<Back to Article

  1. Whereas honey, and especially leatherwood honey, is a crucial element of all that we want Tasmania’s economy and image to be, and whereas it is economically irrational to destroy a unique and valuable resource, the fact remains that the image and economy of Tasmania must take second (or third or lower) place to the profits of woodchippers.

    If we vary from this principle we (meaning the directors and shareholders of such companies) are committing economic suicide.

    Beekeepers do not have the interests of woodchipping at heart, which makes them ipso facto traitors to Tasmania.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  18/03/05  at  02:52 AM
  2. Yet another casualty of the all consuming forestry industry and it doesn’t make pleasant reading.

    The harsh reality is that beekeepers and other smaller players who are getting in the way of the RFA gravy train should probably cut and run now, because it’s all aboard the woodchip express and no stops till we reach the bank.

    The federal govt. is now 4 months overdue with its plan to save the forests and the silence from CFMEU & Tas forest industry is deafening. I imagine they are probably very busy and just trusting that their new friend Mr. Howard will do the right thing!

    So are the people with the power to change things in Tasmania listening to folks like beekeepers? Hearing maybe? Not listening it would seem.

    When questioned by Peg Putt at a recent Government business estimates committee, Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Bryan Green, continually argued that all is well in the Tasmanian beekeeping industry. Greater production, more sites!
    Green argued that this was mainly due to the wonderful relationship that now exists between Forestry Tasmania and the apiarian industry.

    Yet this seems to be at odds with what we are hearing from the SBA at the very least.

    During questioning Green was also made aware of the effects of cable logging in the Wedge bloc. Green went on record as saying he should meet with those people who had photographic evidence of the alleged breaches of the FP code. I hope these folks have taken him up on this.

    For those who are interested in reading this revealing exchange.

    It is abundantly clear from the experiences of Tasmanian people documented on this website, let alone other print and electronic media, that forest industry representatives including the company that cannot be named and members of the present administration have no genuine interest in smaller players like Beekeepers, small farmers, saw millers, budding tourist operators or folks worried about water issues, concerned residents of the Blue Tier, South Sister, Launceston, Lucaston, Middleton or any other Tasmanian town whose interests in our ‘multiple use’ forests conflict in any way threaten potential profits for the RFA boys! The level of disregard those who desire to share our forests, ie beekeepers, are held in, is evidenced by the continual breaches of those sections of the forest practices code designed to protect the interests of other users. This has also extensively documented.

    The fact is, the industry has the rubber stamp in the RFA and that’s all that matters. They can bend the rules as much as they can get away with, whilst you and I must abide by the RFA, respecting it as a sacred agreement whose integrity must never be compromised
    The other problem for smaller players like beekepers is 100% uncritical state and federal Govt support . Pollies will never be seen, to be not defending those so-called 10,000 or so forestry ‘jobs’ in Tasmania.

    Then of course there is a for-profit print media that is historically very timid, conservative and ultimately supportive of the woodchip industry, particularly in my home town Launceston. 

    The great body of forestry industry related reports, opinion pieces and editorials published in The Examiner over the years, has overwhelmingly privileged and often uncritically presented pro-industry views whilst marginalising its critics. Of this there is no question. Don’t make me do another media analysis of this paper. Life’s too short!

    The Examiner has always been happy to publish the Industry’s strategically timed “advertising features” and “special reports”.
    Indeed the Examiner must never again expect to be taken seriously as a publication of journalistic repute after the debacle that was page 5 of the “Pulp Mill - the opportunities” a “A Special Report (let alone the rest of the Jan 30th, 40 page “industry feature”).  The editor himself Mr. Southwell acknowledged my criticisms of the infamous page 5 stating “You’re right about page 5, which was in fact an advertisement and should have carried information indicating that”.

    No Mr. Southwell, it was a disgrace. You let many readers down badly. It reflects badly on you and your newspaper that you let it through!

    But I digress. 

    Mr Hoskinson, Cave, Cowen, Duncombe, Heese, Mulder, Norris and Pigot, I wish you luck, but I fear that the more you speak out the more suspiciously you will be regarded by Lennon and his band of gifted, well-informed ministers. Eventually you will probably be dismissed, as others have, as having an “anti-forestry bias” and that you are only using your beekeeper sob-story as an excuse to undermine the good name of the Industry and indeed Tasmania.

    Who knows, if you push your luck too far you may end up getting a date with the judge.

    Posted by Rick pilkington  on  21/03/05  at  10:33 AM





Remember my personal information

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.