|
RICHARD FLANAGAN ON
THE RAPE OF TASMANIA
|
|
PUBLIC OPINION
|
| THE RAPE OF TASMANIA (is back in the news)
QUICKLINK
to RAPE at BULLETIN MAGAZINE... |
RAPE OF TASMANIA FEEDBACK
from FRANK STRIE - 9 January 2004
Dear all,
For Greg Barns it, (the issue) continues to be still all
about trees and trees again.
No matter how often one points this out to him, (see under
letters on www.tasmaniantimes.com.
Barns ignores to see the forests, the creeks, the ecosystems,
he ignores the serious debate about good water quality and
quantity, clean air and the great loss of opportunities
due to resource destruction.
He simply will not recognise that forests (not only trees)
are the issue, in reality, the logging debate is much wider
than just a fight about big old growth and tall trees, just
between the Wilderness Society and Forestry Tasmania and
it's Industry lobby.
Greg Barns appears simple-minded, as he can only see two
opposing sides, just as he uses the example of two countries
at war.
What about the local community what about the world community
?
All around Tasmania there are communities confronted with
destruction of landscape, water resource, 1080 poison, chemical
spray etc. etc. Just have a look at www.discover-tasmania.com
or www.tarkine.org,
or www.doctorsforforests.com.
Is the broader population not involved in the debate? Are
they not participating on talkback radio and letters to
the editor and other forms of debate?
As for G. Barns, the public community remains just as outside
observers? Is every critical voice a typical greenie? What
a narrow view!
For me and my associates in the for forests movement (www.doctorsforforests.com)
the debate is not simply about economic versus environmental
arguments, it is actually about social, ethical and intergenerational
issues too.
Typical negotiated 'compromises' and handshakes behind closed
doors are just old fashioned ways, in contrast we are working
on real solution with the community. The problem is that
in the meantime the destruction continues,...(http://www.themercury.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,7670308,00.html);
(http://ta.harrisgroup.com.au/news.cgi?type=1&id=91706)
The Forest Practices System is self regulated in Tasmania,
just like in other industries around Australia, self regulation
does not work, and in the case of forests,... after its
gone it takes hundreds of years to get back to what it was,
if ever again!
Back to positive contributions:
One example of committed work can be found here: on http://www.prosilvaireland.org
and ProSilva: quality management in our forests.
Nearly 10 years ago this paper was first written and presented
in Tasmania, however it was ignored and by some just dismissed
outright. The destruction continued, the problem has become
more than just a "challenge" of our time.
Isn't it time to work out the positive changes, not just
with the traditionally two opposing sides? Together with
the local community and to make really sure it will work
we should not forget to involve the world community.
For a positive Tasmania
Frank Strie, FWM
Schwabenforest Pty. Ltd.
|
RAPE FEEDBACK
at CRIKEY.......
• Greg Barns, Living in Tasmania is like living
in Israel;
• Kate Carnell now of NAFI
has her say too [and trots out the old bullshit];
[CRIKEY
on KATE]
• Sally from Sydney [with recent first hand
experience] challenges the Carnell view;
• Barns should take a walk in the forest with
Bob. |
| Previous Bulletin Article (13 Aug 03) on El Grande
history and showing a natural cycle of a healthy
Old Growth Forest HERE... |
RAPE FEEDBACK at
SAUER-THOMPSON.com
January 09, 2004
Native Forests: The logging debate continues. Over
at Crikey.com.au Greg Barnes has continued the recent
round debate on logging Australia's old growth native
forests. It is good to see Crikey offering its site
for the debate, given the limited space devoted
to the issue in the corporate media. If you recall,
the recent round of the debate was kicked off by
Richard Flanagan writing on the rape of Tasmania
in The Bulletin. Flanagan argued that woodchipping
in the island-state has been likened to an ecological
catastrophe. The article was mentioned at public
opinion here. The argument was continued by Chistopher
Bantick in The Age mentioned here at public opinion.
. ... |
| |
|
|
