<Back to Article

  1. Mr Gay defended the Allen report. “I think the economics of this mill are fantastic,” he said. However, the economic benefits of the mill were “no one else’s business”.

    If this mill is being subsidized by the taxpayers of this State, then it is our business Mr Gay.  If the natural resources of the State, held in trust by Forestry Tasmania, on behalf of the people of this State, is being pillaged by your company, it is our business Mr Gay.  If we have to breath your mills foul air, it is our business Mr Gay.  No one has the right to enrich themselves at the expense of others Mr Gay. The days of cowboy capitalism are coming to an end.

    Posted by Duncan Grant  on  29/01/08  at  07:03 AM
  2. Once again in attempting to avoid close scrutiny of the mill and its finances ABC mornings talkback decided that this important report wasn’t worthy as one of their “chosen” topics. Instead we got four interviews on the burning of the Australian flag, one brief interview on Tamar siltation and a rehash of the boxing being taught in schools topic that was covered yesterday.

    Posted by David Mohr  on  29/01/08  at  08:14 AM
  3. John Gay is right…the economics of the mill are fantastic.

    Posted by Mike Bolan  on  29/01/08  at  09:38 AM
  4. “Gunns owns its own resource and it’s going to own the mill…”  Who owns the resource? Perhaps you want to run that comment by all us taxpayers one more time mud-guts?

    Posted by R. Clifford  on  29/01/08  at  12:31 PM
  5. To the Wilderness Society I say “they saw you coming.” It was money for jam. You lot stand on street corners flensing money off the public, only to have it suckered by a bunch of smooth-talking seat warmers!
    It sounds like pretty thin research if they clearly don’t know or understand the situation on the ground in Tasmania. This is indicated by them referring to such erroneous concepts as plantations being lost opportunity for other agricultural land use. Evaluation of specific plantation sites, and better surplus agricultural land elsewhere blows that one away. And suggesting factors such as alternative higher value uses for Tasmanian timber indicates they either weren’t looking at the proposed feedstock for the pulp mill, or they didn’t understand what they were looking at.
    To the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research I say things must be slow in the research consultancy business if you are prepared to de-value your own currency by getting into bed with bludging parasites, even if it was money for jam!


    Posted by George Harris aka woodworker  on  29/01/08  at  12:37 PM
  6. No research, no matter how thorough, would satisfy folk like Woodworm (5). Instead, look to the past for lessons as to where Tasmania is going if this mill goes ahead.  Jarrod Diamond’s work on the State of Montana, in his book `Collapse’, makes chilling reading and spells out the inevitable decline of the forestry industry.  The Mill is a desperate gamble of a dying industry.  The problem is, if it goes ahead, (out of sheer pig-headedness, rather than economic rationalism) it will drag this State with it down the gurgler.

    Posted by Duncan Grant  on  29/01/08  at  06:07 PM
  7. Absolutely right Dave. Have the Gangster company asked the suits to send coxy and the team a letter or two. The Pulp Mill issue was conspicuous by its absence this morning. That report deserved some serious debate. Faaark me, we are only talking about the single biggest project in our states history with our biggest company and their government lapdogs blatantly staking the states economic future on it.
    Whilst the ABC news headlined the report the presenters wouldnt touch it, preferring to canvass lightweight crap. I mean, for fucksake, every year on Australia day some young tearaway burns the flag and the media have this tiresome debate. All of the cuckoo’s come out and it just so boring. And boxing in schools. Talk about making a mountain out of an absolute molehill. Gutless ABC. Just sooooo gutless. They have abdicated their responsibility to cover the big issues and are now at a stage where they not doing that which they are being paid to do.

    Posted by Pilko  on  29/01/08  at  08:05 PM
  8. Hey, Woodworker, does ‘the proposed feedstock for the pulp mill’ include the first grade millable timber from native forests that is currently being chipped?  Where’s the guarantee that it doesn’t?

    As for plantations, you provide no evidence that none of them is occupying land which could get a better return from agriculture if the MIS subsidy wasn’t there.  And that’s without taking into account the damage they are doing to downstream farm land by sucking up the groundwater.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  29/01/08  at  08:46 PM
  9. ‘Pulp Mill - Our Jobs - Our Future’, as seen on several utes around Launceston, and on the front hoarding of the Trades Union building in Wellington Street.
    Let’s see a further add-on sticker, - ‘With Your Money.’

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  29/01/08  at  09:37 PM
  10. ABC Tasmania needs an enema. Being a small place the staff always ends up taking the soft option on serious journalism because to do otherwise would invite vituperation and disrupt their comfortable, pampered existences.
    Difficult questions in the morning make for awkward dinner parties in the evening.

    Posted by R. Clifford  on  29/01/08  at  11:32 PM
  11. I think John Gay was misquoted…...
    What he apparently said was, “the economics of the mill are fantasy”.

    Posted by Dave Groves  on  30/01/08  at  07:54 AM
  12. During Robert Belcher’s address at a recent TAP forum he showed overlay maps, firstly of the best quality farmland and next of plantations. To your possible surprise, Woodworker, there’s a strong correlation.

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  30/01/08  at  08:52 AM
  13. What about the other sticker Mike? “Clean, GREEN and clever”, in promoting the Pulp Mill.
    The project was refused “Green Power” accreditation by the national body last year.
    Even the guys I know in Gunns dont believe it will be clean.

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  30/01/08  at  09:12 AM
  14. Woodworker (5) appears to be increasingly losing the plot. If the Wilderness Society, to whom people donate voluntarily, are “bludging parasites”; what exactly does that make Gunns who are getting wealthy on taxpayers money and taxpayers resources?
    I fully understand the concept of who pays the piper calls the tune but it seems a bit extreme to totally dismiss any research that doesn’t agree with your point of view. The NIEIR wouldn’t stay in business long if they simply produced results to clients specifications. The same applies of course to Allens, but the difference is in the scope of the original brief.
    Does it ever occur to Woodworker that this project is in fact a dog? Just because the green organisations are among the large number of people decrying this particular project, it doesn’t mean that every report, every piece of research, every personal opinion, is complete rubbish. Try removing the “I hate Greenies” blinkers.

    Posted by Steve  on  30/01/08  at  06:44 PM
  15. Great trip to Bridport from the West Tamar today.  Does anybody know whether rate of logging is more intense than usual at the moment?  Starting at 9.45 it took twenty eight minutes to travel from the George Town turn off to Bridport.  In that time I passed nine fully laden log trucks (6 native forest, 3 plantation) therefore a rate of nearly one truck every three minutes)and this is only one of the main access routes to the Bell Bay chip mill.
    On the way back at 4.00 pm Between Bridport and Pipers River I passed 5 unladen log trucks coming the other way in 18 minutes having passed many hectares of farmland converted to plantations just outside Bridport.  I decided to come back via Pipers River Road and Mount Direction.  The first 5 kilometres of the Piper’s River Road is a truly depressing sight.  Rolling green pastures on the western side of the road had become tree plantations as far as the eye could see.  Where was the forward planning?  The depletion of water supplies of neighbouring properties (the few that remain) must be staggering.  The other side of the road was a patchwork of a few remaining patches of native forest, more plantations and about eight kilometres from the turnoff an ugly clearfell on steep slopes.
    Turning off near Bangor towards Mt Direction there was no relief.  More farms along this road have extensive plantations.  As I passed two more unladen log trucks on this quiet back road I realised that unless we act now this is our pulp mill future. Endless convoys of log trucks, patchwork countryside with clearfell, young plantations and mature plantations, associated spraying, water problems, deserted farms, ghost towns such as Preolenna and Paradise and of course a polluting mill.

