Tell Tony Abbott now: keep your hands off our national parks! Commit to protect our forests now.


Petition link if anyone else is appalled
http://action.sumofus.org/a/Abbott-national-parks/?sub=mtl

NissanGQ4.2
7th March 2014, 06:24 AM
Well at least he is right in saying too much is locked up, I'm sure that they could share 10 thousand acres for me to four wheel drive and dirt bike in:)

Once all the tress a ripped out all our National Parks will have houses built there.................its the way of our future.

bigguwesty
7th March 2014, 06:38 AM
See I'm in 2 minds.
I'm against touching the heritage listed stuff. That's for sure..

But were I work we cut down one tree and plant 5.. In the end 2 of the 5 will mature but only 1 cut down again.

We mainly do plantation logging, so like farming cereal crops..

I think if done right there will be no issue.

catchinjack
7th March 2014, 07:41 AM
Abbott is worse than bloody Gillard, I'm yet to see a promise he made be fullfilled, all I see is excuses and the blame game.

Fozzee63
7th March 2014, 07:49 AM
That a great idea pull 1 out and plant 5 very sustainable, as a firewood cutter ( small scale ) I'm for sustainable cutting

threedogs
7th March 2014, 09:45 AM
never a good look when out 4x4ing and you come across a bald mountain scarred by logging.
We need timber and it has to come from somewhere, though I'm not a fan having everything built from Pine

BillsGU
7th March 2014, 10:29 AM
I live in a logging area and love it. One day as 3D says you see a large logged area but when you go back 12 months later it is covered in saplings and after a few years its better than it was before. What industry could be more sustainable than logging? Some of these so called "old growth" areas are only 30 years old and were planted. Too many bulldust spinners out there with their own agenda IMHO. Here in NSW it seems previous governments had plenty of money to buy up land and call it a national park - but they have no money to look after it - so they lock it up or call it "a conservation reserve" or whatever. When you climb over the gate and wander a couple of Ks into the wonderful "reserve" you find it full of weeds and feral animals. Talk to any farmer in NSW who has a national park as a boundry neighbour - they will tell you its a nightmare.

FNQGU
7th March 2014, 10:30 AM
Personally, I don't want to see any 'pristine' forests logged, but if I understood what I heard on the news, this area Abbott is talking about was previously logged, and isn't 'pristine'. I am also against locking up vast tracts of either Land or Sea to recreational users, such as what the Greens have been practicing for the last 20 years.

The other side of the coin here is that the timber that we need has to come from somewhere, and if we don't manage our own logging in a sustainable manner, then we tend to import. And where do we import from? A nice cheap source, such as Malaysia perhaps. Has anyone taken a peek at how they do business? Not much in the way of sustainable policy in there I am afraid. One of their biggest loggers gets into PNG in a big way, and masses of areas are completely cleared with no regard to sustainability or reinstatement, or species habitat management.

So before I go and scream anything at Tony Abbott, for making moves that support Australian businesses, I would like to understand the bigger picture a little better.

bigguwesty
7th March 2014, 10:38 AM
Atm there is a boat load a week leaving Portland, full of log. It's then sent back by boat in chip, pulp or timber.
Trucks are rolling past our front gate and 150k's further down the road..

Sad really. Just goes to show how farked Australia is.

BillsGU
7th March 2014, 10:49 AM
Atm there is a boat load a week leaving Portland, full of log. It's then sent back by boat in chip, pulp or timber.
Trucks are rolling past our front gate and 150k's further down the road..

Sad really. Just goes to show how farked Australia is.

Didn't realise there were old growth forests in South Oz. I thought it was all plantation.

MudRunnerTD
7th March 2014, 11:00 AM
in a previous life i worked for the DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment) and i was a Saw Log Grader in the Logging Industry. I was on contract and was paid according the quantity. I was paid well.

In 2002 the Victorian Govt made an election promise to cease all logging in the Otways after the election and i went looking for another job. I found a Career and am happy. And Lucky.

So the things i learned while working at the front line...

