Heritage Tasmanian forest saved

[Chucaro]

My best day of the year :arms::banana:

UN rejects Australia's 'feeble' bid to strip Tasmanian forest's heritage status (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/23/un-rejects-australia-tasmanian-forest-heritage)

Unesco has unanimously rejected a “feeble” Australian government bid to reopen 74,000 hectares of Tasmania’s world heritage area to logging.

"The justifications presented [for] the reduction are, to say the least, feeble. Accepting this delisting today would be setting an unacceptable precedent, impossible to deny in similar circumstances in the future. If this committee cares for conservation according to responsible engagement of state parties to the convention when they submit their nominations, we cannot accept this requested delisting,”

[TheTree]

Hi

I agree it seems that UNESCO were not sucked in by the lies!

Steve

[gusthedog]

Yay! :D

You're a douche bag Tony! IMHO of course.

[ramblingboy42]

Yay! :D

You're a douche bag Tony! IMHO of course.

errrr....couldn't agree more.

[KarlB]

Very good news! However, the UNESCO decision doesn't actually stop anything. It just makes it very clear that in their view (and in the view of the Australian and world experts who advised them), that the government was talking utter rubbish in its submission for delisting. It does make it more difficult for the government to justify allowing further destruction of our world class Tasmanian forest. It would require legislative instruments to overturn Australian law protecting world heritage places.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[DiscoMick]

I could never understand why, after all the grief it took to get the current forestry agreement in Tasmania, that Abbott and his sawmiller mates ever thought it would have been a good idea to change it. Just dumb IMHO.

[wrinklearthur]

I am going to build myself a bushfire shelter, as these people that are applauding this stupid decision also believe that the understory shouldn't be burnt either.

There is more fuel on the ground now than what there was when the Aboriginals first arrived with their methods of firing the countryside to encourage fresh growth for their game.

I have been thorough plenty of bushfires to see the effect of a heavy fuel load, start burning on catastrophic days.

This decision will not end here as the boundaries have not been defined and they will now be pushing their agenda to stop all logging and the financiers of their organisation are rubbing their hands in glee.

Tell me that the money used to support these tree hugging organisations isn't from vested overseas interests, that control the logging for woodchip's and land clearing in other countries.

I feel for the Timber and Joinery workers that rely on harvesting minor species to earn their income. I might mount my radio installation tools on a display board to give to a museum, the tools I used to use to fit twoway radio's into Log truck's and log skidder's .
.

[101RRS]

Arthur you do know that the timber industry actually supports the Doha decision and wrote to them before the decision recommending it reject the Govt's application.

For once the Greenies, Conservationists and Timber Industry were in agreement.

Garry

[Chucaro]

Many people and specially Tasmanian are not aware that new paper pulp mill are built in countries where strict controls are in place to stop damaging the environment including rivers and that also they have to plant their own trees in land which it is nor suitable for crops.
While the greedy environmental vandals have trying to get the Tasmanian mill going again the big companies like UPM and Stora Enso- Arauco built new mills in Uruguay planting their own trees.
Stora Enso-Arauco have a full 1.3 million tonne capacity and on the top of the clean production of pulp they also will generate electricity for the city were the mill it is built.
An average of 3,200 and a peak of 6,000 workers were be employed during construction. About 500 people are expected to work at the mill. The mill is forecast to have a positive impact on Uruguay's GDP of 0.8% during construction and 2% when it is operating.
That was a lost for Tasmania due to the bad governments and industry management.

A clear example that being greedy and environment vandal does not bring success.

[gusthedog]

I am going to build myself a bushfire shelter, as these people that are applauding this stupid decision also believe that the understory shouldn't be burnt either.

There is more fuel on the ground now than what there was when the Aboriginals first arrived with their methods of firing the countryside to encourage fresh growth for their game.

I have been thorough plenty of bushfires to see the effect of a heavy fuel load, start burning on catastrophic days.

This decision will not end here as the boundaries have not been defined and they will now be pushing their agenda to stop all logging and the financiers of their organisation are rubbing their hands in glee.

Tell me that the money used to support these tree hugging organisations isn't from vested overseas interests, that control the logging for woodchip's and land clearing in other countries.

I feel for the Timber and Joinery workers that rely on harvesting minor species to earn their income. I might mount my radio installation tools on a display board to give to a museum, the tools I used to use to fit twoway radio's into Log truck's and log skidder's .
.

I'm a 'greenie' that works in the fire industry. The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, just because the areas are world heritage listed does not mean they cannot be burnt using regenerative prescribed burns or managed appropriately.