    Posted by David Mohr  on  30/01/08  at  08:22 PM
  16. In earlier times we were led to believe that only second rate land, unsuitable for mainstream agriculture, would be used for plantations.(We were also told that the chip mills would use forestry waste, bringing to an end forestry burns!).

    Obviously, poor quality soil produced slow growing trees and was hard on machinery. Our “food bowl”  farmland seemed the likely choice for managed investment schemes that was chasing a slow but easy return.
    Unfortunately it comes at a cost. A cost to taxpayers through subsidies and a massive loss to food production as well as the associated industries that rely on the farmland.

    “Evereach”, a property in the North has gone under recently to plantation. Three years ago it employed 25 people on a permanent and casual basis. Every time a farm is transformed, we lose milkers,tanker drivers, shearers, farmhands,vets, hay contracters,machinery and fuel retailers.

    Our reward for stupidity is money in the pockets for investors we never see and increased unemployment. The pulp mill will require these feedstocks, trees will grow while we rely on imported food when we should grow our own.

    Woodworker, (Tree Guy), lives in Hobart. He really should see what is happening with plantations/farmland here in the North.

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  30/01/08  at  09:25 PM
  17. Yes Dave, It is really sad isnt it? I too have been back along the same route for the past week on a daily basis.
    The trucks travel at a fair velocity too! No police,no cameras but a lot of trucks and tourists.
    It is interesting, I thought, that you have plantations on the northern side of the Bridport road and vegetables on the other side.
    I wonder how “Clean and Green” they are….

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  31/01/08  at  06:21 AM
  18. The problem is that these are tourist routes. Tasmania has got so used to people from the north island coming here and being blown away by the beauty, that it’s being taken for granted. I too was one of those tourists years ago and eventually relocated here, just in time to see it all start disappearing.
    A recent trip to southern NSW was actually very nice. If we’re not careful tourists are simply going to stop coming here. It’s expensive, whether you fly/hire or come by ferry, Tasmanian operators have some strange ideas about the price/service equation and the natural beauty of the place is fast vanishing.
    Perhaps that’s what they want, then they can get on with converting the whole place into a giant plantation without any interference!

    Posted by Steve  on  31/01/08  at  07:40 AM
  19. #17 Very good point Tony, vegetable production isn’t very “clean and green” at all with its huge chemical and soil destroying inputs year in and year out.

    Posted by Lister  on  31/01/08  at  08:12 AM
  20. 18 @19.
          never the less that should not deter us from the the growing of vegetables, the point is , that we have to embrace and or learn to do things better and without insecticides ,after all they only guarantee more crop for a given area ! and are designed to maximise profits.
          I have an apple tree ! christ knows how old it is and it gets pruned when i think of it which is about twice in thirty years , sure not all the fruit looks particularly brilliant, but the taste is out of this world, the same with oranges , next time you buy some dont go for the nicest looking ones (which most people do) look for the scungy ones ! they taste better and whats more ! much easier to peel and they are cheaper !

    Posted by don davey  on  31/01/08  at  06:25 PM
  21. Press Releases
    Don Davey - Examiner 15/08/07


    Don Davey questions why the pulp mill debate has not queried whether to
    continue with world deforestation (Letters 14/8/07). He notes that it is third
    world countries that are being affected by deforestation.

    Don Davey is correct in bringing this important consideration into the pulp mill
    debate. Tasmania’s sustainably managed forests are regenerated after
    harvesting and our forest area is increasing every year. The WWF found that
    Australia has an ecological surplus with our forests growing at 4.5 times the
    rate that they are being harvested. Despite this, Australia has a trade deficit
    of over $2 billion dollars in forest and wood products, including paper.

    Included in the top 5 countries that we are importing from are Indonesia and
    Malaysia who have far less regulation than we do and where deforestation
    through illegal logging is rife. Deforestation in Indonesia has made it the third
    largest contributor to greenhouse gases in the world.

    Deforestation in third world countries is not a reason to stop the building of a
    pulp mill in Tasmania; it is precisely the reason why we should. We have a
    moral imperative to produce as much of our own needs as possible and stop
    relying on third world countries to produce forest and wood products for us.

              BLOODY PRICKS !

    Posted by don davey  on  31/01/08  at  09:53 PM
  22. Don’t know why you are surprised Don. The exg rag twists our words, and we are right up on the warring forestry front line, with a direct line, and the message still can’t get through, our carrier pigeons shot down in flames. But good on you for trying.

    Interestingly enough when an acting editor was recently asked “surely you must have noticed the drop in newspaper sales, he said, “yes, and we commissioned a report.” He was asked “Due to the pulp mill? “No”, he said, “we don’t why.” Wonder how much they paid for a report that said what they already knew, but still could not answer ‘why’? Maybe they got the lennon government to do the report!

    But then again he also said it was only 5 people who write on TT (very close to “The same 6 or 7 people”, Tasman, recently said). With that type of ability to count, no wonder some can’t count the true cost to the environment, the state and its inhabitants. Let alone the cost to their, (depending on the story - exaggerating/understating) business.

    But further to agricultural land. The Burnie Council should be congratulated for their request from the government to stop plantations on good agricultural land.

    Council wants no new tree plantations

    Let’s hope other councils follow suit. Let’s also hope Burnie Council leads the charge for change, in taking seriously people’s concerns on the effects on the environment, rural communities and on peoples health from the cut, burn, poison industry.

    More importantly, let’s hope the Lennon government listens. (Which they’ll only pretend do the closer we get to the state election.)

    This forest industry has already destroyed and threatened too much and too many without knowing the long term effects of their rampant government subsidized destruction.

    Posted by Charles and Claire Gilmour  on  01/02/08  at  06:32 PM
  23. (16)
        Tony !  Not having seen this post in the “EX. letters”, and believing it needed a far greater audience than is afforded this place i tendered it for publication.
        Rather than change any wording, i submitted it as written, however the last time i did this acknowledging the author ! i was phoned with the message that any document needs to be presented by the author and that the presenter is the one responsible for same.

        It appeared in todays (sunday) paper ! Hope your cool with that ! as i reckon it was a good piece ! and the cause needs all the help it can get !

    Posted by don davey  on  03/02/08  at  04:58 PM
  24. It is OK Don. I was a little confused about how it all came about, but agree.

    I congratulate you in getting it printed in its entirety, usually the local paper in Launceston hacks it to shreds and much of the thrust of the original letter is lost.

