Thread: I am being sued by Gunns

By the way I hope you noticed my new signature. I would just like to tell you how clever I was to work it out.

But I can't.

Somebody did it for me. He of course shall be nameless.

The signature is still particularly appropriate for this discussion, but not unique to Tasmania, woodchippers or indeed any other branch of society.

Regards

Paul

Originally Posted by ernknot

more trees are knocked over by lightning, wind, as a result of waterlogged ground, wombats, termites, age, bush fires etc. etc. THEY WILL ALL FALL OVER EVENTUALLY.

I can see that as the new defence in murder trials: "He was going to die eventually anyway."

This is outrageous...

Tasmania needs to step up in the world, they still seem to be using old silly laws...

Another outrageous law suit was about a lady who asked her neighbour to look after her dog for 2 weeks... the neighbour refused to hand back the dog and the court ruled in her favour as the owner... crazy stuff down there.

NOthing at all to do with woodchipping but it has tasmania in the subject LOL

Now about milling...
In Balingup they have just cut down all the pine tree's and the landscape looks so YUCKY now... big open spaces with nothing for the wildlife that chose that as there home for the past <enter amount of years it takes a pine tree to grow> years.

The air smells nice of freshly cut pine, but it looks horrible.

re-growth is good but

I think it is a crime that old growth forests are woodchipped, utterly stupid to use that resource in that manner. At least log it and turn it into fine furniture timber/dimensional timber. However the market for that is small and processing costs high, so wood chip is easier to handle in bulk and is the traditional australian solution to so many things. However the company is mostly legal, and if people are making false claims, using illegal tactics, being generally obnoxiuos and causing trouble for a business they are entitled to take the prognosticators to court.

A far more sensible solution is to give incentives to convert to plantation timber for woodchip, feasible, economical, manageable. However these same people who complain about the old growth forests also HATE (yes I am deliberately using capitals) plantations as they are "monocultures". They are also against mixed species stands as they are not "local" mixed species forests. Growing trees to fuel power stations has also been ruled out in a neat piece of legislation a few years ago that prevents in law any plantation being set up for that purpose or more than 50% of the value of any forest going to that purpose (thanks greens/dems). In short they are against any form of rational use of the land and forests, too many times have I personally seen this in other areas that I am associated with it. These sorts of people have a political agenda every bit as deep as the company that is sueing them, never think otherwise. Have they ever taken the company to court? Almost certainly. I hate to see litigation in any form, after having lived in the US for a while you get to see it as the plague it really is. Some rationality from both sides would be nice and working out a long term sustainable solution is in everybodies interests, not just the political grounds of very intensely divided groups with very stacked agenda's.

Whilst i must make it clear i do not support Gunns or clearfelling of old growth forests, i can see how this situation has evolved.

This is a post on the subject i submitted to another forum on green issues, it outlines my views and offers a different view of possible solutions.

Mate, at the risk of pissing off the greenies, this kind of thing has been coming for some time. If the law of the land allows it to happen then it will.

I think the greenie and protesters can be ( not always) so self righteous that they think they are protesting or protecting their rights to protest and its all an altruistic cause to saving enviromental heritage.

The probelm is, a lot of the time when they are protesting or blocking developments, they are economically distadvantaging people, proposing to disemploy many people and offering no real consideration in terms of human needs.

Unless u wanna wipe out humans, there will be no conservation without catering to the econimic and resource needs of society.

Thats the fact, its not ideaology but reality u have to deal with.

Whilst i personally dont support Gunns actions i think the greens and other protest groups have had it easy for a long time, their niavety towards economic reality has come home to roost.

IF they do propose putting people out of business, they do disadvantage workers and they do put forward false claims as fact to support their argumemnts, they open themselves up to legal action.

Occasionally the acts of protesters cause extra costs and loss of income for employers and contactors. If this happened any other way, those occuring losses have the right to sue to reclaim those funds. No different in green/busniness issues.

Sorry to say.

I really think the greens need to look at some solid relationship building with the people who are disadvantaged by their policies and attidtude to common workers. Otherwise enviromentally harmful busniess practices will not only continue but grow and the social rifts in society will also grow.

Its not an emotional issue, people are emotional, its about management of
resources and meeting the needs of ALL facets of society in a sustainable manner.

I have been doing my best to stay out of this one but I can't help myself.

The question in this thread is not what Gunns are doing, what they are doing is Legal. Allowed by the law of the state. Gunns cannot be faulted here. Government policies may be poor but that's what we've got. We should be lobbying governments and having PEACEFUL protests.

When I say peaceful, I mean exactly that, not passive, which is what these groups call peaceful. In a PEACEFUL protest you let your opinions and complaints be known, without affecting any other persons/companies. What these green groups do is blockade companies and cause them loss of income, then sook that they are only having a "peaceful" protest when someone tries to move them. I have delibarately not mentioned some of the other "peaceful" tactics used by some of the more radical greens.

I do not know Suresh and can't speak for what he has or hasn't done but if some of the peaceful protests I have been to are any indication, Gunns can sue and will probably win.