Also, if you are going to build a fire shelter, make sure it complies with Australian standards and local planning regulations. Many people die in bush fires from sheltering in poorly designed fire shelters. PM me if you are interested in a suppliers name as there is only one company that complies with all Australian standards currently. $16k installed from memory.

[460cixy]

That's a great decision it should create heaps of jobs for Tasmanians not

[KarlB]

That's a great decision it should create heaps of jobs for Tasmanians not

Where is your evidence? The forest industry in Tasmania has been a basket case for years! Job losses in the native forest industry have fallen year after year, for many years. The industry gets massive subsidies from Commonwealth and State Governments. The current peace 'deal' between the Greens and the majority of the timber industry has been the only brightness on the horizon for sometime. It has provided industry security. As garrycol said earlier: that is why "the Greenies, Conservationists and Timber Industry were in agreement".

[460cixy]

Long as you feel warm and fuzzy about it then its ok

[Chucaro]

Long as you feel warm and fuzzy about it then its ok
Look at my previous posts about mills that work in an environment friendly way by not polluting the rivers, planting their own trees and generate electricity at the same time and then you will have an idea of what it is the proper way of creating jobs ;)
The idea of politicians support non eco-friendly industries have to end.

[ramblingboy42]

One Arthur appears to talk sense.

The other Arthur appears to talk rubbish.

[wrinklearthur]

One Arthur appears to talk sense.

The other Arthur appears to talk rubbish.

I'll flip a coin. :D
.

[benji]

If it has to go through the legislative assembly it'll never get through as the Greens have just sided with labor.

I think you'll find that cool temperate rain forests weren't fire burnt by the Aboriginals; and present a very low fire risk.
Actually mismanagement by burning or grazing cattle can increase the fire risk. Just look up Masey Fawcett's Bogong Plains plots and you'll soon find that these fenced off plots didn't burn, where the grazed country around it was black. I wad up there myself only days after the 03 fires. I.e, I think we need to look past the wives tales to what actually is.

If the Tarkine isn't worth saving, then we may as well just mow down the rest of Australia.



Sent from my GT-I9305T using AULRO mobile app

[wrinklearthur]

Now that I have stirred everyone up with the other side of the argument.

Can I say that the present add on's to the world heritage list was done, in my opinion, in a very back handed secretive manner and was well under way before the Forest Agreement was put.

At no stage was this extra ground to the list, approved by the voting public at an election.

Don't confuse the Forest Agreement with the adding of the Extra ground to that was Heritage list, they are two different issues.

To burn understory is a nightmare, to light up the top of the mountain range to the north of Hobart would only be successful in the times of extreme high fire danger in the valley's.
The only way in the early part of the last Century that this was done successfully was the Old Timer Sheppard's while moving sheep about would continually drop a match in a sag.
Before the woodchip Industry started the Wool boom was already in decline and Southern Tasmania experienced Australia's worst bushfire in February 1967 and most of this fire started in area's with a heavy understory, spreading quickly to ridge tops and open pasture. I still, to this day relive the horrors of that fire and I'm still able to show people damage done by that fire.

I dread the thought of another fortnight of those fires and as the bush around here is still growing and drying out more each year. Now it only needs one dry lightning strike on a bad 40 degree day with a hot northerly wind, it will happen again.

On the subject of bush fire shelters, I worry about collection area's for people to gather to be 'safe? from fires, they are sports grounds that they can come with their cars and bedding to wait it out. Hasn't anyone given thought to what will happen when a fire front goes through that area and wouldn't exploding cars be the worst possible scenario?
.

[DiscoMick]

Plantation timber is the future of the timber industry in the same way that fish farms are the future of the fishing industry, renewables are the future of the electricity industry and national parks and natural experiences are the future of tourism. The old ways can't work any more. Time to look to the future, not the past. My opinion.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[Chucaro]

Plantation timber is the future of the timber industry in the same way that fish farms are the future of the fishing industry, renewables are the future of the electricity industry and national parks and natural experiences are the future of tourism. The old ways can't work any more. Time to look to the future, not the past. My opinion.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

Mick we should add that also that plantations have to operate without using poison to kill the native fauna and the industry without pollute the environment and the rivers.