    Thanks for the post, it clears things up and yes it is an important lesson on what is happening, slowly and almost unnoticed at the time.

    At this moment a similar property up past Deddington ,(Nth Tas), is also going the same way. A huge acreage known as “Uplands” is being prepared for plantation. One third of the property is being “developed” by Gunns and further plantings have not been ruled out there. A massive amount of agricultural and grazing land will be lost for decades.
    This area is prime meat and wool country and is in easy reach of the pulp mill, if built.

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  03/02/08  at  07:07 PM
  25. (24)
        Thanks for that Tony , i don,t particularly like taking the Kudo,s for someone elses writing, however i thought it important enough to be aired on a larger stage .
        Perhaps the 25 years or so of sending letters to them has given me a little cred (on average 4—-5 a week i send to all three papers and since the P.C. approx 35 mainland rags) which has given me a better than average chance of publication.
        I would stress upon everyone that even though one letter doesn’t make it !  don’t let that deter you from continuing to do so as it is the “only way” you will get your message to the population at large, so start typing !

    Posted by don davey  on  04/02/08  at  12:01 AM
  26. I have to commend Dr Brain on a good piece of work.

    In one of the press statements he is reported to have asked why this work wasn’t done 12 months ago. In fact, a preliminary analysis along the lines undertaken by Dr Brain was undertaken in September 06 as part of the Greens RPDC submission by myself and Prof Andrew Wadsley. Dr Brain’s approach, particularly the ability to compare to an alternative modelling framework make his a far more compelling and complete contribution, as is appropriate.

    The range of values suggested is fundamentally similar, although the main potential cost in our work was the air emissions health cost, but which is fairly low in his approach. The consumption rate errors identified by Dr Brain are parallel to the unexplained increase in foreign debt identified in our analysis (which enables the unfunded increase in consumption).

    The potential loss of the existing mills is a new issue, one which should be considered carefully by the community. There is a question whether these mills will close anyway, with the problem that with globalisation, one must get to world scale or get out. But if the fundamental issue facing all industrial processes is remaining environmentally compliant with ever increasing environmental and health awareness, the Gunns mill is looking obsolescent before it is even built. It would be ironic, if in the quest for value-adding, we no longer produce paper and only produce pulp, but in far greater quantities.

    Posted by Alex Wadsley  on  04/02/08  at  05:38 PM
  27. (13)
        don’t know how i missed the last sentence Tony. i too, have a couple of interesting and sympathetic ears “in side the dark side”

    Posted by don davey  on  05/02/08  at  04:02 PM
  28. As a tourist in Tasmania, I’d like to comment on Dave Mohr’s post regarding the increase in logging traffic. I have taken flying lessons at George Town airport and have had the opportunity to fly much of the East Coast. The amount of clear cutting visible from 3000’ is truly staggering. Much of this is not apparent at all from the main roads. It amounts to a huge, and I mean HUGE, subtraction of Tasmania’s natural heritage.

    It is equally chilling from the aerial perspective to see how many still pristine marine areas will be vulnerable to pollution should the mill be built. I can’t envision how anyone would feel safe eating seafood from the area post mill. Contaminated seafood from the N. Coast will affect all of Tasmania’s fishermen even in King Is. and the West Coast. It will be hard to refind a lost reputation for environmentally pure food products (this of course will also apply to agriculture).

    I wish all Tasmanians great effort in your fight to stop this mill.
    The stakes are huge now and for the generations of Tasmanians to follow.

    Posted by David Alford  on  08/02/08  at  01:21 AM
  29. Hi there, I ‘ve just come back from 3 weeks holiday in Tas and have to say you guys are killing your tourism industry.  We were shocked by the destruction of the forests - the very thing we came to see.  It was much worse than when we last visited in 2004. Also shocked by reports of contamination of water,  fire retardant chemicals found in devils etc etc. Add to the that the sight of ‘organic’ farms alongside forest plantations - which we know are sprayed with chemicals, the fully loaded log trucks that tail gate you all along the main tourist routes, the ‘kill a greenie’ stickers, the culture of silence (eg reports in the paper that performers are the George Town Fest were asked not to sing anti pulp mill songs!!) and we came away thinking the whole ‘clean green’ image is really a big con.

    Driving down to Tas from NSW with the family and then taking the boat is very expensive.  People only do it for the natural beauty which Tasmania seems to be destroying as fast as it can. We got plenty of nice markets and food wine here in NSW but what we don’t have and what makes Tas unique are the old forests - why on earth would you continue to chop them down? Not to mention the obvious link between chopping down old forest and climate change, the impact on the water table etc etc.

    We spent money in local businesses, stayed in local b&b;‘s, bought works from local artists, in fact spent heaps of $$. Your state has the most beautiful natural resources, lots of friendly people, interesting history and really could the best place in Australia if it really was the clean green place it portrays itself as in the tourism brochures!

    If the mill goes ahead I think you can say goodnight to your tourism industry.  Mainlanders aren’t so dumb that they can’t see what’s going on - the place is being plundered at a furious rate.  Good luck to those brave enough to keep up the fight!

    Posted by Liz  on  08/02/08  at  09:19 AM
  30. Hello, Liz and Everyone! I am from Switzerland, and I have been coming to Tasmania since 1992, every few years. We have been staying with good friends who live in the Tamar Valley. I think this could be my last trip here, because I too am very shocked by the changes and how badly is becoming spoiled the beautiful nature in Tasmania.

    This nature is why I come to here, not to see too fast logging trucks that make you very scared, plantations with one kind of tree instead of wild bush, and most sad of all pulp mills. Those i can see in Europe, if I want to, which I don’t. I am hoping very strongly that this will not get built. When I am home in Switzerland I am telling everyone what is happening in the beutiful ‘hertz insel’ far south. In Switzerland we only dream of beutiful beaches like you have here and I cannot believe that a factory is allowed to put chemical pollution into the clean sea like this pulp mill.
    Please, what can you do to stop the terrible destroying of Tasmania’s nature and your special animals?
    U & H

    Posted by U & H From Switzerland  on  08/02/08  at  11:52 AM
  31. They sell Tamar Valley dairy products at my local supermarket in Sydney - ‘from the pristine Tamar Valley.’ As well as affecting tourism the pulp mill will kill off this industry too. Some people will make money but the rest of the Tasmanians will have to live with the consequences.

    Posted by Liz  on  08/02/08  at  08:55 PM
  32. How do you balance the environmental books when you don’t have the relevant entries for the debits?
    Dr Alison Bleaney
    Accounts fail to value environment
    ENVIRONMENTAL assets account for more than 40 per cent of the total value of Australia but changes in their value are not included in me…

    Posted by alison bleaney  on  08/02/08  at  10:49 PM
  33. RE #28-29-30
    How is this story a contrast to our well oiled propaganda machine?
    Here we go:,22884,23183079-3462,00.html

    TV. film to focus on state
    Article from: THE MERCURY

    February 09, 2008 12:00am

    TASMANIA is to star in the international spotlight as dozens of American TV producers, filmmakers and global company chiefs flock to the state in the next six months to prepare movies, cable TV shows and product promotions.