Firstly, i am an environmentalist. i struggled to start with even applying for the position but came to terms with it. My role was to Grade the quality of the timber going in to the saw mills to determine the Royalty paid for each piece, The computer checking system assigned at random 25% of ALL loads coming out of the Otways to be "Check Loads" for which i was responsible for walking, measuring and grading Every part of the load being delivered. Every log. By Hand with a Tape measure. Does not get much more intimate that that. Personally climbed on and walked and measures 25% of the entire harvest coming out of the Otways in each harvest season.

If i found any load that had been felled badly causing "Shake' Damage i would report it and the Feller would have his ticket suspended pending investigation and testing of his technique.

My Job. Keep the Bastards Honest! I cant stand them back up, but i sure as hell can make sure that they were not wasted. I measured 25% and my grading was then applied to 100% of the harvest. every log i graded counted for 4 logs in the harvest. I was Tough and graded literally.

my other contract with the DSE that ran concurrently was as an inspector at the Pulp Mill. In Uniform i sat at the weighbridge at the large Pulp Mill in Geelong and waited for loads to come from all over the state. With a Very Keen eye i could walk around a truck and spot a Saw Log in a Pulp load and have the truck load set aside for grading. Remember i know Noone in the bush, No Friends there. if i found a Saw log in a Pulp load then i would write it up and the Log grader in the Bush would loose his ticket for 10 days. second offence, permanently. by the end of me doing that for 2 years there was not many saw logs going to pulp! Plenty in the beginning though.

Sorry, to the point. Things i Know.

Statistics.

Only 5% of the Otways National park is ear marked for Hard Wood saw log harvest. Then.
Of that 5%, only 1% of 5% (0.005% of total) was ear marked for harvest Each year on a 100 year rotation.

"Clear Fell Logging" is the Safest and most sustainable way to log an area. Prior to releasing a Coupe to the Logging companies the DSE Forrest Officers would walk the Coupe sq/m by sq/m harvesting seed pods from the trees in that coupe and identifying any "Habitat" trees that would be marked with a ribbon and must be left standing in the clear fell coupe. By Clear Felling the coupe would not be left with a loan tree that may cause risk to the general public of limb dropping an the whole site would regenerate and a similar rate using the replanting of seed pods taken from the same coupe pre logging.

That Gentlemen is Sustainable Logging at its best.

rkinsey
7th March 2014, 11:23 AM
See I'm in 2 minds.
I'm against touching the heritage listed stuff. That's for sure..

But were I work we cut down one tree and plant 5.. In the end 2 of the 5 will mature but only 1 cut down again.

We mainly do plantation logging, so like farming cereal crops..

I think if done right there will be no issue.

Hi Westy,

You are correct. If it is managed correctly it is manageble.

There is a logging company in the north of NSW (around Ballina I think) that has quite a few parcles that they log. However there is one patch that they have been logging for 100 years and its only 1 hectare in size. All hardwood.

Cheers,

Rob

threedogs
7th March 2014, 11:24 AM
So what your saying is Tree have feelings too. he he
well said MR, We need wood and need to be smart on how we use it.
There are heaps of different recycled timbers around ,shame the price is so high
for timber that has already been processed, or just de-nailed
http://www.shivermetimbers.com.au/?gclid=CO_WjoyO_7wCFQYepAodmloA_A

bigguwesty
7th March 2014, 12:23 PM
Didn't realise there were old growth forests in South Oz. I thought it was all plantation.

Yea here in sa it is but we also own a Mill in Tassie.

Cuppa
7th March 2014, 12:27 PM
I don’t believe there is any manageable way of logging old growth & natural forests. There is simply too much greed involved. The days of pick a tree here & there, leaving the rest are largely gone. Economics comes before the environment. The environment has never been fully valued, the Abbot government is hell bent on devaluing what has been hard fought for. More profit can be made in the short term by logging natural forest than by creating & harvesting plantation timber. Plantation timber has it’s own problems, mainly a result of huge areas of monoculture rather than being mixed woodlands. I live in the middle of 1000’s of hectares of forest which is a mix of plantation (Pine & Bluegum) & native woodand & have observed first hand the behaviour of the loggers over the years we have lived here. It is very obvious that they have little to no concern for the environment EXCEPT where there activity is on view to the general public. What the public don’t generally see is a very different story. Clearfelling of both plantation & native woodland, destroying waterways, leaving a huge amount of wastage strewn across the ground. Compare this to areas that are seen by tourist coaches etc & you see the areas of native woodand logged around & left untouched, great care taken to ensure no damage is done to waterways, & more of the timber that is cut down removed & the remainder placed into neat windrows for burning.