[rovercare]

Plantation timber is the future of the timber industry in the same way that fish farms are the future of the fishing industry, renewables are the future of the electricity industry and national parks and natural experiences are the future of tourism. The old ways can't work any more. Time to look to the future, not the past. My opinion.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

Pretty much all structural hardwood comes from old growth, pocket logged. radiata pine and bluegum are used primarily for paper, the good pine logs for structural pine

Responsible logging of old growth should be continued, its the only source of good quality timber, unless you use other stuff, like LVL, but that has other environmental downsides

Best bet would be to get people to stop consuming and aim for a subsistance living, but here we are, sitting at our PC, burning up electricity, driving our fossil fuelled vehicles around:D

[rovercare]

Mick we should add that also that plantations have to operate without using poison to kill the native fauna and the industry without pollute the environment and the rivers.

Yep, gotta let that bracken fern, ragwort, blackberries etc grow naturally:)

[DiscoMick]

Pretty much all structural hardwood comes from old growth, pocket logged. radiata pine and bluegum are used primarily for paper, the good pine logs for structural pine

Responsible logging of old growth should be continued, its the only source of good quality timber, unless you use other stuff, like LVL, but that has other environmental downsides

Best bet would be to get people to stop consuming and aim for a subsistance living, but here we are, sitting at our PC, burning up electricity, driving our fossil fuelled vehicles around:D

Ha, that's true, although my tablet is 50% solar powered.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[Chucaro]

Yep, gotta let that bracken fern, ragwort, blackberries etc grow naturally:)

All that invasive plants are were the "smart man" have upset the balance in the ecosystem.
Perhaps you are in favor of using heavy chemicals and poison the soils, not me, I am not following the recommendations of Monsanto and the other chemical manufacturers.

[rovercare]

All that invasive plants are were the "smart man" have upset the balance in the ecosystem.
Perhaps you are in favor of using heavy chemicals and poison the soils, not me, I am not following the recommendations of Monsanto and the other chemical manufacturers.

But that's the problem, they are there and without control, they will run rife, I spent alot of time in both natural and plantation areas around home. again you have alot of ideals, but unless you are out there manually removing these noxious weeds, along with many others, they need to be controlled

[Vern]

Round-up is your friend:)

[loanrangie]

Round-up is your friend:)

Or buy a goat.

[460cixy]

So what about the re growth they say can't be logged again if its re growth then Its not old growth and should not be heritage listed in the first place. There's bush my father harvested in the in the late 70s to the mid 80s you could drive throu now and and wouldent have a clue. sustainable forestry can be achieved but your eyes have to be open along with your mind

[rovercare]

So what about the re growth they say can't be logged again if its re growth then Its not old growth and should not be heritage listed in the first place. There's bush my father harvested in the in the late 70s to the mid 80s you could drive throu now and and wouldent have a clue. sustainable forestry can be achieved but your eyes have to be open along with your mind

Please don't put 'old growth' into context and the 100 year turn around in which a lot can be restored

Also I look forward to the beautiful noxious weeds overtaking the natural bush without any weed control

But please, keep the ideals coming, just leave the pragmatic thoughts out of it




:D

[460cixy]

Sorry ile just use emotive bs next time and leave the common sence out of it :oops2:

[TheTree]

Hi

This provides some perspective!

Steve

[gusthedog]

On the subject of bush fire shelters, I worry about collection area's for people to gather to be 'safe? from fires, they are sports grounds that they can come with their cars and bedding to wait it out. Hasn't anyone given thought to what will happen when a fire front goes through that area and wouldn't exploding cars be the worst possible scenario?

.

Personal Bushfire shelters are entirely different from public gathering areas. You are confusing the ideas of neighbourhood safer places with community fire refuges and even relief centres. NSPs or neighbourhood safer places-places of last resort are generally open areas that are only to be used when your fire plan fails. They are an option of last resort and your safety is not guaranteed either at an NSP or travelling to one. Safer options include leaving early (this means before you see fire or smoke) having an approved personal Bushfire shelter or defending a well prepared property. An NSP is only designed to offer some protection from radiant heat and ember attack. They are for short term use and services (water, food, bedding etc) are not available. Neither are provisions for pets.

Community fire refuges (CFRs) are only in the design phase in Victoria. They are like NSPs but they are in fire resistant buildings. They have a limited capacity and no provisions for pets either. Their efficacy is still not proven. There are only three of these currently in Victoria.

An emergency relief centre or ERC is some thing set up by council out of the emergency impact area. They will not be set up near to a fire front. Basic services are available including provisions for pets, bedding, food, shelter. Accesses to state and federal government agencies as well as local NGOs and charities is available at a relief centre.

If you live in a bush fire prone area it is your responsibility to know this stuff and your responsibility for your own families fire safety, not the CFAs or RFSs.