    Corporate giants like Lexus, Adobe and National Geographic will come to Tasmania and use the state’s beauty to promote their brands, and US restaurant chain Legal Sea Foods wants to add Tasmanian products to a new grocery line.
    Several prominent US TV personalities, including wildlife guru Jack Hanna—America’s answer to Steve Irwin—plan to film wildlife documentaries, cooking programs and travel segments for cable TV.

    Tourism Tasmania CEO Felicia Mariani revealed the coup yesterday after 12 days in Los Angeles and New York for the G’Day USA festival.

    Ms Mariani said she had visited G’Day USA in previous years when working in Sydney and Melbourne—and last year when representing Tasmania—but had never seen a response as strong as the one for Tasmania this year.

    She said Americans were beginning to realise there was far more to Australia than red dusty deserts and kangaroos and were attracted to the clean, green, pristine nature and “exoticness” of Tasmania.

    “It was absolutely fantastic,” Ms Mariani said of the trip.

    “I was just blown away by the reception we got . . . I got the sense people actually understood a lot more about Tasmania than last year.

    “We were absolutely flavour of the month.”

    She said there were now many exciting prospects in the pipeline, and most were a direct result of the US visit.

    She said it was not uncommon for the odd filmmaker to come to Tasmania, but to have so many in one six-month period was unheard of.

    And she said in a place like the US where there were about 300 million people—and where a 30-second TV ad could cost as much as $2.6 million in peak times like the Super Bowl—all the publicity would be fantastic for tourism.

    Among the planned visits:

    # Destination-based cooking show Pressure Cook is set to film cable TV segments from Tasmania in March.
    # Wildlife guru Jack Hanna will visit in April to film a wildlife documentary.
    # Lifestyle/travel program Bringing It Home to film segments for cable TV in April.
    # National Geographic Kids to host a major adventure challenge in Tasmania, providing publicity on TV and online.
    PBS to make a film on the plight of the Tasmanian devil.
    # Major US restaurant chain Legal Sea Foods to introduce Tasmanian produce in September, offering huge export and tourism opportunities.

    # Lexus to do a photo shoot/travel story to be sent to Lexus car owners in the US.

    # Software giant Adobe to do a major promo for a new photographic software package to be launched later this year.

    Posted by Another Woodworker  on  09/02/08  at  04:03 AM
  34. A tour of the North East such as TAP organised a month or two back showing the serried ranks of plantation nitens marching across to the horizon and the unsightly results of clearfelling, contrasting with the mature native forest we also visited would be a much more gob smacking event for the U.S. visitors. I suspect it would also be a general tourist attraction: ‘See the real Tasmania - while you still can!’
    The occasional allusion to the atrazine, symazine, 1080 and their downstream effects should add a certain something too. Oh, and let’s not forget salmonella-laced eggs on the menu.

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  09/02/08  at  10:20 AM
  35. Weekend Australian, Feb. 9 & 10. Page 60.
    Holly Kerr-Forsyth’s Gardening column.
    Writing on the transformation of the Old Wesley Vale property in the Chudleigh Valley, her final paragraph reads: ‘Get to the Chudleigh Valley quickly, before the clear- fell logging of native forests to be replaced with a mono- culture of Tasmanian Blue Gum changes forever the physical and cultural geography of this beautiful place.’

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  09/02/08  at  02:10 PM
  36. And Mike, re #35, they made a mistake in saying “replaced with a mono-culture of Tasmanian Blue Gum….”, because the replacement plantations are almost exclusively the mainland species, eucalyptus nitens, favoured weed of Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania. Any detractors who believe this is not a problem should come and see for themselves and talk to people directly affected by overspraying, loss of water etc, etc.

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  09/02/08  at  06:03 PM
  37. Having owned two small grazing properties in and outside of Chudleigh, I can vouch that this is very much the case, Mike. This is prime grazing and cropping land that is wasted on plantation. Because of its high rainfall and fertile soil, it is being targeted for growing trees at an accelerated rate.

    It is also a limestone karst area, with subteranean water systems that eventually run into the Lobster rivulet. Many residents in Chudleigh proper, draw their drinking water through a community pipeline directly from the Lobster.

    Much of Chudleigh is divided on Forestry. Generations have worked small timber mills, responsibly selective logging, leaving unsuitable timber and understory to reseed for the following generation,but these people still feel a link to timber harvesting. Many of the locals however, do not support current Forestry practice.

    The small mills are almost gone,(2 left in Mole Ck), and farms are being gobbled up for trees. People commute further now for work.
    The water in the Lobster is now virtually undrinkable. Creeks like Cubitt’s is so badly silted from Forestry that it no longer runs along the course that it carved eons ago.

    The beauty of Chudleigh is vanishing. The whole area is going under. What was once a prime tourist destination and food bowl will be gone.

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  09/02/08  at  06:56 PM
  38. #35 Holly Kerr-Forsyth got that one seriously wrong (as apparently also Adams).  I wonder from where she got that gem of misinformation?  Why is it that the foes of the Tasmanian forest industry have never had the decency to acknowledge the mid 2007 announcement by Forestry Tasmania, Forest Enterprises and Gunns that they had voluntarily ceasing the conversion of native forest into plantations?

    Posted by lister  on  09/02/08  at  09:35 PM
  39. That may be so, Lister, but conversion of agricultural land - our food producing land - continues apace. This is undeniable. If you could see the overlay maps that Mike referred to in posting 12 above (that Robert Belcher of Sustainable Agriculture Societies Australia used during his recent forum presentation) you might be shocked at the correlation between prime agricultural land and what has already been converted. Gunns boast in their prospectus to potential MIS investors that they target best rainfall and soil areas to establish euc. nitens plantations. This just happens to also be the best land to grow food. This is NOT fanciful stuff - it is factual and you can check it out for yourself.

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  10/02/08  at  12:37 AM
  40. Thanks. Lister. However, the damage is done. The word is out and spreading. The worm is in the tourism apple.

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  10/02/08  at  07:02 AM
  41. Valleywatcher (#39), it’s interesting to observe what’s currently happening in NZ.  Due to higher returns by the dairying industry, plantation areas are now being converted into pasture.  The Greens, quite rightly, are jumping up and down about this land use change.  They argue that the forestry use is the far better one and should remain, as dairying significantly degrades and pollute waterways when compared to plantations.  They also correctly point out that the loss of plantations to grass decreases the net sequestered carbon.

    It seems to me that the posturing we see in Tasmania when land use change goes in the other direction is more about pillorying the forest industry rather than a logical debate.

    Land use has never been static, and I wonder if we’ll ever see the NZ debate arrive in Tasmania.  I look forward to that sweet irony!

    Posted by lister  on  10/02/08  at  10:35 AM
  42. I reckon #30 is not really by “U & H from Switzerland” at all, but an inept concoction by Valleybotcher, whose email address it matches.

    My reasons for this suspicion (which I do not claim to be absolutely certain about - it just appears rather likely) are as follows:

    1. Valleybotcher has recently posted under an account name other than her own (“Don’s Pal”) on another thread, and hence has form in this regard.