I come from a country family who managed woodland in the UK, coppicing etc, the same that has been done for centuries. That was true sustainability, so yes it can be done, but not on the industrial scale that occurs here. The National parks are environmental refuges & should remain sacrosanct.

Listen to the timber companies (in my area primarily Hancock Plantations) & you would think them environmental saints, but the public ’spin’ is very different to behaviour on the ground. It’s a corporate business aimed at maximising profit, care for the environment only matters for public relations purposes. I have no doubt that those they employ to carry out ‘environmental care’, whilst remaining loyal to, & speaking well of the company, are folk with a genuine belief in looking after the environment, but their influence within the company is very limited.

I have signed the petition linked to in the OP, & encourage others to do likewise. Once it’s gone it’s gone.

Robo
7th March 2014, 03:14 PM
Exactly Cuppa.
once it's gone its gone.
Now I'm no environmentalist.
My Dad sent me the link and story and I thought some here may be interested.

But the story of It's just a tree and we need timber isn't justifiable compared to the damage being done.

The trees cleared to replace with the ones they want Is killing off countless native species flora & fauna.
Species that have taken thousands if not millions of yrs to develop and entitled to life just as we are.
Not much diversity left only what they want to harvest. gee that's got to be nice on the eye.

Thinking why do they want to go into the national parks proberly no one goes into anyway.
You can bet they are talking virgin forest that no-one lives near by to see what would be going on.
The old saying out sight out of mind.

And if I read Mudrunner correctly they only cut something like .5% percent of whats readily available to em now.
so what's the need to go and attack virgin forest.
I'll tell you why, get in strip it out and do nothing to fix any damage, because no ones around close enough to see.
maximum damage = maximum profit.
prices won't come down, if it did gov collects less tax, yeah right thats going to happen.
EG typical reason petrol prices are never capped like bread and milk.
Its not the first time this gov has tried to hide the truth,stop the boats means don't publish how many turn up.

I know this sound like a I'm ranting on, but stop and think how many time over the space of your life have you heard x amount of species have disappeared from our plant and in the last 20 or so yrs documented the amount is accelerating faster then ever before.
once it's gone its gone.!!

BillsGU
7th March 2014, 03:52 PM
................... Anyway, as a keen 4 wheel driver that actually likes to get out in the bush, I see this as a great leap forward. It may mean the end of track closures and may even see some of the closed tracks reopen. You never know, common sense and proper management may prevail over the greenbattering we have had over a number of years.

Cut a tree down - lock up the carbon in a new table or a new house - replace it with another tree - absorb more carbon if that is what you believe - make sure it is managed properly - what could be more beneficial to us all?

happygu
7th March 2014, 04:37 PM
What happens to the trees when an area that has been locked up and untouched gets burnt by fire ..... it is then all gone anyway ....and it seems to be happening more frequently now that so many vast areas are locked up.

I am by no means slash and burn, but it makes no sense to lock up a resource that may be gone tomorrow anyway. Logging needs to happen, but it needs good guys in the field to make sure it is sustainable and that all resources are well managed

BillsGU
7th March 2014, 05:10 PM
What happens to the trees when an area that has been locked up and untouched gets burnt by fire ..... it is then all gone anyway ....and it seems to be happening more frequently now that so many vast areas are locked up.

I am by no means slash and burn, but it makes no sense to lock up a resource that may be gone tomorrow anyway. Logging needs to happen, but it needs good guys in the field to make sure it is sustainable and that all resources are well managed

Too right. Next time you drive up to Mt Hotham look at all the dead alpine ash. They won't regenerated as they take about 11 years to mature. Due to the wonderful "management" they have had over the last few decades, successive super hot fires have not only killed the trees but the immature trees could not seed. The "managers" had to harvest seeds from around Mansfield and aerial seed the Hotham area. Hopefully the future will see a bit more common sense, more cool burn offs (as has happened for thousands of years) and better management. Locking it all up has been tried and failed. Lets move on.

