Posts Tagged ‘Brown Mountain’

Old Growth Massacre at Bungewarr Creek

Saturday, August 27th, 2011

The following ultra-short article was initially published by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net 20090507 under the title: ‘Premier John Brumby – a man of principle, a ‘year of action’ logging Old Growth at Bungewarr Creek‘

Senseless slaughter of Victoria’s Old Growth..another Brumby legacy for Victoria

29 April, 2009:

The result of senseless logging at iconic Bungewarr Creek, far East Gippsland. Loggers have desperately chainsawed magnificent stands of ancient Australian Eucalypts along Bungewarr Creek in East Gippsland as the woodchips, allowing our natural heritage to be sold out to the Japanese for a despicable $2.50 per tonne!

“Two protesters are ‘flying’ a platform located thirty metres up in the tree canopy”.. “this platform is cabled off to four logging machines, immobilizing them.”

First blockaded in 1994, Old Growth at Bungewarr Creek has been targeted by loggers ever since. Premier John Brumby simply cannot be trusted with Victoria’s natural heritage.

.

Subsequent Comments:

.

‘Sell the loggers not the logs’

On May 7th, 2009 Sheila Newman replied:

Maybe these stooges for big companies would get more money selling the loggers?

Sheila Newman, population sociologist

.

‘Rampant materialism and environmental destruction!’

On May 7th, 2009 Vivienne replied:

About 90% of what comes out of our old-growth forests ends up as woodchips to make paper, the majority of which is sent overseas. The “management plan” for Tasmania’s Upper Florentine Valley means a growing logging industry for wood chips, with a current price a mere $2.50 per tonne!

Despite the area being surrounded by mountains of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area, the Colonial ignorance of slash and conquer the bush has changed little since the last Tasmanian Tiger was captured there in the 1933.

All this so-called “sustainable forest management” is just thinly disguised eco-destruction by Tasmania’s logging industry.

We are bombarded with ecologically “friendly”, “sustainable” and “green” language, but the euphemisms are totally contrary to everything they claim!

We are encouraged to avoid plastic bags, turn off power when it is not needed, use energy-friendly light bulbs, save water, use public transport, but the benefits of these actions belie the fact that our governments continue to support the large polluters and industries that are adding to climate change and conservation threats!

Our leaders must be held accountable the rampant materialism and environmental destruction that our nation is succumbing to.

.

‘Logging contracter attacks Bungewarr protesters’

On May 9th, 2009 jim barton replied:

i have lost several thousand dollars in income due to the pathetic protests the greens have undertaken over the last 2 weeks in the bungewarr area. If you have a problem take it up with the state government directly or the vic forests office. No one will ever take you seriously while you are illegally chained to a machine or strung up a tree stopping the people who are there to make money to feed our familys. Do you honestly think the state government gives a shit while you are taking this sort of illegal action? The only people losing out are the loggers by taking away a slab of our income, the easily led pawns the greens send in to the protests that come out feeling like heroes but now have a criminal record for life. Also not to mention the tens of thousands of tax payer dollars that get spent on the police rescue squad coming from melbourne just to release the protesters and also the local police time wasted. Start using your brains and be a little more democratic and also start telling people the truth about our logging practices instead of just the lies you make up to sway the public to your way of thinking. Old growth forest dosn’t absorb carbon dioxide like you say so if you want to get technical we can say that we are helping climate change by replacing it with smaller re growth that with filter the atmosphere a lot more efficiently. This is a saw log driven industry, the pulp that goes for wood chips is what is left over from the tree after the saw log has been taken. Stop the lies and the pathetic protests because no one listens when you go about it in this way. Your protests are just an excuse for camping up the bush smoking dope, dancing around a fire by night, then during the day trying to fighting for a cause that not that many of them really know that much about.

.

‘State Government does not listen to decent protests!’

On May 9th, 2009 Jose replied:

Extreme protests are because our State Government is only interested in money and the votes of businesses, and jobs for forest workers. Extreme protests gets the public and the media’s attention. The income of loggers is a minor and short-term affair. These old-growth forests and trees have been here since Columbus discovered America, or before! They have TIME and GREATNESS on their side, and these stalwarts stand as sentinels against the wreckage that humans in power want to inflict on them, for a paltry $2.50 per tonne! They store massive amounts of carbon, and chopping them down is environmental vandalism. Get a job, Jim Barton! Nobody accepts the green-washing bulls**t our State government comes out with! They are all lies.

.

‘VicForests no different to Indonesian Timber Mafia’

On May 11th, 2009 Tigerquoll replied:

Illegal logging involves “wood harvesting, processing and trade that do not conform to law. Illegalities occur right through the chain from source to consumer, the harvesting procedure itself may be illegal, including corrupt means to gain access to forests, extraction without permission or from a protected area, cutting of protected species or extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits. Illegalities may also occur during transport, including illegal processing and export as well as mis-declaration to customs, before the timber enters the legal market.”

Other examples of illegal logging are:

* Under-reporting harvest volumes and tax payable
* Ignoring selective cutting guidelines
* Harvesting outside concession boundaries
* Falsifying log transport documents
* Accepting falsified log transport documents

Timber can also be considered illegal if the plantations are not properly managed.

This includes:

* Clear-cutting natural forest, then failing to replant
* Not planting at rates required to maintain long-term production
* Replanting with low-quality species
* Replanting at low density.”

SOURCE: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2002/timber_mafia/resources/resources_illegal_logging.htm

So perhaps Jim Barton can explain the forest impact difference between VicForests endorsed slaughter of Australia’s heritage old-growth at Bungywarr Creek and at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland and what the Indonesia’s Timber Mafia are doing?

.

‘More Lies’

On May 12th, 2009 jim barton replied:

Righto jose and tigerquoll lets get a few things straight. first and foremost, i have a job. i am a logger currently logging the bungewarr creek area incase you didn’t read my first piece properly. Secondly, tigerquolls new name is now guinea pig because thats what he looked and sounded like when he was running back for cover into the bush at last weeks tax payer funded protest when we wanted to talk to him. It is bullshit for you dole bludgers to say that loggers incomes are not an important issue when it comes to this arguement. That’s rich considering most of the protestors don’t have jobs and live off the money i pay in tax every week, therefor you are living off the tax money earned through logging old growth forests and that alone increases your carbon foot print when you trace it back! Like it or not the logging practices we undertake are as much as you may dislike the idea, legal. You may need a little thing the police call evidence if you want to go throwing unproven and rediculous claims at us. You can check every single log docket, boundary marker and all other relevant paperwork if you like. All you will find is a legal harvesting procedure that has complied with the legal requirements and documentation that vic forests and our state government has specified, planned and employed us under and therefor endorsed. You can throw your big words, lies and acusations around all you like but at the end of the day no laws are being broken apart from the ones you break by trespassing into a public safety area and holting work for a few hours. like i have said everyone is entitled to an opinion, maybe you need to voice yours through the proper authorities. Maybe then people will listen because illegal action will never conquer legal works. By the way, old growth trees have been proven not to produce oxygen after a certain age and also stop absorbing carbon dioxide. look it up. We do not falsify log dockets as that is what we are payed by. We do not underreport the amount of timber harvested for tax reasons as we are liable to penalties from vic forests if we do not cut the contracted volume of wood. We do not harvest outside boundaries as that can lead to penalties that in tern end up costing us money. Vic forests and the dse burn the finnished coupes to stimulate seed germination and growth (replanting). Areas are regenerated at rates to ensure that the area is sufficient for the next round of log harvesting. Finally, the correct species are replanted at the correct density to ensure the bush grows back to meet harvesting, legal and environmental standards. And to your final question guinea pig, our logging practices are not illegal due to the fact that the people in our crew comply with australias rules and regulations on the correct procedures for timber harvesting. Indonesias logging is illegal due to the fact that they enter an area to take timber without the correct permits and by buying the governments silence through kick backs from the profits of these illegal activities. Logging old growth is only illegal in your minds because you let emotion and centiment cloud your already hazey vision and it is a last desperate stab to try and lock more bush into national park. I Hope your all warm in your wooden houses tonight, on your cleared land to make way for that house and in your wooden bed and i hope that soft toilet paper that came from those trees dosn’t scratch your ass when this reply gives you all the shits!