Now obviously I'm talking Victoria here and there will be slight differences state by state. Everyone that lives in country areas of most of Australia should have a personal fire plan and take responsibility for their own safety. They shouldn't rely on engineering solutions sponsored by the government to prop up their lack of effectively planning for fire.

[mox]

From what I recall, Labor had a large area added to World Heritage not long before the election to try and catch a few votes in marginal city electorates. It has long been a regular tactic by them to declare more forests National Parks to appeal to voters in areas where the natural environment has suffered the most destruction by man. Almost invariably those who have to live with the consequences of these decisions, locals in the areas near the forests are strongly opposed to extra parks, which reduces the resource base of local industries - especially timber. Also, it has regularly been shown that the more the green groups get, the more they want. Makes it difficult for traditional forest users. eg Investment in machinery , etc by the timber industry is based on projected usage for it. Then not long after agreements are made, greenies seem to invariably campaign for more parks.


From what I gather, these extra World Heritage areas in Tasmania were added after the last lot of forestry agreements and the present Government was just proposing to delist just some of this which had previously been logged NOT the whole recently added area. Note if this is in good condition it debunks the claim that logging is detrimental to the long term wellbeing of forests while utilising a renewable resource. As for the spin that more parks will increase tourism, this almost always turns out a big lie. It requires spending by large numbers of additional tourists to replace each forestry or other resource job lost by creation of parks. Also in some areas, tourists are less inclined to visit National Parks than State Forests because of extra restrictions on activities in them.


Note as more parks are declared, the resources to manage them including track maintenance, fire mitigation measures and control , weed and feral animal control, etc etc seem to be more thinly spread. At least when income producing products come from forests and the government receives income from royalties and taxes, it can afford to spend money looking after them.


Seems to me questionable that governments should effectively make agreements ceding power to the United Nations, including Unesco. A problem is that it is largely influenced by green groups. They are more inclined to listen to the likes of the Tasmanian Greens whose policies have largely contributed to making their State an economic basket case than to the present Governments trying to fix it.

[gusthedog]

^ ok now it's my turn to make some generalizations about some people of a certain given group then apply that wholesale to others that look or act in a similar fashion. Now I'll back it up with some sweeping statements and 'facts' that I seem to remember. I know that key to this is to make the other side slightly more ****ed off than me so that they make an even bigger generalization about the group I belong to which will clearly make there whole argument seemed based on here-say and innuendo to others who read this and then they'll throw out their belief system and agree with me and then the world will be great.... Times infinity plus one to whatever you say forever amen.

That gentlemen and ladies is every argument on the internet ever.

You think something else. Let's agree to disagree and get back to real life.

[KarlB]

Before the areas under discussion were added to the WHA, they were subjected to extensive assessment and negotiation. The process took well over a year to complete. Dozens of reports on different aspects were written. The scientific assessments were undertaken by a range of groups both Tasmanian and otherwise, with the final report to government written by an independent academic expert. Then a proposal to add the areas to the WHA had to be put to the international World Heritage Committee. You really are talking through your hat Mox!

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Chucaro]

Before the areas under discussion were added to the WHA, they were subjected to extensive assessment and negotiation. The process took well over a year to complete. Dozens of reports on different aspects were written. The scientific assessments were undertaken by a range of groups both Tasmanian and otherwise, with the final report to government written by an independent academic expert. Then a proposal to add the areas to the WHA had to be put to the international World Heritage Committee. You really are talking through your hat Mox!

Cheers
KarlB
:)

It is a never ending situation Karl, some people ( not necessary the members of this forum)will say that the assessment was done by people with bias views others just do not read what can go against their views.
It is something similar to the vaccination topic. :(
Unfortunately conservationism is view as a lefty or tree huger ideology.

[wrinklearthur]

Hard on the heels of this Land grab is the do-gooder's baying for the removal of 1080. With no money being shared around for management of these areas the adjoining Land Owners are being over run by wallabies.

Fencing would help but the Government bodies are not coming forward at the present with the help for this to happen. So shooting is the only option for a small amount of control, but when a wave / mob of hundreds of Wallabies invade a crop, then the poison 1080 is the only method that can deal with that influx in a short time span.
.

[Chucaro]

So, you are not only in favor of logging the NP but also poison the native fauna in a nondiscriminatory way ? :( :wallbash:
If it is so we are lucky that you are in the minority and the people that DO GOOD are in the majority which I am on it and proud as well.