    2. If the author of the post was a genuinely fluent German speaker who just happened to be staying with Valleybotcher and using her computer, the spelling mistakes would have been confined to English, and they would have written not “hertz insel” but “herz insel”.  “Herz” means “heart” while “hertz” is either a unit of measurement or a rent-a-car company.

    It is ironic that I am frequently accused of posting under false names when I don’t do so and there is not a shred of evidence that I do, but there is far more reason to suspect that Valleybotcher does so.

    I expect Valleybotcher to make some lame excuse for responding to this post despite having said she will not engage with me further.

    I’d also be very slightly interested to know why “Liz” calls herself “Liz” when her email address suggests her name is “Cath” - and by the way Liz/Cath, NSW has old-growth forests too.

    Usual disclaimer applies.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  10/02/08  at  01:55 PM
  43. Succinctly put, Gerry Mander, and any one who refuses to even acknowledge that there MIGHT be something to all this is seriously deluding themselves.

    We are doing as Mike Bolan has suggested and getting our household on to a self-supporting basis. We plan to be reliant upon no-one but ourselves for water, energy and most food as soon as we can possibly achieve it. Transport is the difficult one, with public transport in this state being such that one cannot rely on it for all transport needs.

    No more Chinese garlic for us!

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  10/02/08  at  02:12 PM
  44. 43; Kevin, I’m afraid that your suspicions appear to be correct regarding the Swiss connection. Disappointing on two fronts; firstly that someone would play such a game, and secondly that they would do it so ineptly.
    Jury’s out on “Liz”.
    If it’s any help, I’ve been working for the last twelve months with someone from Switzerland and the sentiments expressed about what Tassie is doing to itself would not have differed greatly from Valley Watchers.
    Personally, I have done the opposite to Liz (real or not) and   had a holiday in NSW prior to Christmas. My conclusion was that Tassie had better lift it’s game. I looked all over Australia before deciding to settle in Tasmania and at the time of my research there was no contest. Now, well, the SE corner looks pretty good; although I think that if this mill goes ahead it’s going to be goodbye to Australia for a while. Time will tell!

    Posted by Steve  on  10/02/08  at  06:02 PM
  45. Just a point about the agriculture versus plantations argument.

    At one stage that land was native forest. So we’re saying that clearfelling per se isn’t a bad thing if the land is used for agriculture. But clearfelling and then putting in a plantation is bad.

    Just wanted to clear that up for the “milk comes from a carton” types who might not realise that farms were once native forest.

    Posted by Shaun  on  10/02/08  at  08:29 PM
  46. “U & H from Switzerland” are very real people - friends of ours from Intragna, recently returned home. I expect they will post again after arriving home and recovering from jetlag - it will be from their own email address, of course.

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  10/02/08  at  10:04 PM
  47. Re 47; Thank goodness for that Valley Watcher. I must apologise for thinking that you were playing a foolish game. Too easy for such things to backfire.
    Kevin Bonham did float the visitor on your computer theory but it didn’t seem very likely to me as I assumed any visitor would alter the E.Mail address field to reflect their own address.

    Posted by Steve  on  11/02/08  at  07:48 AM
  48. (38) Lister, you are the one who has got it seriously wrong. 

    Forestry has not stopped all conversion of state forest to plantations.

    Besides the fact some so called regrowth forests are grown in such a way as to have only one species of euc.  Ie,  after clearfelling, they wait until the natural regrowth has started growing for a couple of years, then burn it, killing the variety of plants, then aerial spray, often only with one species of euc, and so thickly, understorey trees and specialty trees have little chance to regrow. Which basically creates higgledy piggledy plantations rather than straight row plantations. 

    You have obviously also not looked closely enough at Forestry’s next 3 year coupe plans for the state.  (We have created a spread sheet for the whole state – prior to FT taking away public access on their website). Otherwise you would know Forestry has factored in approx 1600 ha (including contingency coupes) of native forest to be clearfelled and early clearfelled to then be converted to (HWS) hardwood plantations.

    Just a few coupe numbers are:

    Planned clearfelled native forest to be converted to hardwood plantation.

    In Bass District
    BS126D - 80 ha
    BS114E - 50 ha
    BS114G - 15 ha
    BS114H - 25 ha
    FL109A - 35 ha
    RR186G - 20 ha

    Planned early clearfell of regrowth forest to be converted to Hardwood plantation. (So much for leaving the previously clearfelled and regrown regrowth for 90 years!)

    In Derwent District.
    FO006C – 93 ha
    FO018C – 130 ha
    TI004A – 76 ha
    TI004C – 42 ha
    TI006B – 62 ha

    In Huon District.
    AR073D – 25 ha
    AR078F – 50 ha
    HP011E – 37 ha

    Who’s deliberately misleading who?

    How does FT explain this???? 

    And let’s face it, FT and Gunns did not miraculously become endowed with an environmental conscience in the middle of 2007. Too many had been proven right about the rampant march of these plantations across the native landscape. They were losing the fight on that front. They had no choice but to try and appease, by saying they had stopped conversion.

    Maybe people should adopt a native forest coupe or series of coupes and see and experience for themselves how inconsiderate and inconsistent this current forest industry is.

    Posted by Charles and Claire Gilmour  on  11/02/08  at  09:04 AM
  49. Ah, I see that Valleybotcher has engaged with a claim I made only days after saying (on another thread) “That’s it - I won’t engage with you again.”  This confirms my suspicion, posted on that other thread before she returned to the fray, that Valleybotcher is “another weak troll faking quitting the argument like the rest of them [who] will be unable to resist replying to my posts sometime again.”  Ninety percent of them do so inside a week! It also demonstrates how clueless Valleybotcher is about online discourse, because anyone with the slightest clue knows that you should only walk away when you are certain nothing the other person could say will provoke you to respond.  And finally, it demonstrates that Valleybotcher is unreliable, because she says she’ll stop engaging, then doesn’t do it!

    I look forward to U+H’s explanation of why they spelled “herz” with a t!

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  11/02/08  at  10:55 AM
  50. We recently had people stay too Steve (49). I think they were unaware that they could use their own email address whilst using my PC.

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  11/02/08  at  12:13 PM
  51. U & H are a great couple, Steve. They run a holiday village above Intragna, only accessible by a foot track. Worth a visit if you are in that area. Check out their bona fides at
    They love Tasmania and have been visiting here every couple of years for a long time, but are fairly dismayed by what they have seen this time.

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  11/02/08  at  02:06 PM
  52. in response to 28 and 30, Liz and U&H;. Please spread the word, help us win this fight. The bigger this gets the better. The more pressure we have from world wide citizens the better. Tasmania is here for ALL to enjoy, just because we live here does not mean that you can’t help us with the fight. I find that the wilderness society and the Tasmanian’s against the pulp mill websites always have great suggestions for how we can all help to make our voices, about the atrocity of a pulp mill in the tamer valley, heard. Lets all fight the rich bastards and keep Tasmania a great place to holiday and live!