.

‘Logging subsidised by tax-payer’

On May 13th, 2009 Anonymous replied:

You would have to be blind not to see that your line of work is unsustainable. That means that it costs more than it produces financially (the community subsidises logging). Do us all a favour and get a real job, or go on the dole and stop costing us all more than money.

.

‘Proud logger with job recycles but is realistic’

On May 13th, 2009 Jim Barton replied:

Thats the best you can come up with? Show me facts and figures on much it subsidises actual harvesting procedures.

Now if it is so unsustainable why are we logging areas that have been logged 2, 3 and up to 4 times over the last 100 years. Going on the dole would be the easy way out, wouldn’t it gutless anonymous? That is why all you loser protestors are putting your hands out every week. If you really care about the environment get out there and start working towards reducing wild dog numbers, helping to erradicate feral cats and why don’t you do something about the introduced vines that are strangling the native forests to death. The vines are spread through water ways that usually start their journey from up in the national parks that you lot won’t let anyone into to even maintain.

If you new anything about what you are talking about you would see this every time you are heading up the combienbar road dodging stubbies on your way to another pointless protest at bungywarr. But it is just easier to throw empty accusations once again without concrete evidence at the people who actually work for a living to feed their families instead of relying on someone else to feed them. I would like to say however, thank you to the person/s running this web site who have let me have a say on this subject. The greens have a terrible history of twisting what actually happens into a tangled web of what they think the public should hear, even as made up as a lot of it is. A healthy discussion is good for both sides, but eventually you will see the the country cannot survive on beautiful views, love and goodwill. unfortunately money makes the world go round and it is far to late to change that. Even climate change is a money making lie.

The earth has been changing temperature for millions of years and unfortunately buying a hybrid car and some solar panels is not going to make a lick of difference. To those who doubt my thoughts, show us all some hard evidence over the last million years of the temperature difference to now. As much as you may hate the idea the earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control. Why i seem to recall a history lesson at school that showed tasmania, the mainland and indonesia was all one continent. With rising sea levels we now have more continents than we did millions of years ago and the sea will continue to rise no matter what we do. It is clearly a scare tactic to sway voters and the general public.

I am not a complete monster i still recycle and don’t litter but we have to be realistic.

.

‘National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI)’

On May 14th, 2009 Tigerquoll replied:

NAFI (or perhaps ‘Not Another Freakin Import’ provides a chainsaw scream for Australia’s scarce and depleting forests. Japanese woodchippers rape Aussie forests only to import A4 paper back to us at a profit. Aren’t we NAFI suckers?

NAFI is committed to ensuring clear fell logging and woodchipping of old growth has strong representation in political and public engagement to ensure this desperate slaughtering is supported in order to achieve the best possible outcome for NAFI and short contract loggers with no future prospects.

Australia’s forest industries, made up of remnant old growth habitat, plantations and any outlying unoccupied timber houses on the edge of towns, offer significant benefits for NAFI and no-neck loggers with no future prospects. By the year 2020 forest industries are projected to contribute:

* 16,000 short term forestry contracts and base pay with no security, no annual leave and no sick leave
* 81 million tonnes of Australian native forests sold out to Mitsui (the Japanese)
* $19 billion of Australia’s native farm sold out to the Japanese woodchippers – who have the hide profit from selling back to Australia white shiny A4 photocopy paper.

And so how is the multinational raper of Gippsland forests, Japanese Sumitomo Mitsui fairing these days? Well as at 10th April 2009, Sumitomo Mitsui reported its largest loss in six years and has desperately proposed to raise 800 billion yen in public offering.

Gippsland loggers have become losers in every sense. Contract logging to feed Jap woodchippers may pay the rent for a few months, but forget supporting a family or paying a mortgage! How many forestry workers called into the CES since the start of 2009?

.

‘Logging is not sustainable’

On May 14th, 2009 Vivienne replied:

Yes, you have a job! The point is , it is a dead-end type of job if you must continually destroy the habitat and ecosystems that support life. Most of our ancient forests end up at woodchips, for $2.50 per tonne! Nobody here is “putting their hands out”, but the logging industry should not be immune from retrenchment like other industries. You are right about other issues, about rubbish, feral animals and weeds. Retrenched loggers should be part of a new industry of “green” jobs of managing our native forests. There is so much good that could be done, as you have mentioned! While writing this, kangaroos are being massacred in Canberra as being “environmental threats”, but the real threats are humans, and the greed for profits! I think you have a conflict of interests with your source of income. The Government must take most of the blame for bending to these industries to get the rural votes. Our government cannot and will not address climate change because it is contrary to the growth mentality they are addicted to. Our materialistic greed is escalating, I believe, because our leaders know that our planet as such does not have another millenium left!

.

‘Earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control’

On May 14th, 2009 Jose replied:

Yes, Jim Barton, the earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control. There are things we can’t control, but there are also things we can! The massive plundering of our planet to accummulate riches and exports for continual growth is something we can control, if we get rid of self-interests and greed. Gaia will continue, the rock that rotates around the Sun, but it may not take kindly to the human “virus” it is infected with! Stephen Hawkings said humans were a bit of biological “scum” on a medium sized planet. We should not take our only home for granted! We do not have another to exploit! Our ecology is finite and so is Earth.

.

‘Twisting numbers into lies’

On May 15th, 2009 jim barton replied:

$2.50 a ton is not quite the truth. $2.50 a ton is what a machine operator is paid. You keep saying that wood chips are sold for $2.50 a ton, so show me a genuine document that states the chips are going for that price. $2.50 is a tonnage rate for being loaded onto the truck so technically they can’t be sent for that price. So if they are fallen for $3.50 a ton, snigged for $2.00 a ton and loaded for $2.00 ton, then the mills would have gone broke years ago wouldn’t they? Then you have the transport costs i believe that this is proof enough that you are scaring people again with more unproven lies. Yeh they are being loaded onto the truck for that price but no way sold for it.

.

‘Chainsaw operator should get a proper job that creates wealth’

On October 13th, 2009 Rousey replied:

I reckon that gutless whinging chainsaw operator or truck driver or whatever he is should stop taking subsidies and handouts from the government (Vicforests – never made a profit – any real company and you would have been out of a job years ago), get an education and get a proper job. Or at least stand up for something he believes. Other than the front bar of the pub.

.

‘These old trees do not have a monetary value!’

On October 13th, 2009 ecoEngine replied:

These trees are up to 600 years old. Their value is ecological and intrinsic. No value in $$ can justify their destruction. Income and jobs are temporal and temporary. We don’t chop up our houses when we need firewood. Destroying these heritage level trees, and protection from climate change, cannot be justified for whatever value! They are PRICELESS so disputing over dollars is irrelevant.

.

– end of article –

Tags: Brown Mountain, Bungewarr Creek, East Gippsland, Indonesia's Timber Mafia, old growth, Premier John Brumby, proud logger, save our forests, tigerquoll, VicForests, woodchip
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

VicForests’ ecological genocide

Friday, August 19th, 2011

(The following article was initially posted on CanDoBetter.net by Tigerquoll on 20090426. It has since been modified.)

.

VicForests’ neo-colonial practice of logging old growth East Gippsland forests, justifies such culling by claiming compliance with Australia’s wood production Standard AS 4708-2007. But this standard is Mein Kampf for ecological genocide of East Gippsland Forests.
Have a read: http://www.forestrystandard.org.au/files/Standards/4708.pdf [Read the Standard]

Under this official Australian Standard that sees only the wood for the trees, it includes two criteria that serve to deliver propaganda spin respect for forest ecology. One must recognise these criteria accompanying Criterion 4—Forest management shall maintain the productive capacity of forests. Need I say more?