Cuppa
7th March 2014, 05:46 PM
................... Anyway, as a keen 4 wheel driver that actually likes to get out in the bush, I see this as a great leap forward. It may mean the end of track closures and may even see some of the closed tracks reopen. You never know, common sense and proper management may prevail over the greenbattering we have had over a number of years.

Cut a tree down - lock up the carbon in a new table or a new house - replace it with another tree - absorb more carbon if that is what you believe - make sure it is managed properly - what could be more beneficial to us all?

I’m sorry BillsGU, but I just don’t get it. How is opening up the ’saved bits’ of our country a great leap forward. Most if not all here like to get out into the bush, it’s the reason most have a 4wd, but is geting out into the bush about enjoying the bush for what it is, or just to ‘conquer’ rough tracks & feel like a ‘hero'?
A simple question, would it be as enjoyable if those tracks were lined with concrete buildings rather than ‘bush’? I think most of us would answer “no”. Ok we aren’t taking about loggers replacing trees with concrete buildings, but the point I’m making is that there is something unique & valuable about our bush & I doubt that most would want to lose it.
If we can agree that we don’t want to lose what we love, then we have to value & protect it from those who wish to profit without care or conscience.

The arguments tend not to be about whether we care about losing what we love, but about how much we can afford to lose & without changing our behaviours.

Suggesting that allowing logging to take place because it might open up some 4wd tracks is like removing most of the food from the shelves of our shops & saying it’s a good thing to do because it will make the aisles wider. Wide aisles might seem very attractive, but who will care how wide they are once we are hungry?

Australia is very special, even though we have lost huge tracts of bush over the past couple of centuries we still have extensive areas of bush left. It’s not like other parts of the world like the UK & much of Europe where the little bits of remaining woodland fit neatly between the man made. I recall the first time I stood up on an Australian bluff & could see nothing but trees for as far as I could see. It blew me away, I had never had that experience before I came here. If we take it for granted that we have plenty to spare, Tony & his corporate plunderer mates will do something about that quick smart. The National parks are the jewels in the Australian crown & we should all fight to keep them.

Robo’s last post made me think when he wrote “The trees cleared to replace with the ones they want Is killing off countless native species flora & fauna. Species that have taken thousands if not millions of yrs to develop and entitled to life just as we are. Not much diversity left only what they want to harvest. gee that’s got to be nice on the eye.” It seems reminiscent to me of the ’supermarket culture’. Just to take one example. Apples. I recall as a child that there were numerous varieties of apple, some good for cooking, some just for eating, all with their own unique flavour or texture. In just 40 or so years most are no longer generally available except to those who really care enough to search our to grow their own rare ‘heritage’ varieties.
Our kids might be forgiven for believing there have only ever been a handful of varieties, the ones that can be found in the supermarkets, Granny Smith, Royal Gala & one or two more. Translate this to the rapidly reducing diversity in our forests, extinction after extinction. Animals, plants & trees. Dunno about you but when I get out in the bush on those tracks it’s what those tracks take me through that make it worthwhile, & if having tracks closed as a means of preserving that diversity I can live with that. I’ll walk through it, or enjoy going elsewhere, happy in the knowledge that there areas protected from being used as an ‘industrial resource’.

Besides, if the loggers get into a park, existing tracks will be closed until logging is completed & IF opened afterwards the sights will not be pretty. Ok for those who only see the bush as a series of bog holes & obstacles...... but certainly not a pretty sight.

I’m not specifically aiming my coments specifically at you BillsGU, the call amongst 4wd’ers to ‘open tracks’ is common, but is imho, often a selfish means of shooting themselves in the foot. Lets look after country first & enjoy it second. The alternative is to destroy what we love without understanding what we are doing. Lets keep the really special bits special, even if that means just knowing they are there. Who knows what we will be destroying if we let them go.Could be far more valuable than timber.

Bit of a ramble, but I hope it makes some sense to someone.