    Posted by elisha  on  11/02/08  at  04:01 PM
  53. Dairy farms do not deplete groundwater nearly as much as either plantations or re-afforestation.  The carbon sequestration point, however, (#42) is valid at least in the short term.  Plantation trees, however, are cut down and chipped, and the end products are ultimately destroyed or left to rot, thus releasing the carbon anyway.

    As for waterway pollution and catchment degradation, if there were decent, enforced laws, then neither land use need be detrimental.  Profits, however, would be considerably less.  At least dairy farmers don’t use 1080.

    David Rennie

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  11/02/08  at  04:14 PM
  54. 51; You’re sounding a tad shrill Kevin. Better sit down and take your medication. Valleywatcher could just as easily be replying to my erroneous assumption (45) that U & H were suspect; albeit my assumption was based on your original comment.

    Posted by Steve  on  11/02/08  at  04:33 PM
  55. (56) You got it in one, Steve!

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  11/02/08  at  10:07 PM
  56. Could it be that U and H were using the ‘D.D. Spelling Book’?

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  12/02/08  at  03:46 AM
  57. In my view, Dr Bonham spends too much time with conspiracy theories. The point made by myself and U&H;is that continuing logging of old growth forests and the building of the pulp mill (if it goes ahead) will impact substantially on your tourism and export industries.  Tasmania’s ‘clean green’ image must be worth plenty to your economy and yet this is under serious threat. Has this been factored into the assessment of economic impacts?

    Posted by liz  on  12/02/08  at  10:13 AM
  58. Re #62:  What assessment of economic impacts?  If my memory serves me correctly, the State Gov’t assessment process was designed to require only an assessment of ‘economic benefits’; any assessment of negative economic impacts was specifically ruled out of the process.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  12/02/08  at  11:59 AM
  59. No, Liz (62) it hasn’t, and that is the whole point that many of us have been trying to make. When we do so we are denigrated and belittled and accused of being ‘green’. To some this is almost a criminal thing to be, for some obscure reason, but that’s another issue.

    Gunns were required to do ‘economic modelling’ in their IIS, but the report they commissioned and which seems to have been unconditionally accepted by the government, dealt only with benefits, not the costs and is therefore very lop-sided and biased in favour of the report’s commissioners (They paid for what they got - they got what they paid for).

    There have been many costs identified to established industries and residents in the Tamar Valley, but when asked about this seeming one-sided bias to their report the consultancy (Allen)declared that looking at any adverse mill effects was beyond their brief.

    Other economic reports have come up with quite different results to the Allen Report, but these are all dismissed as ‘greenie propoganda’, no matter how well credentialled are their authors.

    C’est la vie en Tasmania!

    (Re 60: Mike, sometyimes, oner hitds nmore thanb oner keyu at a tyime! Happrends tyo nme all the tuime!)

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  12/02/08  at  01:22 PM
  60. Liz/Cath (#62), given that I have not asserted any conspiracies anywhere on this thread, your claim is incorrect.  Actually I could show you plenty of places on the net where I have expressed my dim views of conspiracy theory generally, and you see some pretty nutty conspiracy theories from some of the green-leaning types here sometimes!  I just think that given the easy anonymity of this site, people who are posting claiming to be from interstate or overseas and to hold a certain view should be completely upfront about who they are, and preferably in a verifiable fashion.  I don’t have any suspicion that your comments in particular aren’t genuine. 

    Re #56, no Steve, you are totally wrong about that.  Both your post #45 and Valleybotcher’s #47 were cleared at the same time (Linz often clears an evening’s posts the next morning.  My email notifications of them were sent at 8:11am and 8:12am Monday morning respectively) so it was completely impossible for Valleybotcher to have read your post prior to submitting hers several hours before yours was cleared.  Valleybotcher had only seen my post and not yours when responding.

    Looks like I don’t need that medication you were so excitably referring to; here, you have it!  :)

    This all makes it very interesting indeed that Valleybotcher attempts to confirm your account with her #59 saying that you had “got it in one”, when in fact, based on the clearance times indicated by the emails, Valleybotcher would *know* that #56 is nonsense and that she was indeed replying to my comment.

    The explanation raised by Valleybotcher in #60 (hitting the wrong key) seems quite plausible given that T is next to R (and to be fair, I suspect that is what happened now that she mentions it). 

    However, the main point of firing off #43 (though I was genuinely suspicious of the post at the time) was to teach Valleybotcher a lesson about (i) claiming you are quitting engaging with people when you don’t actually have the will to stand by it - it only encourages them to up the ante (and I don’t owe Valleybotcher any favours given her personal and professional abuse in my direction) (ii) that posting under multiple names breeds mistrust.

    As for my use of the term “Valleybotcher” (kindly raised in #57, and I thank the dishonourable member for his question!), the first time VB and I interacted there was an unfortunate misunderstanding, which was cleared up OK with apologies on both sides and no harm done.  The second time, however, was on this thread:
    where VB launched abusive personal and professional attacks based on a complete straw-man of what I was saying. 

    I corrected her on it but on this one:
    Valleybotcher continued the abusive nonsense and called me by an incorrect version of my name (#47).  I am therefore entitled to respond in kind, and did so (#53), and shall probably continue to do so until Valleybotcher retracts all her previous incorrect attacks and undertakes to desist from same in the future!

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  12/02/08  at  08:02 PM
  61. 66; Oh dear. Who really cares??

    Posted by Steve  on  13/02/08  at  07:51 AM
  62. Well Steve, you cared enough to bother saying unkind things about me that turned out to be unfounded in #56!  I suggest you be more apathetic in the future.  :)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  13/02/08  at  10:49 PM
  63. 68; Fair comment Kevin but I didn’t mean to be unkind. I was pointing out, admittedly in a slightly sarcastic manner, that you were, well, sounding a bit shrill. Of course Valley Watcher read your comment but they didn’t respond to you directly. A case could easily be made that they ignored your comment but realised that an obvious error could be made and were simply correcting in advance. To leap upon their explanation with such manifestations of glee…. well, really?

    Posted by Steve  on  14/02/08  at  05:16 PM
  64. Re 69: You got it in, well, two, Steve. My previous comment was of a general nature for clarification, not a response to anyone in particular. ‘U&H;’ are back home in Switzerland - I’ve had a couple of brief emails from them - but they are probably snowed under with work to get their beautiful holiday village ready for spring and summer visitors. Its just the two of them doing all the work and as the place can take up to 50 visitors, you can imagine it is quite a workload. I’m sure they will drop a quick response to clear up notion that they are a figment of my imagination, when they get time. This seems all rather trivial and puerile, however, when there are much bigger issues to be thinking about!

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  14/02/08  at  08:50 PM
  65. Oh come on Steve, do you really think anyone is going to fall for that?  (I’m hoping the answer there is “no” and that you’re just bored and playing devil’s advocate where the devil died of DFTD sometime before the disease was discovered.)

    Your claim I was being shrill (as I’d be entitled to be towards Valleybotcher any time I feel like it given the history discussed in #66 anyway) was part of a post that made a false claim that she could have seen your post as well as mine before replying.  Whether you would have said the same thing had you known your claim was wrong is anyone’s guess.