Forestry Propaganda Criterion #3 for instance, requires forest management to ‘protect and maintain the biological diversity of forests’. Wonderful wholesome, noble and holistic rumblings about this one – but gullibles wake! VicForests <em>Mein Kampf</em> hides the ‘ chainsaw-speak‘ in the detail:

* ‘Small-scale clearing is permitted up to a limit of 40 hectares on a single forest management unit’. ‘Conservation of threatened (including vulnerable, rare or endangered) species and ecological communities requires the forest manager to minimise adverse impacts by ensuring he/she takes into account of known information and relevant specialist advice‘. (Makes Fiji look like a democracy!)

Forestry Propaganda Criterion 5 requires forest management to maintain forest ecosystem health and vitality, yet is so vague as to allow forest ‘practices’ only to ensure that damage stays “within tolerable levels”. Does this mean one tree per hectare can be left standing or may be two?

Then there’s Clause 4.5.3:

‘Forest managers managing native forests shall use fire and other disturbance regimes to maintain and enhance forest ecosystem health where appropriate to the forest type or scale.’ [p.25]

.

…that is, burn and disturb native forests at will, because we argue that doing so enhances forest ecosystem health. Whoops! The wind picked up and the forest is gone; still we complied with AS 4708-2007!

Such contemptible logic would argue that a bushfire raging through a town can to it good, because eventually the town is rebuilt and the people eventually return, look at Narbethong!

.

The Ferguson Tree – lest we forget

“The tallest tree ever properly measured was a Eucalyptus tree and was 436 feet tall. It was measured by William Ferguson on the 21st of February in 1872. Alarmingly the crown was broken off when the tree was still 1 meter thick, leading to claims that it once was up to five-hundred feet tall in one point in its lifetime.”

The length was a staggering (if true) 133 metres (436 feet) with its crown (the tree’s top) broken off!! The stump’s diameter five feet off the ground was 5.5m (18 feet) and at its broken top its diameter was still 1 metre. It is estimated that had this tree actually still been intact it would have approached 152m (500 feet) in height. The surveyor also noted numerous fallen trees in the same area over 106m (350feet) in height.

It would have been a Mountain Ash or Eucalyptus regnans. Sorry, no photo available. The legend remains only in text.

[Source: ^http://jtpredwoods12345.blogspot.com/]

.

‘VicForests accused of felling old-growth mountain ash’

[Source: Adam Morton, 20100629, The Age newspaper, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vicforests-accused-of-felling-oldgrowth-mountain-ash-20100628-zf5o.html] .

‘The Victorian government’s forestry arm will face a legal challenge over claims it illegally logged old-growth forest and increased the risk to a threatened species.

Environmental groups accuse VicForests of felling dozens of pre-1900 ash eucalypts, breaching the Central Highlands Forest Management Plan. An impending legal case will also claim the timber agency failed to protect habitats necessary for the survival of Victoria’s threatened faunal emblem, Leadbeater’s possum.

Ecologist Jacques Cop, from consultants Acacia Environmental Group, said a survey of just one coupe near Toolangi found 31 pre-1900 ash eucalypts had been logged. Five stumps were more three metres across.

”These are trees that are 200 or 300 years old,” he said.

Mr Cop said the area should also have been protected as a Leadbeater’s possum habitat as it met the threshold of having at least 12 hollowed trees within three hectares. He said neither the state Department of Sustainability and Environment nor VicForests carried out ground surveys to check if ecological requirements were being met. Sarah Rees, president of local group My Environment, said the situation was an emergency.

’31 pre-1900 ash eucalypts had been logged’

“If this doesn’t stop we’re going to lose the last viable habitat for a range of different species, but Leadbeater’s possum carries the strongest case for legal protection“, she said.

The state government said it took the allegations “extremely seriously“.

Spokesman Michael Sinclair said VicForests would investigate the alleged breaches and report to the Department of Sustainability and Environment. VicForests spokesman David Walsh said the agency carried out detail planning before harvesting to ensure it acted within the law and had offered to meet local residents to better understand their concerns.

“No old-growth forest is harvested by VicForests in Victoria’s central highlands region”, he said.

The legal case, being prepared on behalf of a group called the Flora and Fauna Research Collective, comes amid community concern about the scale of logging in the central highlands after the Black Saturday bushfires.

The Wilderness Society said that evidence supporting the latest claims showed illegal logging of native forests was rife under the state government’s watch.

A separate allegation of illegal logging at Brown Mountain, in east Gippsland, is the subject of a pending Supreme Court judgment.

“Premier Brumby must act now to end VicForests’ woodchip rampage in Victoria’s magnificent native forests“, said Wilderness Society spokesman Luke Chamberlain.

Sarah Rees at the base of an ancient mountain ash spared the chainsaw but killed during a clean-up fire near Toolangi.

She says the present situation is an emergency.

Photo: John Woudstra

.

VicForests motto reads: “Victorian Timber: beautiful, natural, functional”

[SOURCE: http://www.vicforests.com.au/]

.

..in lay terms, this means kill beautiful natural specimens – they make the finest woodchips for reliable REFLEX office paper.

.

VICFORESTS: “VicForests employs over 140 staff across 10 Victorian sites located in Melbourne, Healesville and regional areas of Central Highlands and East Gippsland.

We have a variety of exciting career opportunities available – our Foresters specialise in tactical and operational planning, roading, harvesting and contract management, silviculture and native forest regeneration.

Other career paths include customer management, resource and business analysts, safety and risk, operational audit, forest scientists and product delivery.”

VICFORESTS: “We also employ staff in non-forestry roles including IT, HR, communications, finance, administration and customer service. A significant proportion of our staff and contractors are also involved with fire-fighting efforts each year.

VicForests is focused on investing in its employees through training, development, and providing career opportunities.”

VICFORESTS: “We look for dynamic people who have a strong desire to be part of an organisation that strives to achieve success through implementing excellent and innovative business and timber industry practices for our customers and stakeholders.

Contributing to the timber industry is something that VicForests and its staff are proud of.”

[Source: ^http://vicforests.logic1.com.au/employment.htm, accessed 20110819]

Vicforests’ coup at Stoney Creek

East Gippsland 2009

.

‘VicForests’ 2009 Annual Report reveals $5.1 million loss’

‘VicForests’ 2009 Annual Report has once again revealed that the logging agency continues to waste taxpayer millions of dollars sending our forests to the woodchip mills. The report shows that VicForests has posted a loss this year of $5.1 million. This is on top of last year posting a tiny profit after receiving a $5 million lifeline from government, and a loss the previous year.

Woodchip train makes its way to Midways, Geelong (2009) for as little as $2.50 per tonne.

Photo: Wilderness Society Collection

.

‘Whilst VicForests squanders Victorian taxpayer’s hard earned money, woodchipping and paper companies continue to post handsome profits. Whilst we don’t yet know how much they will make for 2009, South East Fibre Exports, a wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese paper giant, Nippon Paper, last year made over $10 million profit. They woodchipped approximately half a million tonnes of Victoria’s native forests, and this year paid as little as $2.50 per tonne for them.

Another giant company, Australian Paper, which makes Reflex papers, is VicForests’ largest single customer and was recently purchased for around $700 million by Nippon Paper. The $5.1 million loss is on top of an extra $1.3 million handout for bushfire recovery and does not include the massive $29 million royalty that it has failed to hand over to the state government who, along with the Victorian public, own these forests.’

[Source: ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/vicforests-2009-annual-report-reveals-5.1-million-loss]

A tombstone of the once impenetrable forest.

A Mountain Ash stump alongside an old forestry track in Balnook, Gippsland.

Note the notches cut in the trunk for standing planks to cut the tree down by axe!

.