[wrinklearthur]

So, you are not only in favor of logging the NP but also poison the native fauna in a nondiscriminatory way ? :( :wallbash:
If it is so we are lucky that you are in the minority and the people that DO GOOD are in the majority which I am on it and proud as well.

Did I say that I was in favour of any of those things, I'm just putting the other side of the debate?
.

[mox]

Before the areas under discussion were added to the WHA, they were subjected to extensive assessment and negotiation. The process took well over a year to complete. Dozens of reports on different aspects were written. The scientific assessments were undertaken by a range of groups both Tasmanian and otherwise, with the final report to government written by an independent academic expert. Then a proposal to add the areas to the WHA had to be put to the international World Heritage Committee. You really are talking through your hat Mox!

Cheers
KarlB
:)
it is well recognised by many politicians that you do not call an enquiry unless reasonably sure it is going to deliver the conclusions you want. The results can be considerably swayed by appointing people you know share your preferences regarding results. Also, if those appointed are receiving generous fees for their supposed impartial advice, they would usually feel obliged to try and deliver conclusions those who appointed them wanted. In the case of professional consultants, being preferred for the next job is also sometimes an important consideration. In any trade or profession, it is sometimes necessary to decide where to draw the line between doing what the customer wants and compromising professional integrity. This often varies with the circumstances. Those who excessively prostitute themselves can gain short term advantage but rapidly destroy their own credibility when word gets around.


Having observed first hand other supposed consultation processes similar to the above Tasmanian one and knowing it was set up with people approved by Labor and Greens politicians, the recommendations were to be expected. Almost certainly the motions of " consultation" were gone through but the views of many interested parties effectively ignored. If a large number of well reasoned submissions received oppose what the appointed body wants and a small number that offer little backup information support them, they usually selectively highlight bits that support their agenda and try and downplay or ignore everything that doesn't. Also they normally try to hide the fact if submission preferences are against them. Thanks to FOI, interested people prepared to check can expose this.


I am sure that people involved in the Tasmanian timber industry would have expected the recommendation from the supposed "independent academic expert". Even from just knowing that the political preferences of teachers and academics is largely left wing. Wonder how much he visited the areas involved and talked to locals affected. Would expect very little and would largely try to disregard evidence, regardless of how strong it was that did not support the desired recommendations


A classic example similar to this was the Victorian Environment Assessment Council investigation into the River Redgum forests along the Murray River. One woman on a local advisory committee resigned in the early stages of it. Two years before its recommendations were delivered, was obvious to her the outcome was predetermined. It was for large areas to be declared National Parks, which for many good reasons most locals living in adjoining districts were vehemently opposed to. She preferred to direct her efforts into exposing the scam rather than being a part of giving it undeserved credibility.


I would be surprised if something similar has not occurred in Tasmania recently. Re the international body deciding on World Heritage listings, a quote by Mark Twain seems very applicable. ie "It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled." Also, quickly reversing a decision, even with good reason would tend to portray those who originally made it as fools. Worth noting that I was actively involved in fighting a preposterous proposal by a statutory authority regarding local flood management which was supported by the Victorian State Government. Fortunately it was revealed that half the large amount of necessary funding would have to come from Canberra. We got in first lobbying there so federal bureaucrats and politicians readily saw through the lies and spin and did not swallow it. Lack of funding stopped the project. Would have been difficult to have them withdraw funding had it been approved. So we did not need to solicit active support from another large group of people who would have undoubtedly have strongly opposed the proposed scheme if its detriment to them was demonstrated.


Unfortunately, there seems to be too many people who think that because having some National Parks and World Heritage areas is good, the more that can be obtained the better. They also often lack comprehension that for desirable environmental outcomes, sometimes a lot of financial outlay is necessary. This can usually be more easily justified if a forest is managed in a multiple use productive state than the "lock it up and leave it " approach.

[mox]

Is interesting that Chucaro is described as an "Old Bushie" . Seems to me - and probably any genuine bushie that his thinking is that of an urban greenie, even though he has apparently relocated to the bush.

[Chucaro]

Is interesting that Chucaro is described as an "Old Bushie" . Seems to me - and probably any genuine bushie that his thinking is that of an urban greenie, even though he has apparently relocated to the bush.

Are you running out of arguments that now have to post a comment about a member?
Please go back to the topic ;)

[mox]

So, you are not only in favor of logging the NP but also poison the native fauna in a nondiscriminatory way ? :( :wallbash:
If it is so we are lucky that you are in the minority and the people that DO GOOD are in the majority which I am on it and proud as well.