Cuppa

BillsGU
7th March 2014, 06:06 PM
I’m sorry BillsGU, but I just don’t get it. How is opening up the ’saved bits’ of our country a great leap forward. Most if not all here like to get out into the bush, it’s the reason most have a 4wd, but is geting out into the bush about enjoying the bush for what it is, or just to ‘conquer’ rough tracks & feel like a ‘hero'?
A simple question, would it be as enjoyable if those tracks were lined with concrete buildings rather than ‘bush’? I think most of us would answer “no”. Ok we aren’t taking about loggers replacing trees with concrete buildings, but the point I’m making is that there is something unique & valuable about our bush & I doubt that most would want to lose it.
If we can agree that we don’t want to lose what we love, then we have to value & protect it from those who wish to profit without care or conscience.
The arguments are not about whether we care about losing what we love, but about how much we can afford to lose & without changing our behaviours. Suggesting that allowing logging to take place because it might open up some 4wd tracks is like removing most of the food from the shelves of our shops & saying it’s a good thing to do because t will make the aisles wider. Wide aisles might seem very attractive, but who will care once we are hungry?

Australia is very special, even though we have lost huge tracts of bush over the past couple of centuries we still have extensive areas of bush left. It’s not like other parts of the world like the UK & much of Europe where the little bits of remaining woodland fit neatly between the man made. I recall the first time I stood up on an Australian bluff & could see nothing but trees for as far as I could see. It blew me away, I had never had that experience before. If we take that for granted believing we have plenty to spare, Tony & his corporate plunderer mates will do something about that. The National parks are the Jewels in the Australian crown & we should all fight to keep them. Robo’s last post made me think when he wrote "The trees cleared to replace with the ones they want Is killing off countless native species flora & fauna.
Species that have taken thousands if not millions of yrs to develop and entitled to life just as we are.
Not much diversity left only what they want to harvest. gee that’s got to be nice on the eye.” It seems reminiscent of the ’supermarket culture’. Just to take one example. Apples. I recall as a child that there were numerous varieties of apple, some good for cooking, some just for eating, all with their own unique flavour or texture. I just 40 or so years most are no longer generally available except to those who really care to grow their own ‘heritage’ varieties. Our kids might be forgiven for believing there have only ever been a handful of varieties, the ones that can be found in the supermarkets, Granniy Smith, Royal Gala & one or two more. Translate this to the rapidly reducing diversity in our forests, extinction after extinction. Animals, plants & trees. Dunno about you but when I get out in the bush on those tracks it’s what those tracks take me through that make it worthwhile, & if having tracks closed as a means of preserving that diversity I can live with that.
Anyway if the loggers get into a park, existing tracks will be closed until logging is completed & IF opened afterwards the sights will not be pretty.

I’m not specifically aiming at you BillsGU, but the common call amongst 4wd’ers to ‘open tracks’ is imho often a selfish means of shooting themselves in the foot. Lets look after country first & enjoy it second. The alternative is to destroy what we love without understanding what we are doing.

Bit of a ramble, but I hope it makes some sense to someone.

Cuppa

We would have to agree to disagree.

Cuppa
7th March 2014, 06:56 PM
We would have to agree to disagree.

That’s a shame but if it avoids ‘falling out’ with each other probably the way to go.

NissanGQ4.2
7th March 2014, 06:57 PM
I’m not specifically aiming at you BillsGU, but the common call amongst 4wd’ers to ‘open tracks’ is imho often a selfish means of shooting themselves in the foot. Lets look after country first & enjoy it second. The alternative is to destroy what we love without understanding what we are doing.

Cuppa

Makes sense to a degree but I guess I'm also selfish, I am literally surrounded by the Blue Mountains National Park yet there is no legal and what I would call 4wd tracks within maybe a 2 hour drive from me. I would say every track that is open within the BMNP is graded for tourist using 2wd only vehicles / bush walkers and photographers and while I do enjoy bush walking and photography I also enjoy four wheel driving and dirt bike riding.

I do enjoy being surrounded by the bush and do grow some of my own veggies and have chickens for fresh eggs but I would not call myself a greenie / environmentalist, while I don't condone ripping tree's out just for the sake of a quick buck with very stringent managment believe opening it up for everyone to enjoy would be beneficial.

And I'm sure a lot will disagree with my believe that as much as everyone believes they are doing there part looking after our bushland just remember we all live in houses, work in factories, drive on roads ( the list is endless ) that was once countless native species of flora / fauna and native animals.

Give it time, NP and State forests will be no longer houses and roads will pave the way, its the price we will pay for having no limitation on the amount of babies a family can have and a very lax immigration system.