Reflex Office Paper

‘Paperlinx’s giant Maryvale mill located in Victoria’s Central Highlands is the largest pulp and paper making complex in Australia, consuming 475,000 cubic metres of eucalyptus forest per annum (RFA, 1998).

‘In July 2006, the Maryvale Mill received Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Chain of Custody Certification for A4 Reflex products manufactured on its Number 3 and Number 5 Paper Machines. Paperlinx has been proudly promoting its environmental credentials ever since (as well as before).

Paperlinx is Australia’s only office paper producer. Its flagship product REFLEX copypaper is 100 per cent virgin native forest. Woodchips to make the paper are sourced from areas including rainforest, old growth forest, endangered species habitat and Melbourne’s largest water source, the Thompson Dam catchment area. Woodchips are also sourced from the Strzelecki Rainforest Reserve, an area that was promised protection by the state government due to its high conservation value.

These areas can be visited and viewed first hand, or determined by satelite image maps which show different forest types (such as rainforest as compared to woodlands) and where logging is occuring. The fact that Paperlinx gained FSC accreditation has raised concerns amoung environment groups who have been campaigning for the protection of these areas for over a decade.

Reflex Recycled Paper

Paperlinx has recently released a brand of paper wrapped in green packaging labelled Recycled. Fifty percent of REFLEX Recycled paper is made from pre-consumer waste (printers’ offcuts), but no genuine post-consumer (eg kerbside collected) recycled papers. The other fifty percent is from the same virgin native forest as stated above.

According to The Wilderness Society Paperlinx has the resources and technology to make use of alternative sources such as plantations and recycled paper, but doesn’t do so as it receives state-owned native forest logs for a significantly lower cost than plantation logs.

Due to the lack of accurate information reaching the public, an alliance of Australia’s peak environment groups including The Wilderness Society, Environment Victoria, Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation released a flier in 2004 urging people to boycott REFLEX paper and listing alternatives.

THE ALTERNATIVE

There is no 100 per cent recycled office paper manufactured in Australia. Brands made overseas that are available in Australia include Evolve, Canon 100 and Fuji Xerox Recycled Supreme.’

[Source: ‘Reflex Office Paper‘, Greenwash .org ^http://www.greenwashreport.org/node/41 ]

.

‘Always rely on Reflex to woodchip old growth‘

Scott Gentle from the Victorian Forest Contractors Association

questions the logic of the Yarra Ranges council’s decision to boycott Reflex paper products.

[Source: ^http://free-press-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/paper-ban-anger/]

.

‘VicForests’ (from its website) presents its vision and values as:

Our vision:

“To be a leader in a sustainable Victorian timber industry.”

Our purpose:

“To build a responsible business that generates the best community value from the commercial management of Victoria’s State forests.”

Our values:

“Accountable – VicForests is accountable to the Victorian Government. Its actions and those of its employees must be consistent with relevant Government policy and priorities.”

Committed – “VicForests is committed to the fulfilment of its purpose and the achievement of its vision for the Victorian timber industry.”

Safe – “VicForests and its staff will manage safe workplaces for all staff and contractors, and are committed to continuous improvement in safety systems and outcomes, in accordance with its Occupational Health and Safety Policy.”

Customer focused – “VicForests will be responsive to its customers’ requirements and seek customer satisfaction, in accordance with its commercial nature.”

Ethical – “VicForests will operate in an ethical and environmentally responsible manner in all its undertakings to ensure the integrity and sustainability of the native forest timber industry in Victoria.”

Innovative – “VicForests seeks to be innovative and adaptable in its organisational, business and forestry management operations.”

Open – “VicForests will manage the commercial harvesting and sale of timber in a framework of openness and transparency.”

Professional – “VicForests and its staff will operate in a professional manner in all undertakings to ensure the best possible outcomes for the organisation, its customers, the Victorian timber industry and its stakeholders.”

Sustainable – “VicForests will pursue the highest standards for forest management practices through the continued development of its Sustainable Forest Management System and by ensuring its triple bottom line performance against the requirements of Victoria’s Sustainability Charter for State forests.”

[SOURCE: http://www.vicforests.com.au/vision-purpose-and-values.htm]

.

I have to pinch myself to realise this is 2009 and not 1959!

.

Brown Mountain – destruction complete!

.

An urgent message from Jill Redwood of Environment East Gippsland (from 20090424). . .

“These were taken yesterday – VicForests mission accomplished.

This ancient stand of 600(plus) year old forest has now been fully annihilated and ready for conversion to a palm-oil plantation. Or it might as well be.

They’ll actually be converted to a pulpwood plantation for the Japanese paper industry.

The other four remaining stands of old growth adjoining are on the logging schedule.

Please help in whatever way you can.”

~ Jill [Environment East Gippsland]

.

[1] ^http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Brown_Mountain_old_growth_forest

[2] ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

[3] ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/?q=campaigns/brown_mountain

.

– end of article –

Tags: Brown Mountain, EEG, Environment East Gippsland, Eucalyptus regnans, government logging arson, old growth forest, tigerquoll, VicForests
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

VicForests slaughters 500 y.o. Australian

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll 20090408 on CanDoBetter.net:

Radiocarbon-testing has confirmed that a giant rare old-growth Eucalyptus regnans located in its natural forest habitat on East Gippsland’s Brown Mountain has been chainsawed by VicForests, despite it being scientifically confirmed to be at least 500 years old.

No regard has been made for the existence value of a Victorian 500 year old natural asset, nor the habitat requirements for the typical arboreal animals and forest owls dependent on this old growth habitat tree or its associative forest dependent habitat. Under State-

sanction, ignorant VicForest butchers have plundered, ransacked and run.

Manager, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Orbost, Steve DeVoogd, has been formally advised that this chainsawing of rare old growth forest is an offence committed under the section 46(1) of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004. The action is also a breach of Code of Forest Practices (CFP). VicForests Chairman, Warren Hodgson, Board members Monica Gould, Jim Houghton, Fiona McNabb, Bob Smith, Susan Walpole, and Chief Executive Officer David Pollard should all be sacked forthwith. VicForests token ‘vision’ ‘purpose’ and ‘values’ which profess motherhood notions of ‘sustainable’, ‘environmentally responsible’ and ‘ethical’ are but ‘Mugabean’. This 500 year old tree epitomises the reality of Brumby’s ‘Sustainability Charter for State forests.

Botanist Steve Mueck has worked for the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment and is now a consultant in the private sector. He says radiocarbon dating of eucalypts is unusual and the result in this case is significant.

“Current forest managements practices are looking at harvesting on rotation times in the vicinity of 80 to 120 years with the perception that that’s a particularly long period of time,” he said.

“Now it is, I suppose, in the context of a human lifetime, but it is a very, very short period of time in comparison to the age in which many of the components that live in these forests can in fact get to in a natural system.”

Back in the 1860s timber workers and naturalists emerged from the forests with stories of massive trees towering to immense heights and as wide as houses.

Government botanist Ferdinand von Mueller recounted the existence of a tree as high as the Egyptian Pyramids at 480 ft (144m) and another fallen tree in the Dandenong Ranges over 400 ft (120m). A giant was sighted in the Otways with a girth of 64 ft (19m).

VicForests senseless decapitation of one of the last Victorian giants is a harbinger of extinction to Victoria’s old growth forests.

It’s like grabbing an old ANZAC from a ‘march past’ and slitting his throat.

.

Comments:

‘Victorian Labor’s “sustainable” principles are thin and shallow’

by Vivienne 20090410:

.

In 2006 the Labor Party pledged to “protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system”.

This promise was blatantly broken.

The trees on of Brown Mountain have not burned for 200 years despite repeated fire threats. The resistance of these old forests to bushfire is evident. This area is also the home of several highly endangered native species.

Clear felling of old growth forests has continued despite their critical role in storing carbon and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.

The Victorian government states that 90% of our forests are preserved. However, only 16% of Victoria is protected, and over 80 percent of what is logged in East Gippsland ends up as mere woodchips!