    If someone is caused to provide claims countering a claim I have made after reading it, then they are certainly not ignoring my comment, and they certainly are engaging with it by asserting the contrary.  Whether they are “responding to it” (though you would have a hard time establishing otherwise) is irrelevant.

    Valleybotcher engages with me again in #59 by commenting (albeit either without correctly comprehending #56 or else with dubious honesty) on your erroneous questioning of my previous comments.

    So if this is “non-engagement”, it’s an even faker version of it than Don’s.

    And furthermore, after writing #67, why do you *still* care enough to keep discussing this?

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  14/02/08  at  10:55 PM
  66. Don’t point that moot at me Kevin! You’re quite right I’m only playing. My “who cares” comment related to the length and effort you put into these trivial matters. Your “68” was admirable for it’s brevity so I thought it only polite to reply and thus encourage such restraint.
    By the way, I enjoyed your medication, was that the eight year old or the twelve?

    Posted by Steve  on  15/02/08  at  08:48 AM
  67. #70 - utter nonsense.  There was nothing to clarify until I made my comment so of course you were responding to me.  Stop making silly excuses and either retract your claim to be not engaging with me or else have the courage to cease engaging properly.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  15/02/08  at  09:19 AM
  68. Boooooooring…...*yawn*

    Posted by Bored By Bonham  on  15/02/08  at  01:01 PM
  69. 73; Of course there was something to clarify Kevin. Both I, and yourself, (is that grammatically correct? I ask in a genuine desire for knowledge)suspected U&H;due to the e.mail address being the same as Valley Watchers. Does it not seem credible that Valley Watcher, realising that friends had posted using her (I hope “her” is correct. Sue tends to indicate it, despite Johnny Cash) e.mail address rushed to the computer and posted a clarification.
    Put it another way, there’s no evidence one way or the other. Probabilities yes, evidence no.

    Posted by Steve  on  15/02/08  at  06:58 PM
  70. Yeah and #74 is so rivetingly exciting and original too!

    On many of these threads, if it wasn’t for me you’d have nothing still there to be bored by!  What would you do to find something to whinge about then?

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  15/02/08  at  07:53 PM
  71. Perhaps “yourself and I” would be better?

    Posted by Steve  on  15/02/08  at  09:17 PM
  72. Well, Steve,(75) you are absolutely right. I DID feel a general clarification was justified, since the bona fides of “U&H;” were called into question, simply because they used my computer and my email address, literally as they were rushing out the door to be taken to the Lonnie Airport.

    I’m sure, once they email from home there should be an abrupt end put to all this trivial and puerile nonsense once and for all.

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  16/02/08  at  08:58 AM
  73. Steve, I hesitate to enter into any grammatical discussion on this site given the risk of a ferocious blast from the failed grammar-pedant Ms Kim Taylor; however I believe “both you and I” would be sufficient.

    As for whether Valleybotcher could have independently realised someone might have suspected a fake, firstly, having posted several times in the two days since the post was first sent, she would have had to come to this strange realisation and post it coincidentally within less than five hours (based on clearance times) after my suspicions were posted.  Even without the coincidence in timing needed for that to happen at that moment, why would she realise there was an issue with the address only days after the post was made?  Are you suggesting her friends made the post without her knowledge? 

    Furthermore she has admitted to reading my post by saying in #70 that you had “got it” in #69, which contained “Of course Valley Watcher[sic] read your comment”.  And while her #59 is obviously rubbish, it does assert that she had read a comment on the issue (namely yours).

    Of course I did not have absolute proof of my assertion that Valleybotcher was engaging with me again when I first made it, but I was confident enough (based on my long experience of how these kinds of individuals react when they say they are quitting a debate) that I was more than willing to take the extremely small risk of being wrong.  And it turns out I was right, as Valleybotcher’s own words indicate!

    Got anything else for me, or are you going to continue posting spurious objections so that Valleybotcher can me-too them and pretend she is not engaging with me in so doing?

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  16/02/08  at  10:26 AM
  74. “hertz insel” oder “herz insel” - hahahaha
    So manche Schweizer haben gerne ihr Schweizerdeutsch in Wort und Schrift, daher wundert es mich nicht warum Hannes und Ursula Tasmanien ihre Hertzinsel nennen.
    Der Schneckendoktor sollte halt auch mal in die Schweiz reisen und lernen, daß es dort hertzliche Menschen gibt. ich muß echt lachen hahahahaha, hat der Probleme!?

    I like to thank Hannes and his partner for their truthful statements just before their return to Switzerland, it was great to see them down here again, for me the third time.
    The sad fact is that Tasmania’s society is bitterly divided. It is sad that instead of listening to and learning from the visiting ‘voices’ that tell them how unique, small and special Tasmania in reality is, the “defenders”  of these (legalised) primitive, unsustainable, third world like clearfell conversion logging are too proud and ignorant as to fundamentally change for the better.
    It is a shame for Tasmania that this kind of self delusion continues to over-shaddow this special place, due to a large promotion budget and a well oiled propaganda unit.
    The stupid clearfell, burn and sow, especially on slopes, (be it in regrowth, oldgrowth or plantation), is sold as “Best Practice - second to non” as JohnPaul often called it. They just kidding themself, but keep drumming it over and over again, until things change after all.
    How long will Canberra continue to dance to this tune?

    Posted by Frank Strie  on  16/02/08  at  03:11 PM
  75. As for “clearing up the nonsense”, it’s already been cleared up - no-one still posting is disputing that U+H are real.  What remains (since Steve and VB continue playing silly games about it instead of getting on with saving the earth from the all-consuming evil of the pulp mill, or whatever) is the question of why VB continued to engage with me after saying she would not do so, and why she has spun such a confused story of her actions by giving the me-too to three mutually inconsistent posts by Steve.

    One of Steve’s posts that she me-toos says that she could have just as easily been responding to Steve as to me (we know from the post clearance times that this is bollocks), another says that she had seen my post and the third suggests she might not have.  Clearly to agree with all of those, VB must be one confused puppy (or troll).

    Anyway we finally have it straight from the confused puppy’s mouth in #78 - she was writing in because of something she read, and we know she could have only seen my post and not Steve’s, ergo she most certainly was engaging with me, which she said she would not do.

    By the way, while it’s 20 years since I studied German and while I’m unwilling to risk a reply in same language lest it be grammatically incorrect, I can still read Frank’s #81 well enough to see that he is saying that “hertz” is a Swiss-German spelling.  On those rare instances that I am incorrect about anything I say here (and note that I never claimed to be certain of it :) ) I am always happy to be corrected!

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  16/02/08  at  06:37 PM
  76. Oh well, I think we’ve done this one to death. I think “74” has a very valid point. I suppose the only thing remaining is for Kevin to offer an apology to U&H;for doubting their antecedents. No point apologising to Valley Watcher as it won’t be read?!