SAD BUT TRUE

Will also have to agree to disagree

FNQGU
7th March 2014, 07:53 PM
There has actually been some very valid points from both sides of the fence on this thread so far.

In general, most people who enjoy the bush are conservationists to some degree, whether they know it or not. One point that does annoy me though about the group of Greens from the very far Left, is their tendency to lock everyone out of an area in the interest of conservation. I believe that there should and can be a well balanced policy where people such as us, can access our National Parks and Reserves in our 4WD's and enjoy the place. Obviously that is a bit off track from the logging argument and Mr Abbott's recent decisions, but it comes back to what directly affects me. I want to conserve those and other areas, but I also want to enjoy them, not just know that they will be saved to be viewed on a postcard and I should be happy in the knowledge that they are saved.

What directly affects the people in Tasmania, is obviously the unemployment rate, and being able to put food on the table. When things are tough in these areas, unfortunately attitudes to conservation change. It is simple survival. With the Highest rates of unemployment in Australia, and an election coming up, it is no surprise that the Gov't is looking at what might make people happy, and thus vote for them. More than half of Tasmania will still be World Heritage Forrest, and having prospects of a job, and a dollar in your pocket, means a hell of a lot to those people who don't have one when it comes time to vote.

Cuppa
7th March 2014, 11:27 PM
I understand what you are saying Ben, & agree with much of it.
However you would think that any government worth a pinch of sh*t would act in the long term best interests of it’s people rather than playing cheap politics to get votes for themselves. But there I go being a simple idealist again! What really annoys me is that the cheap politics are not only about getting votes for themselves. It is more complex. Sure it’s about the votes, but it’s also about creating community disharmony & division. With the community fearful about their jobs, immigration, law & order etc & at each others throats it makes it far easier for the government to smooth the path for the corporate plunderers. They are encouraging & fostering the ‘Me’ approach over the ‘Us’ approach. I’ve seen it before during the Thatcher years in the UK. Some come out of it well, many do not, but the hope of getting lucky draws votes fom both the likely & unlikely.

The issues around logging protected areas & 4wd access to protected areas are two different issues.
I think you express moderate views that perhaps the majority of folk might support. An improved balance between protection & 4wd access.
As 4wd’ers I would consider it logical that we support the ongoing protection that National Parks offer, whilst lobbying for greater appropriate access.
Very different to letting the loggers in in the hope that when they are finished that we might have greater access to then degraded & denuded country.

Although the ‘dollar in the pocket’ is a great motivator when it comes to getting votes, using such tactics is short term & unfair of a government. Such tactics only last until the next change of government. What is needed is long term job security & a responsible government would be doing what it could to facilitate sustainable & secure employment for it’s constituents, not playing them as fodder to bring short term huge profits to the big companies, many of whom are foreign owned. Seems they are still pushing the ‘trickle down economics’ model. A model that continues to offer hope but has never been shown to actually work. It is the rich who get richer. Generally speaking the working man does not, or if he does it is at the expense of job security. You only have to look at the mining boom jobs to know this. In a few short years a generation have come to see this style of employment as the norm. As the boom slows , so we see workers being treated less & less well. We need to understood that these companies are not like the companies of old, which accepted that they had a responsibility for the welfare of their workers. Todays companies care only about paying their shareholders dividends & don’t give a stuff about the fact that Fred their employee can feed his family today but won’t be able to next month or the month after that, or that they wrecked a piece of country before moving on elsewhere leaving Fred out of work. Our current government is on the side of the abusers, but telling us they are on our side.
Possibly getting off topic, but for me it’s all part of the same picture. Trashing our country, short term profit, abusive work practices, increasing divide between haves & have nots, rising unemployment, increased blaming & consequent laws that can affect our freedoms, removal of funding for any organisations which might be critical of the government or the actions of it’s corporate puppeteers, et etc etc.

If folks haven’t seen the Scott Ludlam speech it is well worth watching, even if you don’t agree with what he has to say. He really lays out just what he sees our government is getting up to. I’m not a member of any political party & never have been, but what he has to say certainly fits with how I’m seeing things.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtqrfiEV8Gs

Moderators, I appreciate that this thread is ‘political’ & I would understand if you saw the need to close it down. However I would ask that you might recognise that the discussion is to date respectful between those contributing, & request that it be allowed to continue as long as it remains so.