Clearing 10% of our forests is plainly too much considering that Victoria remains the most cleared and damaged State of Australia.

Our Brumby government is guilty of serious eco-destruction and policy violation, and any claims of “sustainable” principles are demonstrated to be thin and shallow.

.

– end of article –

Tags: biodiversity, Brown Mountain, Brumby's 'Sustainability Charter for State forests, Code of Forest Practices, deforestation, Department of Sparks and Embers, East Gippsland logging, John Brumby, save our forests, Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, VicForests, Victoria's old growth forests, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victorian Labor
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

VicForests’ policy of extinction

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

by Editor 20100826.

East Gippsland, Victoria April 2009:

The senseless killing of a 500+ year old rare surviving Eucalyptus regnans

by VicForest contractors in April 2009.

( Photo courtesy of Environment East Gippsland)

Logging halted at iconic Bungywarr Creek (East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia)

29 April, 2009

‘Today independent forests conservationists are protecting ancient forests from logging in far East Gippsland.

“Two protestors are ‘flying’ a platform located thirty metres up in the tree canopy”, says spokesperson for the group, Ms Lauren Caulfield. “This platform is cabled off to four logging machines, immobilizing them.”

The tree-top protestors are supported by twenty-five forests conservationists on the site.

Bungywarr Creek was first blockaded in 1994, and has remained a contentious logging site ever since.

“Bungywarr Creek forest was identified as iconic almost two decades ago. The old-growth that remains at Bungywarr should be included in the Brumby government’s next round of forest protection”, said Ms Caulfield.

Earlier this month it was revealed that forests like the magnificent stands along Bungywarr Creek are sold to export woodchipping companies for less than the price of a Mars bar – a mere $2.50 per tonne.

“Selling our valuable and carbon-rich native forests for the price of a fast food snack is not making the best financial returns to Victorians”, said Ms Caulfield.

“For VicForests to continue to woodchip the remaining 8% of Victoria’s old-growth forests under Mr Brumby’s watch is a disgrace. Victorians expect and deserve management of our forests for a truly sustainable future.”

“Protecting nature is one of the most important ways to fight climate change”, continued Ms Caulfield. “The forest at Bungywarr Creek will do a better job fighting climate change if it is left intact and able to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”

“While the Brumby government dithers on delivering the ageing 2006 old-growth forest promise, logging at Bungywarr Creek is making climate change worse”, concluded Ms Caulfield.”

[Media Release courtesy of Environment East Gippsland]

^© The Habitat Advocate Public Domain

Tags: Brown Mountain, Bungywarr Creek, East Gippsland, illegal logging, VicForests
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Brown Mountain old growth under attack by VicForests

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

by Editor 2010330.

—————————————————————————-

Victorian Government’s VicForests is attempting to log old growth forests at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, despite Brown Mountain being confirmed habitat for threatened and vulnerable wildlife. Local not-for-profit environment group Environment East Gippsland has commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria asking the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain.

Reports:

(most recent at top)

Brown Mountain Landmark Court Case [Melbourne Supreme Court, 23-25 March 2010]

Court case finishes – summary of the final 3 days.

Quoted Source: Environment East Gippsland 20100330, http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

‘The final days of summing up both VicForests’ and EEG’s arguments were heard in the Melbourne Supreme Court on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (23rd-25th March). These were the last submissions presented to Justice Osborn who heard the 17 day trial that started on the 1st March.

‘In summary – both sides presented their condensed arguments from the past 3 weeks. Early in the case, the economic claims were not allowed as VF had not made any allegations in its defence about economic impact, and there was only summary evidence supplied by VF, without details. The arguments focused on the laws covering protection of threatened species and how VF did or didn’t abide by them. Justice Osborn has reserved his decision . Our legal team have said he could hand this down in a month or two or three … Despite some fairly revealing and insightful evidence being given and some quite startling information to come out of cross examination of witnesses, the decision will be looking at the complexities of the laws governing forests and wildlife management.

‘A support team of about 45 people attended the Melbourne start of the case to show that there was widespread interest in Brown Mountain (see pics). Thanks everyone who came along and who sat through the proceedings.

1st Day (Tues) – the defence (VicForests) lawyers had the stage on day 1 and delivered their case.

‘To those who hadn’t heard the facts, arguments and cross examinations of the previous 3 weeks, it could have sounded fairly reasonable and even worrying. Read our responses to their arguments below. VF lawyers’ arguments consisted of the following:

EEG didn’t have standing to take the case to court as we are too small a group, don’t have a special interest in Brown Mountain, only an emotional or intellectual interest. The fact that we didn’t apply to be on the local Shire environment committee, and the claim that we didn’t take part in the Nat Estate study on 1990 – (but we actually did) and various other arguments were used to attempt to argue we shouldn’t be able to sue VicForests.
It was DSE that should have looked out for threatened species, not VicForests. VF can’t change zonings.
The Potoroo wasn’t ‘detected’ within the meaning of the action statement (FFG Act) – although the animals and the sites were confirmed, the full two weeks of footage was withheld by EEG (under instruction from our lawyers) until late 2009 – making the authorities suspicious of possible tampering and was the reason given by VF for not protecting the area.
Language in the FFG Act and Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act, is not enforceable.
VF noted that the Forest Management Plan was out of date (ended in 2006), which generated much discussion. Justice Osborn pointed out that if it was no longer applicable, then all logging in EG was illegal as the FM Plan is needed before forest can be logged. That point was then quickly resolved.
The Precautionary Principle, which was a major argument in the whole case. It was first claimed by VF not to give rise to any legally enforceable obligation against it, and even if it did, VF claimed it had observed the PP even if it wasn’t thought to be regarded as enough precaution.
VF claim Potoroo wasn’t ‘detected’ to their or DSE’s satisfaction,
On Quolls – there are 75 already protected in EG and that was enough,
For the new species of crayfish – it’s still being named and so doesn’t have a prescription for protection and the 100 metre buffer around the creek will protect it
Sooty and Powerful Owls – only dusk calls detected but no confirmed nesting or roosting sites so no need to protect. Plus there are enough Sooty Owls Management Areas and Powerful Owl Management Areas, despite some evidence from DSE suggesting the protection zone targets had not been reached.
Giant Burrowing Frogs – even if it is high quality and likely habitat, none have yet been detected.
Hollow Bearing Trees – logging prescriptions are claimed to look after them.
Gliders are there in high numbers, yes – but it’s not for VF to protect them and 100 mts along creek should do anyway.
The Precautionary Principle requires caution, but not total infallibility. Actions to express adherence to the PP can be many. VF argued that a 100 metre buffer along the creek was caution enough for all the species.

2nd day of summing up (Wed) –EEG, the plaintiff’s case was presented.

Debbie Mortimer SC argued that:

‘The standards and conditions in the FFG Act Action Statements, Forest Management Plan and the Code of Forest Practices hasn’t been and can’t be complied with by VicForests.
VicForests was the “agent of harm” about to begin clearfelling when we applied for the first injunction, and VF was as obliged to adhere to the law for threatened wildlife as was DSE.
VF don’t need to have DSE declare a conservation zone for VF to adhere to the law or decide not to log.
The Allocation Order (giving forests to VicForests from DSE), Timber Release Plan and the Code (for logging) all mention adhering to the Forest Management Plan.
The issue of whether EEG has legal standing to bring the case to court was argued well for showing we did have standing. It had not been objected to by VF strongly before we embarked on the 17 day trial.
If various surveys had not have been carried out (owls, Gliders, Crayfish and Potoroos), the court case would not have commenced. Surveys show a genuine interest.
Obligation on VF are mandatory – they don’t allow them to ‘duck and weave’ around these obligations.
The main law is the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act – it deals directly with Threatened Species, and binds the state/crown to protect endangered wildlife. The FM Plan and the Code both refer to it.
Forests are a community property. Managed for common good into future. DSE’s position in the evidence given by Lee Meizis was that the Timber Release Plan gave ownership of forests to VF to exploit, but with the right to exploit comes responsibilities for conservation.
FFG Act has strong ‘must do’ language and is imposed on government authorities. Important objectives of FFGA disregarded by VF. Action Statements within the FFGA are enforceable.
Debbie Mortimer said “In every way, VicForests pushed away from its conservation duties” to benefit its access to forests for logging.
VF is not abiding by the law by merely reading the Action Statements.
Logging high quality Quoll habitat is endangering the animal’s survival. At odds with the Precautionary Principle because this species is only found at a functional level in East Gippsland now.
Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act directly forced VF to adhere to the Code. Allocation Order also states VF MUST comply with CFP, PP, AS and FMP.
Not complying with the Code was a breach. Acts refer to the Code being adhered to.
VF must consider advice from relevant experts in Flora and Fauna. The advice of these internal DSE experts were ‘completely sidelined’ during the process that lead to the decision to clearfell Brown Mountain. It was also claimed that the Minister was not given important information on these species.
The 100 mt buffer offered by VF would not protect the Gliders, Quoll, owls, Potoroo and Large Brown Tree Frog and was unknown if it would adequately protect the Giant Burrowing Frog, Brown Mt Crayfish and Square-tailed Kite. Leaving additional large trees while logging and burning the remainder would be unlikely to protect the habitat values of hollow bearing trees (85 out of 207 was all that survived the logged and burnt coupe across the creek in April 2009).
The guideline to protect 100 ha for rich populations of gliders is self-regulating and doesn’t need major fuss – just needs to be mapped and complied with.
Justice Osborn discussed decent reserve designs and ‘whacking in’ some reserve along the creek.
The oft-cited ‘risk-weighted consequences’ of the precautionary principle the VF lawyers used daily, does not mention social or economic ‘balance’ and in context is only about conservation risks and consequences.
We are dealing with some species in a demonstrable state of decline. Failure to halt damage is serious. There is lack of scientific certainty as there is no research or info on impact of logging.
New reserves mean nothing unless we assess the quality and type of the habitat, logging history etc.
BHP was used as an example of a company which must employ specialist ecologists/biologists if it plans to carry out potentially damaging work. VF either needs to employ biodiversity staff, or get in consultants to survey and advise forest planning.
Potoroo detections 100% authentic – no questioning by VF of witnesses – fully accepted, yet despite 3 verified detections, VF made no attempt to consult with DSE biologists or protect 50 ha for each as stated in the FFGA.
DSE set up its own ‘rules’ outside of existing legislation.
DM asked for full injunction to logging.

Day 3 – Thursday – response from Defendant (VF)

‘Having to abide by the SFT Act could mean that every logger, truckie, contractor, roading operator must comply with these laws as well. Does that mean every worker has to set up a biodiversity unit and consult biologists?
Argues again, it’s all DSE’s responsibility.
Argues that the words for Greater Glider protection in the FMP says “approximately 100 ha” is unenforceable – how much is ‘approximately’?
VicForests Lawyers couldn’t find any expert biologists to speak for them. They tried.
Not being given the entire potoroo footage was the whole problem.
The 400 ha reserve to the (drier, steeper) west is a benefit for all the species.
Crays were found in the creek next to a previously logged forest so therefore they can survive OK.
Potoroo no 2 (on camera) wasn’t used in original evidence (it was actually discovered after writ was served but this was overlooked by VF lawyers).
The hair tube evidence of the Potoroo near proposed coupe 19 didn’t come with a copy of the note when it was sent off for analysis – so how do we know where it really was?

This ended the long trial for the wildlife of Brown Mountain. We await Justice Osborn’s final decision …”

Court Case:

‘Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 53 (25 February 2010)’

(Supreme Court of Victoria)

SOURCE: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/53.html

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 February 2010
DATE OF RULING:	25 February 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 53	Revised 4 March 2010

HIS HONOUR:

1 ‘The background to this proceeding is stated in the decision of his Honour Justice J Forrest made last year, and granting injunctive relief to the plaintiff. The injunction restrains logging and associated works within coupes located at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland. The underlying basis on which the plaintiff seeks relief in the proceeding, and upon which it sought and obtained injunctions is that the coupes in issue have such conservation significance that logging of them would be unlawful, having regard to applicable legislative and governmental controls which seek to protect such significance.

2 The plaintiff by summons dated 23 February 2010 now seeks leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with a form of amendment appended to the summons. That application is resisted by the defendant insofar as the amendments raise allegations of the presence of the three animal species within the relevant area, which have not previously formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. The matter is fixed for trial at Sale commencing on Monday next, and has been the subject of a framework of pre-trial directions intended to ensure that it would be ready to proceed at that date, and to ensure that the defendant was accorded procedural fairness. The defendant wishes the matter to proceed next Monday whether or not the amendments are permitted, because any delay will result in the continuation of the injunction which it submits is causing it continuing economic loss and prejudice. The plaintiff contends that the amendments can be made at this very late stage without the necessity of any adjournment of the trial, and that the trial can proceed with adequate procedural fairness from the defendant’s point of view. I accept the relevant principles relating to the application were restated by the High Court in the case of Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v ANU.

3 For present purposes it is sufficient to repeat what was said in the judgment of the plurality: An application for leave to amend a pleading should not be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim, subject to payment of costs by way of compensation. There is no such entitlement. All matters relevant to the exercise of the power to permit amendment should be weighed. The fact of substantial delay and wasted costs, the concerns of case management, will assume importance on an application for leave to amend.

4 The underlying objective of the court must of course be to achieve a just resolution of the dispute between the parties. That notion in a case such as the present extends to the objective insofar as it is reasonably possible of ensuring that justice is seen to be done with respect to the real matters in dispute between the parties. In the present, case I accept that the amendments in issue arise out of circumstances to which the plaintiff was alerted by advice given to the plaintiff by a series of expert witnesses who have carried out ongoing site investigations for the purposes of preparing reports for the trial. If the amendments are refused, and this evidence is excluded, the evidence will not be the best evidence available as at the date of trial of the conservation significance of the land.

5 In my view, such a refusal would not only on the face of it prejudice the plaintiff’s case, but also necessarily detract from the credibility of the evidentiary basis on which the Court proceeds to determine the matter. And I am further of the view that this issue is of particular significance in the present case because it raises issues of the public interest both from the point of view of the position of the plaintiff and the defendant.

6 Accordingly the amendments should be allowed in the absence of prejudice to the defendant, which can be said to outweigh the prima facie desirability of the amendment. The notion of prejudice is to be approached broadly as the decision of Aon makes clear. In the present case, it is first submitted on behalf of the defendant that there has been delay on the part of the plaintiff which should preclude the granting of any indulgence to it. In particular, reference is made to the identification of a new species of crayfish in a report dated 7 December 2009 prepared by Dr McCormack.

7 The substance of this report was not the subject of advice to the defendant’s solicitor until 18 February this year. I accept the delay was regrettable and contrary to the intention and indeed the spirit of the directions made previously by the court in order to put the case in a proper position for trial. Nevertheless, the relevant expert retained by the defendant has now had the opportunity to consider and respond to the report in issue, and I am not persuaded that delay with respect to this aspect of the matter justifies refusal of the amendment.

8 Next it is submitted the defendant will suffer significant procedural prejudice if the amendments are allowed. It is not submitted that repleading the defence will occasion undue difficulty. And on the face of it, the probability is that the defence will be repleaded in parallel terms to the pleas which have previously been made in relation to other species which the plaintiff alleges are present in the relevant area.

9 The problem from the defendant’s point of view is in respect of obtaining expert advice responsive to the material now put forward in respect of the alleged presence of bird and frog species only recently identified as relevant on behalf of the plaintiff. This difficulty is exacerbated due to personal circumstances affecting the expert whom the defendant has retained in this matter, and proposes to call to give evidence.