This comment, aimed at wrinkearthur is an example of how the thinking of Chucaro is more like that of an urban greenie than an old bushie. In this case urban greenies who do not comprehend the problems noxious animals and plagues of native ones cause for both the environment and those who live in bush areas, especially next to forests. There are regular calls from city greenies to ban 1080 ie sodium monofluoracetate which is widely used as a poison bait. One problem is that despite its disadvantages, there is often no better alternative than to use it. This is one reason why 1080 use is strongly regulated, with those laying baits having had to do training courses and having permits. It is done in ways to try and maximise kill of target pests and minimise taking of baits by non target species. Regarding using it to kill foxes and wild dogs, which decimate both native animals and farmers' livestock, we hear greenies crying that quolls, etc are killed. Some Australia native species require several times the dose of 1080 to be lethal as for foxes and dogs. Even if a few non target animals are killed despite this and baiting techniques to try and avoid it, overall species like quolls can survive much better when foxes and wild dogs are removed.


I am well aware that those who run short of arguments to support their preferred views often resort to name calling and other personal abuse against those with opposing opinions. Do not want to do that myself, However am effectively trying to point out how sometimes city type radical green activists try to misrepresent that the majority of locals in areas where there are controversial environmental issues support their viewpoints.

[Chucaro]

This comment, aimed at wrinkearthur is an example of how the thinking of Chucaro is more like that of an urban greenie than an old bushie. In this case urban greenies who do not comprehend the problems no................................................ ........................

Your comment it is based in assumptions or uninformed opinion.
Do you know my background including my formal studies and where I have lived and worked before? No of course not.
You are entitled to have an opinion about any topic but not about the knowledge of a person that you do not know.
Posts your opinions about the topic but not with assumptions of the knowledge of other members in the forum, it is not acceptable and chances are that you will finish with "an egg in your face" ;)

[Mick_Marsh]

So, you are not only in favor of logging the NP but also poison the native fauna in a nondiscriminatory way ? :( :wallbash:
If it is so we are lucky that you are in the minority and the people that DO GOOD are in the majority which I am on it and proud as well.
So, Chucky, you are in favour of farmers crops failing and the social and economic disasters that will lead to.
I hope you are truly committed to your values and refuse to buy any produce that is farmed as you may inadvertantly be supporting one of those nasty farmers.

[Chucaro]

So, Chucky, you are in favour of farmers crops failing and the social and economic disasters that will lead to.
I hope you are truly committed to your values and refuse to buy any produce that is farmed as you may inadvertantly be supporting one of those nasty farmers.

Oh yes Mick, the world it comes to an end, economies coapsing because farmers cannot use the poison 1080 :spudnikguitar:

Do not forget to use the DTT and Dieldrin in your place before you have the same problem as the farmers :D

back to the topic ;)

[DiscoMick]

Thank goodness that UNESCO was not taken in by Abbott's ranting or half-baked theories which don't take account of scientific facts about the value of certain forests. I'm on the side of science in this. I hope my children and grandchildren get to see what Tasmania once looked like, thanks to this decision.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[wrinklearthur]

It is not the responsible use of poison we should be afraid of.

But the lack of care by irresponsible people in the use of poisons.

Worse still is the growth of weeds and scrub that litters block that have been let return to nature and the idea that spraying these growths is damaging the environment is completely upside down to common sense.

Ref; Toxicity Categories (http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/def/tox_category.html)


Some of the chemicals we contact in our daily lives are man-made. These include some drugs, cosmetics, workplace chemicals, household cleaning agents, and so on. Many more chemicals which we are exposed to each day occur naturally and are found in our food, in the air, and in water. There are far more natural chemicals in our environment than man-made ones. Both man-made and natural chemicals can have poisonous effects.

Some of the most toxic compounds to living creatures are not artificially made but can be found just over your back fence in suburbia,
----- a naturally occurring poison found in plant species such as poison bush, kite leaf poison bush, poison pea, and wallflower poison bush. Although native animals can eat the foliage, seeds and flowers of the plants with no ill effect, it is deadly on the feral animals that have not evolved alongside it.

I dare you to find the rest of that quote, as it may surprise you.

That is one reference, the other is people that love to do gardening can breed some of nature most lethal substances, anyone that practices composting should be aware that some fungus bred in that process can quickly kill you and are naturally organic. I could go on about this but my knowledge on this subject is self taught and therefore I'm not qualified to answer any questions.

How does this posting tie in with the OP. Let the expert rule our lives or do we spend time to find out our own information and draw our own conclusions.
.