Clunk
7th March 2014, 11:33 PM
I liked Thatcher, she had bigger balls than all the other idiots that followed

Cuppa
8th March 2014, 12:00 AM
I liked Thatcher, she had bigger balls than all the other idiots that followed

Maybe but I think she did an awful lot of damage to the community which it still hasn’t recovered from. Her & Reagan were largely responsible for the popularity of ‘economic rationalism’ & ‘user pays’ around the western world, neither of which have ever borne out their promise to any but the ‘haves’. The UK has a bigger ‘underclass’ now than it has ever had before. The ‘working poor’ as well as the unemployed.
I wouldn’t dream of comparing Tony Abbott to Maggie. Like her or hate her, Maggie was certainly strong. Tony is only a political opportunist who was in the right place at the right time. One thing that Maggie had was ‘vision’, not one I shared, but it was part of her strength. Vision is a rare commodity among prime ministers, we seem to be plagued here with politicians rather than leaders.

Did you live in the UK during the Thatcher years?

Clunk
8th March 2014, 12:13 AM
I did, I was there from 76 to '03...... And that my friend is about as political as I'm going to get

Avo
8th March 2014, 03:39 AM
Doesn't matter,what we say here.

FNQGU
8th March 2014, 09:22 AM
Cuppa, good points. Yes, I think perhaps your view is more idealistic, but that doesn't mean I (and plenty of other moderate folk) don't agree with your ideals. The forests are one of those topics where idealism clashes with 'realism' (maybe not the best word) sometimes. Others might be the Great Barrier Reef, The Kimberley's, Cape York even... etc. etc.

Ideally we would vote in Leaders who actually cared about the communities, but I can't remember a politician, besides maybe crazy Bob Katter, who was all about the community. Australia has been very poorly lead for a long time now, no matter what the party they came from. And Politicians with short sightedness, tend to identify these 'dollar in the pocket' issues and leverage them for easy votes.

At risk of throwing in a broad personal political observation, I think the previous Labour Gov't sold small business a dud, and the current Coaltion Gov't is doing what they normally do, and trying to win votes from this sector. Labour was tighter with the Greens, and with this reversed now, the ideals in the conservation areas, may well be attacked for some time to come. I think the Tasmanian Forests could well become a hot topic again, if not a 'battleground' over ideals.

Robo
8th March 2014, 02:27 PM
I thought it was simple.
Save diversity.
It's what makes the world go round.

And the big AND is
That diversity may just save your life or child's one day.
that unique tree, frog or spider may just have cancer or whatever healing properties!!.

Once it gone its gone.
I to enjoy driving up the odd bush track looking from the top of a hill for a great view.
but not at the expense of life itself.

I often wondered why places like Blue Mts or Boudi are around so close to cities.
Who in their right mind could want endless expanses of buildings.
Simply so many benefits to having it ,it can't be covered.
we can still have a track to drive up a enjoy the bush, without having to kill it.

It has to be accepted we as man cannot control his urge to pillage,
and think he can some how manage it responsibly.
Responsibly is a matter of perspective and here diversity is the loser.
no more need said.

Cuppa
8th March 2014, 05:13 PM
I thought it was simple.
Save diversity.
It's what makes the world go round.

And the big AND is
That diversity may just save your life or child's one day.
that unique tree, frog or spider may just have cancer or whatever healing properties!!.

Once it gone its gone.
I to enjoy driving up the odd bush track looking from the top of a hill for a great view.
but not at the expense of life itself.

I often wondered why places like Blue Mts or Boudi are around so close to cities.
Who in their right mind could want endless expanses of buildings.
Simply so many benefits to having it ,it can't be covered.
we can still have a track to drive up a enjoy the bush, without having to kill it.

It has to be accepted we as man cannot control his urge to pillage,
and think he can some how manage it responsibly.
Responsibly is a matter of perspective and here diversity is the loser.
no more need said.

Yep! Seems common sense to me.