10 Although the question is, I accept, finely balanced, I have come to the view that the procedural prejudice in issue can be significantly ameliorated and it may reasonably be hoped avoided, if an appropriate basket of directions is made by the Court. First, I would not fix a time for the filing and service of an amended defence, but simply direct that such an amended defence be filed and served as soon as is reasonably practicable.

11 Secondly, I would direct that save with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff call all evidence other than that relating to the matters of fact alleged in the amendments prior to calling evidence concerning such matters. Thirdly, I would direct that Professor Ferguson be at liberty to respond to evidence relating to such matters by viva voce evidence with no written notice of the substance of such response. And fourthly, I would specifically direct that the defendant be at liberty to apply for further directions relating to the evidence concerning such matters.

12 It seems to me that if these directions are made, then having regard to the pleadings as a whole as they currently stand and the expert evidence foreshadowed in the documents that have been filed with the Court, a fair trial should be reasonably possible. I should further record that during the course of argument I indicated to counsel for the defendant that the court would adopt a flexible approach to the giving of Professor Ferguson’s evidence if that should become necessary.

13 In addition to the procedural concerns which the defendant has expressed, the defendant also submitted that it could not be satisfactorily compensated by an order for costs thrown away in respect of the consequences of any amendment. It was submitted that there was a real prospect that an order for costs would not be able to be met by the plaintiff, and reference was made to the debate in the practice court with respect to this aspect of the matter at the time of the hearing relating to injunctive relief.

14 I have come to the view that such prejudice will be minimised if I fix an amount in respect of such costs and order that it be paid within a relatively short time. The parties have now agreed that it would be appropriate to order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the statement of claim, fixed in the amount of $12,000, and that that amount be paid by 5 March 2010.

15 Finally I should add for the sake of completeness that it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that certain amendments proposed with respect to the statement of claim by way of deletion of factual allegations do not go far enough. I am not persuaded that the pleading is on the face of it materially inadequate in relation to the matters raised, for the reasons I discussed with counsel during argument. It seems to me that the underlying issue is one which will have to be resolved at trial and in the light of the evidence as it emerges during the course of the hearing.

16 Accordingly, I propose to make orders generally in accordance with the oral reasons I have just given. First, that the plaintiff have leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim generally in accordance with the form appended to the summons dated 23 February 2010. I say generally because the proposed paragraph 80D needs to be denoted as such in the amended statement of claim.

17 Secondly, that the defendant file and serve an amended defence to the amended statement of claim as soon as is reasonably practicable. Thirdly, save with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff call all evidence other than that relating to matters of fact alleged in the amendments permitted to the statement of claim prior to calling evidence concerning such matters. Fourthly, that Professor Ferguson be at liberty to respond to evidence relating to such matters by viva voce evidence with no written notice of the substance of such response to the plaintiff.18 Fifthly, the defendant be at liberty to apply for further directions with respect to evidence relating to such matters. Sixthly, that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendments, including the costs of this application fixed at $12,000, on or before 5 March 2010.’

Tags: Brown Mountain, Potoroo, Threat from Logging, VicForests
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Brown Mountain – VicForest eco-rapists taken to court

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Reports:

(most recent at top)

‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has concluded in the Supreme Court on Thursday 25th March – after a 16 day trial.’

East Gippsland residents outside Victorian State Parliament in early 2010

protesting against the Victorian Government’s immoral and illegal logging and scorched earthing

of old growth forests of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland Victoria, Australia.

The photos show a Greater Glider [Petauroides volans]. The Greater Glider is strictly nocturnal, and largely solitary, arboreal species of undisturbed eucalypt-dominated woodland habitats. It is endemic to south eastern Australian forests including Brown Mountain and its population is decreasing largely due to land clearing for agriculture, logging, and bushfires.

[Source: Environment East Gippsland, 20100327, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]

‘Justice Osborn has reserved his decision. It could take anywhere from one month to six months to hand down a finding, but of course we are hoping sooner.

The four week trial has been marked by finger-pointing between government logging bodies VicForests and DSE about who is responsible for endangered species. The behavior of those charged with protecting our wildlife has been exposed to public scrutiny and the Supreme Court’s enquiry.

We believe the government doesn’t survey for endangered wildlife before they log old growth forest, because they don’t want to find anything that would prevent logging. The Court heard that VicForests doesn’t employ wildlife experts, and EEG has argued that both VicForests and the DSE sideline the opinion of the government’s biodiversity unit. We now hope the Minister is fully informed about the very high conservation values in this area.

EEG presented evidence of a new species of crayfish in Brown Mountain Creek, plus experts claiming the stands of old growth are high quality habitat for two species of rare frogs, and the Spotted-tailed Quoll. The evidence for the Spotted-tailed Quoll was heart-breaking – the three last remaining viable colonies are in East Gippsland.

This case has been all about whether irreversible damage would be caused by logging. And as our legal team stated:

“You can’t get damage that is more irreversible than extinction.”

The outcome of this case is important for the protection of wildlife in other stands of high conservation value native forests under threat of clearfelling.’

.

‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has begun!’

[Source: Environment East Gippsland, 20100315, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]

‘After months of preparation, our legal team and supporters have gathered in Sale and begun the two-week Brown Mountain landmark trial.

Everything is going very well so far. It’s difficult to report on a hearing that is in progress, particularly since we are the plaintiff, so this article might lack a few things.

Our lead barrister, Debbie Mortimer SC, spent Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning in Court outlining what we say are the facts and the law, in a fascinating opening submission.

She spoke about the beautiful native wildlife that is central to our case, and the Court was treated to large pictures of the critters. It was almost surreal, but quite appropriate in our view, to see a team of lawyers in black gowns and wigs defending the furry, the feathered, the cray and the frog.

She said that VicForests has a number of legal responsibilities towards the environment, including endangered species, and that those responsibilities are inconsistent with logging at Brown Mountain.

For a more detailed summary of the first day’s hearing, read this excellent article by The Age journalist Kate Hagen, who is attending the hearing Click here Journalists from ABC Radio and Win TV (channel 9) are also attending the hearings.

VicForests’ lead barrister Ian Waller SC started outlining VicForests’ case this afternoon. When Court adjourned today, he said he still had about an hour to go, so we haven’t got the full picture yet.

But generally speaking he contended that VicForests’ responsibility to the environment wasn’t anywhere near as strong as we made out, and was balanced by its requirement to create economic and social benefits. He said that, to the extent to which VicForests has responsibilities to the environment and native wildlife, it has fulfilled them.

Today (Wednesday), Justice Osborn and the legal teams are having a look at Brown Mountain first hand. It’s not just a bushwalk, though; they will observe first hand some places and concepts about forests, logging and post-logging practices that will later on be discussed in Court.

On Thursday morning, VicForests’ opening submissions will finish, then Environment East Gippsland will bring out our witnesses.’

.

Fate of native Forest Hangs on ‘David v Goliath’ Court Case

Source: Environment East Gippsland, (EEG), 20100301, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

Environment East Gippsland Inc (EEG) v Vic Forests Brown Mountain Court Case, Sale, Monday, March 1

‘The fate of a native forest with trees dating back to Joan of Arc’s time is at stake in a Supreme Court case to be heard at the Victorian centre of Sale from Monday (March 1).

‘The landmark Brown Mountain case has national implications for all native forests in Australia and major political implications, with the green vote likely to be vital for both State and Federal Labor Governments in an election year – which is also the UN’s Year of Biodiversity.

‘In a David and Goliath battle, Environment East Gippsland (EEG) is seeking to stop state-owned logging monopoly VicForests from clear-felling Brown Mountain, a rich and ancient forest which is “chockablock” with threatened and endangered species.

‘The action marks the first time a Victorian court has been asked to grant a permanent injunction against state-sanctioned logging. It will also raise the fundamental conflict in Australia’s Regional Forest Agreement – where the State Government charged with protecting the forests is also the logger.