    Posted by Steve  on  16/02/08  at  10:14 PM
  77. Ah, but re #83 I never actually said U+H don’t exist!  I do, of course, apologise for questioning their spelling when in fact it was my own understanding of strange regional spellings that was deficient.  I have the same problem with Americans sometimes.  ;)

    And the reason there is no point apologising to Valleybotcher is that VB has a long queue of more serious offences to apologise for that came before this particular effort, as detailed in #66.

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  17/02/08  at  12:18 PM
  78. Gerry, does it come out of my Pulpmill cheque that Lennon promised us? Let’ see…
      $860- a year,
            $600- debt subsidy,
            $260- cheque.
    The way I figure it, that puts a extra 70 cents a day in my pocket! Ahh, what to spend it on…

    Next question; Does this $300 mill include the cost of road death and injuries? Each death was calculated to cost the public at ,I think, around the $1.5 mill mark and Gunns calculates an extra death every 2 years due to the pulpmill.(Injuries weren’t calculated).

    I think that I should resurrect my Gunns account, it is starting to look like I will owe them money…

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  17/02/08  at  12:47 PM
  79. Thanks, Ursula, for setting the record straight. I don’t think you need to apologize - anyone who is pretty fluent in four (or is it five?) languages, as I know you are, can be excused for a few errors of spelling, grammar or the odd typo!

    Hope you come back to a pulp mill-free Tasmania in a few years.

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  18/02/08  at  07:05 AM
  80. As a newcomer to this site, I find it generally to be a refreshing change from mainstream media, covering some thought-provoking and sometimes controversial material: the kind of stuff the mainstream media tends not to want to touch at all. There is a great deal of interesting reading provided by some very erudite and lucid contributors and some equally scintillating responses from readers.

    One exception seems to be this “Dr Shrill” who has been carrying on at rather nauseating length about meaningless minutiae on this thread, and possibly on others, too, that I have not yet found.

    To that Dr person, I offer a few quotes from some wiser heads for him to ponder:

    “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength” - Eric Hoffer

    “Whoever sets himself up as judge of Truth and Knowledge is bound to be shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods” - Einstein

    “A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle” - Benjamin Franklin

    “He was like a cock who thought the sun had risen to hear him crow” George Eliot

    Have a dorky day


    Posted by Horse Badorties  on  19/02/08  at  11:07 AM
  81. Yee-ha, another no-name rides in on a crippled donkey to try to bring the savage outlaw to heel (#88). 

    Frankly Horse, I think you should leave the argument-by-quote-from-famous-person approach to fifth-rate cut-and-paste-out-of-context types like Bryan Patterson.  After all, if you read this site carefully you will notice that many of my posts are aimed directly at those who set themselves up as judges of truth and knowledge without first checking that they have either scientific fact on their side or a clue about how to argue their case. 

    As for rudeness, you will find that I cop plenty from some of the more pitiable dingbats here on various threads, much of it originating from their indifference to relevant truths about the issues they’re discussing.  Sure, I can be feisty in return and carry that over to other threads if I suspect they are repeating their silly behaviour there, but in general I am just returning fire.

    Indeed, if you find the repetitive green backslapping that dominates so many of the threads here “erudite”, “lucid” and “scintillating” (and dish out empty high-school essay cliches like “interesting” and “thought-provoking”) then you’re just not up to the standard required to judge whether those quotes are actually of the slightest merit or relevance.  Implying I’m an egomaniac and not even presenting evidence for it?  Sheesh, that act’s so harmless I generally don’t even bother defending against it anymore!  :)

    As for the “minutae”, the discussions about them would not proceed far if others did not find them of interest; in this case Steve (among others) has devoted several posts to the same minute examination of the Valleybotcher/E+H saga.  I don’t aim to swamp threads in minor details; I just go where the debate happens to take me.  If other posters choose to engage me on the minutae instead of just letting them go (if they’re really so irrelevant!) then so be it. 

    Horse, you’re arguing like an equine flu case so far; I suggest you go see a vet!  :)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  19/02/08  at  09:45 PM
  82. # 88 You are absolutely correct. 
    The only way to deal with our resident Doctor is to refuse to engage with him, unfortunately too many are unable to resist the temptation to take his bait which only feeds the whole situation and which results in threads getting bogged down in “meaningless minutae” yet again.  Hang around for a while and watch it happen over and over and over and over…... *yawn*

    Whilst the Doctor occasionally has some useful contributions to make, he gets his jollys out of repetitious word and mind games which makes for pretty booooooring reading…...*yawn*

    Posted by Bored By Bonham  on  20/02/08  at  01:37 PM
  83. Is it politically correct on TT to pick on Switzerland and all the lovely things the Swiss have done that make them a breed for us colonials to take notice of?  Can U&H; send millions hidden in numbered bank accounts back to the Bell Resources shareholders?  Can the Swiss return the wealth back to the Jews they robbed during WW2?  Do I need to go on?

    Posted by lister  on  20/02/08  at  05:41 PM
  84. #91 is yet another dill engaging with me by lecturing its fellow dills on why they shouldn’t engage with me.  Indeed this particular dill is so devoted to its lofty ideals of non-engagement with me that it even has my surname in its username!

    Change the “bored” to “gored” and it would probably be closer to the mark!  :)

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  20/02/08  at  07:41 PM
  85. Lister, dont mention the war! That leads to the Nazis, then Hitler, then the thread is…..Bugger!

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  21/02/08  at  05:53 AM
  86. Oh, dear Dr Shrill, you are obviously not paying enough attention! For your further elucidation, I offer this:
    “As empty vessels make the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest blabbers” - Plato

    Also, since you appear to be inclined somewhat to overbearing pedantry, might I point out that you used the word “minutae”, not once, but twice in post #89. I think you will find that the word is “minutiae”.

    Posted by Horse Badorties  on  21/02/08  at  09:21 AM
  87. Well kiddies ! i just know that you’ve missed my brilliant repartee this past week , had to go to Hobart to see my old dad and the laptop “shit itself” anyway ! nuthin’s changed i see ! some new names ...!

    Posted by don davey  on  21/02/08  at  12:33 PM
  88. Weak comeback, Horse. I don’t rate Plato, I see little evidence of “wit” from you, and the “empty vessel” here is the one attempting arguments from authority by quoting from famousoids. 

    Also if you hadn’t just blown in the door (assuming you are really a new poster and not just another hydra) you’d know that calling me “shrill” is harmless. Brenda Rosser cornered the Tas Times market in shrillness years ago leaving very little for the rest of us!

    Thanks for the spelling correction but no thanks for the lame and cliched “pedant” card, which I’ll assume was just a feeble attempt at trolling. While this particular debate has hardly been of great importance to anything, generally on this site if someone accuses me of a liking for pedantry what they really mean is that I know far too many facts of the sort inconvenient to their alarmist envirotwaddle!

    Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham  on  21/02/08  at  05:49 PM
  89. (95)
        hey horse ! ya got it wrong ! the spelling of the word “minutae”  appears in the same dictionary as the word “stupider” !

    Posted by don davey  on  22/02/08  at  10:56 AM





Remember my personal information

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