Chubba
16th July 2015, 10:31 PM
I’m sorry BillsGU, but I just don’t get it. How is opening up the ’saved bits’ of our country a great leap forward. Most if not all here like to get out into the bush, it’s the reason most have a 4wd, but is geting out into the bush about enjoying the bush for what it is, or just to ‘conquer’ rough tracks & feel like a ‘hero'?
A simple question, would it be as enjoyable if those tracks were lined with concrete buildings rather than ‘bush’? I think most of us would answer “no”. Ok we aren’t taking about loggers replacing trees with concrete buildings, but the point I’m making is that there is something unique & valuable about our bush & I doubt that most would want to lose it.
If we can agree that we don’t want to lose what we love, then we have to value & protect it from those who wish to profit without care or conscience.

The arguments tend not to be about whether we care about losing what we love, but about how much we can afford to lose & without changing our behaviours.

Suggesting that allowing logging to take place because it might open up some 4wd tracks is like removing most of the food from the shelves of our shops & saying it’s a good thing to do because it will make the aisles wider. Wide aisles might seem very attractive, but who will care how wide they are once we are hungry?

Australia is very special, even though we have lost huge tracts of bush over the past couple of centuries we still have extensive areas of bush left. It’s not like other parts of the world like the UK & much of Europe where the little bits of remaining woodland fit neatly between the man made. I recall the first time I stood up on an Australian bluff & could see nothing but trees for as far as I could see. It blew me away, I had never had that experience before I came here. If we take it for granted that we have plenty to spare, Tony & his corporate plunderer mates will do something about that quick smart. The National parks are the jewels in the Australian crown & we should all fight to keep them.

Robo’s last post made me think when he wrote “The trees cleared to replace with the ones they want Is killing off countless native species flora & fauna. Species that have taken thousands if not millions of yrs to develop and entitled to life just as we are. Not much diversity left only what they want to harvest. gee that’s got to be nice on the eye.” It seems reminiscent to me of the ’supermarket culture’. Just to take one example. Apples. I recall as a child that there were numerous varieties of apple, some good for cooking, some just for eating, all with their own unique flavour or texture. In just 40 or so years most are no longer generally available except to those who really care enough to search our to grow their own rare ‘heritage’ varieties.
Our kids might be forgiven for believing there have only ever been a handful of varieties, the ones that can be found in the supermarkets, Granny Smith, Royal Gala & one or two more. Translate this to the rapidly reducing diversity in our forests, extinction after extinction. Animals, plants & trees. Dunno about you but when I get out in the bush on those tracks it’s what those tracks take me through that make it worthwhile, & if having tracks closed as a means of preserving that diversity I can live with that. I’ll walk through it, or enjoy going elsewhere, happy in the knowledge that there areas protected from being used as an ‘industrial resource’.

Besides, if the loggers get into a park, existing tracks will be closed until logging is completed & IF opened afterwards the sights will not be pretty. Ok for those who only see the bush as a series of bog holes & obstacles...... but certainly not a pretty sight.

I’m not specifically aiming my coments specifically at you BillsGU, the call amongst 4wd’ers to ‘open tracks’ is common, but is imho, often a selfish means of shooting themselves in the foot. Lets look after country first & enjoy it second. The alternative is to destroy what we love without understanding what we are doing. Lets keep the really special bits special, even if that means just knowing they are there. Who knows what we will be destroying if we let them go.Could be far more valuable than timber.

Bit of a ramble, but I hope it makes some sense to someone.

Cuppa

No ramble Cuppa. Makes complete sense to me mate. Agree 100%

taslucas
17th July 2015, 08:21 AM
Basically, if the logging industry was a sustainable one then there'd be no need to cut down native forests to expand logging coupes.

"Cut a tree down, plant one and the world is untouched" is such wrong statement.

Think that 200 years ago this country had not a single house, road, clearfell plantation, or mine. Not a single river dammed or animal introduced. Not one coal fired powerstation, chip mill or trawler fleet.

All that in a measly 200 years.

Ofcourse I use products from industry and I like them but I don't think we should be in such a rush to strip everything. What will the place be like in another 200 years?

For those of you playing along at home (lol) do a bit of research into the story of the Gunns timber company an tassie. Basically had a monopoly on the state and %100 NOT sustainable.

mudnut
17th July 2015, 08:32 AM
This thread is along the
lines of my CSG thread.
Which got shut down BTW.