Old-Growth Logging (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...l-angers-Greens/2005/05/16/1116095909043.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15312767%5E2702,00.html
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15312737%5E3462,00.html

As some of you may know, I supported the 2004 Tasmanian Forests election policy in that it sought to pro-actively preserve both the remaining forests and the earning capacity of the timber workers (if not their then current jobs).

What are your thoughts on this particular case, or just forestry issues in general?

Edit:
John Howard - The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement, a Way Forward for Tasman's Forests
Bob Brown - 'Tough' Beazley wimps on forests

 

[leetom]

I thought the way the Unionists abandoned the ALP in a ridiculous fear of losing their jobs was disgraceful. They took no time to consider the ALP's proposal, just outright rejection.

 

[Rafy]

Unionists are idiots.

 

[Sarah]

From what i know of the issue, a portion of forest set aside for reserves was designated to be so regardless as the type of forest growth wasn't what the timber industry were/are interested in (it was on the 7:30 report monday night).

Also, there are other industries at stake here. They include tourism and the honeybee industry (there was a report on the ABC last year about the honey bee industry in tasmania, if i can be bothered i'll look it up). These industries are reliant on tasmania's forests.

My opinion is that in the long run, it's not a viable industry. You can only wait so many years until forests grow back. It doesn't make economic sense to keep supporting the logging/timber industry. However, if you want to keep propping up the timber industry, then you should do so by taking a long run approach by ensuring the industry is sustainable. The current approach taken seems to have too much room to maneuver in the future.

Also, not many people outside of Tasmania seem to care. Most are concerned with issues in their own state which impact themselves directly.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

LOL - love the poll on the greens website..
"Why is the federal budget so appauling?"

 

[frog12986]

If anything, the ALP's 2004 election stance on this issue highlights why in fact they were not able to win that, nor the next election. Latham and his intellectual cronies prioritised an environmental stance to maintain satisfation of a small proportion of the party, in addition to the satisfaction of their left hand man, Bob Brown.

It clearly highlighted the ideological problems that exist within the Labor Party particularly in relation to their traditional constituents.
No longer is the Labor Party placing the emphasis upon the worker, and/or their relationship with the unions, but rather the party has evolved into a 'welfare based' party which does not express its founding principles.

All I can say, is that when you compromise the interests of your traditional constituency in order to gain measely political preferences from the far-left minority, there is something terribly wrong...

Moreover, when John Howard is welcomed in a fashion by the workers that would be more suited to Bob Hawke, as a former ACTU president, in his reign as PM... Labor should have clearly changed their tune...

 

[ohne]

Latham's policy before the last election was completely absurd. So what if Labor loses some votes to the greens? They will almost certainly come back to them in the form of preferences.