Dan

I have been holding back on this one too but I may as well get my hands dirty and put my perspective forward.

The actions of Gunns may be legal but are they right and is it what Australia and the world wants? Killing civilians is legal in a state of war but is it right and what the world wants? I hasten to add here that I am proud of my father, his brothers and my grandfathers for their service in defending Australia.

Felling what little old growth forest we have is unforgivable and to make matters worse it is probably recycled as toilet paper or another disposable product. Just remember one wipe and it’s gone!

The world is in denial about the remaining natural resources we have and we need to be prepared to adjust and conserve where we can. Sacrificing old growth timber for woodchips is not responsible and can only be based on commercial gain. If it is left to Governments, Industry and Lawyers to make these decisions then our future is grim. It will be based on dollars and not for our future generations.

Don’t dismiss the greenies because some of them behave irresponsibly and stupidly on occasions (oops, I think I just got served my papers). For the vast majority of them they have nothing to gain by their actions apart from their belief that they are conserving and protecting our natural heritage. Their vision is clear and they are frustrated by commercial exploitation and Governments who are not willing to invest in the future.

Regrowth of native forests and establishing plantations is not attractive to Governments and investors because the establishment costs are huge, there is a risk of fire, drought, disease and insect infestation, maintenance is high and the investment is long term. Hence the easy solution is to take the remaining old growth timbers and my point is because this is legal is this right?

Don’t be under any misconception about our role in this because Australia is a world leader in extinct and endangered species. Logging old growth forest is contributing to this problem and unless the majority of Australians get a little bit green and challenge the law then we will be in deep do do without anything to wipe it off.

For the record I work for a conservation agency but I am not a greenie or associated in any way with them. I am a little bit green though.

There are two issues here. The first is whether or not Gunns are doing anything wrong by conducting their business the way they do. Until it is proven that there is something dodgey going on in Tasmania, by which I mean corruption at some level, then they are not doing anything illegal.

The second is whether or not what they are doing is morally right. Whilst opinion is probably divided on that, I think most people recognise that it would be a huge shame to lose all of these old-growth forests for good.

People protesting against Gunns are no doubt firm believers that woodchipping in these areas is morally wrong. Gunns and their supporters are firm believers that they are within the law and creating jobs and earning money, which is what businesses do.

In order for it to be stopped, the government has to intervene and turn morally wrong into illegal. Then they would have to stop. Until then, they are not going to. Interrupting the operations of the loggers is going to cause them inconvenience and perhaps cost them money but it is never going to stop them. Only the government can do that.

I basicaly support the conservation of old growth timber, but there is a difference between legal protest and anarchy, and some people need to recognise this.

Originally Posted by rodm

Don’t dismiss the greenies because some of them behave irresponsibly and stupidly on occasions

Gunns can probably prove repeated defamation and slander or they wouldn't have unleashed the lawyers.
Because of the widespread , often illogical bull spread by the the greenies.
Gunns taking legal action is THE ONLY OPTION GUNNS HAVE.
They have no other way of handling the greens bull and distortion.

So if they bankrupt some of the obvious wankers, the others are well warned.

Gunns First -- Telstra Next???

Bob,
Gunns probably are on legally firm ground if they are investing in a court battle. Perhaps it is just a scare tactic to slow down the action of greenies.
The greenies have been effective too as this will bring lots of publicity to the cause.

You will not see a great benefit to Tasmania because of the timber royalties gained from harvesting this timber but the consequences of harvesting the timber will significant and long lasting. I sympathise with workers in the timber industry but the reality is their industry is dying. Killing off the last strands of native forest in Australia is just prolonging the inevitable.

As a lot have stated this is a legal and moral issue but how do you change the law when we have four years before the next set of promises are offered.
I do not support the radical element of the greenies but I do admire their courage.

Originally Posted by rodm

we have four years before the next set of promises are offered.

All the right promises were offered during this election campaign regarding the Tasmanian forests by political parties OTHER than the one that recieved the majority of the vote in that state. This tells me that people in that state either don't care or they don't think it's as bad as reported by the greens.

I know it's off topic, but does anyone have actual statistics of how much (%) of the old growth forest is being removed in this manner?

Dan

As Tassie is a member of a loose knit commonwealth of Australia the feds can only really make noises as its the state of Tassie that has the final say in its own matters. Yes the feds can bribe or bully them but unlike a territory the Tassie gov has the final say. Maybe the voters there are happy with the way things are or else they would have been turfed long ago. but being unfamiliar with the political situation there I can but surmise.
Is it a very vocal minority making claims? I go with Dan on this lets find out the actual not supposed amount being chipped before we get too involved with all this.
Pete (not being sued by Gunns)

Dan,
I don't think green issues will win anybody an election just yet - maybe in years to come. Employment, Families, Health, Education and Law and Order are the big ones and all other issues are tacked on to catch the stray and swinging voters.
Sorry I don't know the percentage of harvesting.