‘That was underlined in Victoria last year when Environment Minister Gavin Jennings gave the go-ahead to logging at Brown Mountain, declaring there were no threatened species in there. That very morning an EEG camera captured footage at Brown Mountain of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species.

‘In the absence of government protection, EEG was forced to take legal action to defend the forest – an enormous and costly step for a community group.

‘In an Australian first, EEG last year won a temporary injunction on logging at Brown Mountain, ahead of the full hearing, with Supreme Court Justice Forrest comparing images from the forest to the WW1 battlefields of the Somme. But even if successful with their action, conservationists anticipate the Victorian Government may favour the logging industry and over-ride the court’s decision as has happened in previous high-profile cases in both Victoria and Tasmania.’

.

Brown Mountain Background

Source: Environment East Gippsland ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

‘Brown Mountain, in East Gippsland in Victoria, contains old growth forest with ancient trees, one carbon-dated to 600 years old. It is prime habitat for threatened species including the Long-footed Potoroo, Spot-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, the Large Brown Tree Frog, the Square-tailed Kite, and the Giant Burrowing Frog. It is also a hotspot for arboreal mammals, like the Greater Glider and the Yellow-bellied glider.

‘Environment East Gippsland (EEG) alleges that logging four coupes on Brown Mountain is unlawful because it breaches provisions to protect endangered and threatened species in the Victorian Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. In particular EEG says that VicForests has failed to comply with the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007.

‘In the 2006 election, the Bracks Labor Government promised to protect “the last significant stands of old growth currently available for logging”. Brown Mountain should clearly have been included but, instead, 20 hectares were logged in summer 2008-09. Threatened species surveys triggered a moratorium in February 2009 followed by more surveys over winter and spring and, in August 2009, an EEG survey camera recorded the presence of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species, despite the government’s declaration – earlier that same day- that there were NO threatened species at Brown Mountain.

‘In September 2009, EEG successfully obtained an interim injunction against VicForests to prevent logging in the coupes. In granting the injunction, Justice Forrest likened photographs of logging to ‘pictures of the battlefields of the Somme’.

‘Already the case has delivered important precedents:

The Supreme Court refused VicForests’ application for up to $163,000 in security from EEG before a court injunction was granted to stop logging on Brown Mountain. Having to pay such a large sum would have stopped the community group being able to challenge critical habitat logging.
The interim injunction, granted late last year, was also a groundbreaking decision because no Victorian court has ever ordered an injunction on logging before.

‘However there are concerns that the Victorian Government could override a logging ban, if the EEG case is successful.

‘Greens Leader Bob Brown successfully brought a court case to halt logging at the Wielangta forest in Tasmania because it threatened the endangered Swift Parrot, Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle and Wielangta Stag Beetle. Then Prime Minister John Howard and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon amended the Regional Forest Agreement to permit logging to continue.

‘In 1998, logging at Goolengook in far eastern Victoria, the site of Australia’s longest running forest blockade from 1997 to 2002, was found to be unlawful because it was within a protected area next to a Heritage River. The Victorian government changed the law retrospectively to make the logging legal.’

.

Member’s Statement: VicForests – Brown Mountain old growth forest

SOURCE: Victorian Greens, 20090402, ^http://mps.vic.greens.org.au/node/1057

‘Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the University of Waikato in New Zealand has confirmed that a tree cut down by VicForests in the Brown Mountain old-growth forest was between 550 and 600 years old. Until now foresters have claimed that these large trees were between 200 and 250 years old. Others have assumed that between 300 and 400 years would be the age limit before the trees succumb to rot. The tree was young when Joan of Arc lived and Christopher Columbus discovered America. It measured 11 metres around the stump close to the ground. Other trees on Brown Mountain have girths of 12 metres and more and could between 700 and 800 years old. They would have been mature when Marco Polo travelled the world. These trees are ancient relics and part of our precious national heritage.

‘VicForests and the Brumby government cannot replace these trees once they are cut down. They are logged on a 50-to-80-year rotation. It would take until 2600 AD for a tree to grow to the same size.

In 2006 Premier Brumby promised to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests. Since then hundreds of hectares of these ancient forests have been cut down. It is not good enough for the government to claim that VicForests is independent and that the government can do nothing to save Brown Mountain. The government must act now to protect all remaining old growth forests in East Gippsland.’

.

Brown Mountain to stay green – for now

SOURCE: The Wilderness Society, http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/brown-mountain-to-stay-green-2013-for-now

‘Brown Mountain, in Victoria’s East Gippsland, is home to magnificent old-growth trees as well as endangered species like the Orbost spiny crayfish and the Long-footed potoroo.

‘One of the giant Brown Mountain trees that will hopefully be saved by the Supreme Court Injunction.

(Photo: Luke Chamberlain)

‘But despite previous promises from the Victorian government to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests in the state, Brown Mountain still has no protection against logging by VicForests.

‘Early in 2009, things were looking dire. Ignoring community outrage, VicForests’ bulldozers continued to destroy trees as old as 500 years.

‘Supported by the Wilderness Society, along with many concerned residents, volunteers and other concerned Victorians, Environment East Gippsland brought a last-minute court injunction against the logging at Brown Mountain.

‘Environment East Gippsland is Victoria’s longest running community forest group working solely for the protection of Victoria’s last and largest area of ancient forest in the state. Environment East Gippsland drew a line in the sand, and submitted for a court injunction to halt the logging.’VicForests, the Victorian Government’s commercial logging agency, stood up in court and argued for logging to begin as soon as possible.

Incredibly, VicForests said that it is not their responsibility, nor is it possible for them to comply with endangered species legislation!

‘Supreme Court judge Justice Jack Forrest commented on photographs showing the ”apparent total obliteration” of an old-growth logging coupe in Brown Mountain and subsequent burning off, saying they reminded him of the battlefields of the Somme.

”To put it bluntly, once the logging is carried out and the native habitat destroyed, then it cannot be reinstated or repaired in anything but the very, very long term,” he said.’

An injunction against logging was granted just in time. But an expensive trial over the issue will be heard in March. The Brown Mountain forests will need all the help they can get.

.

Minister ‘on two fronts’ in forest

SOURCE: Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100303, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/minister-on-two-fronts-in-forest-20100302-pgg1.html

‘Environment Minister Gavin Jennings moved to protect significant areas of old-growth forest in East Gippsland at the same time as releasing some of it for logging, a court has heard.

‘Ian Waller, SC, for the state government’s commercial timber agency VicForests, said the minister announced new parks and reserves in the vicinity of Brown Mountain last year along with other measures to protect threatened species in the area. ‘They included a 100-metre buffer zone around Brown Mountain Creek and the retention per hectare of at least five hollow-bearing trees, which are important for habitat and breeding, where they were present in sufficient numbers.

‘VicForests is defending itself against a claim by Environment East Gippsland that logging of about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain would breach legislation aimed at protecting endangered and threatened species.

In an opening address yesterday to the Supreme Court sitting at Sale, Mr Waller said much of the newly protected area had never been logged, despite claims to the contrary by the environment group. ‘He said VicForests was meeting its obligations under various pieces of legislation and took a great deal of care in preparing its timber release plans, which had to be approved by the secretary of the Department of Environment and Sustainability (DSE) before logging could occur.

“‘It is not a random exercise by which areas of forest are deemed suitable for harvesting and only then checked for difficulties,” Mr Waller said. ”The entire process from beginning to end is one of checks and balances, where precautions are observed in identifying areas to be harvested as well as the manner in which harvesting is to occur.”

Mr Waller said it was the DSE, and not VicForests, that had the power and responsibility to create special protection zones where they were warranted. He said that logging might not pose a risk to the long-footed potoroo, listed as endangered by the federal government, because surveys after logging showed prevalence of the species had increased. Mr Waller said there was evidence that factors other than logging were threatening spot-tailed quolls, since the species was not secure even in areas of plentiful habitat. He said the guaranteed survival and flourishing of flora and fauna, as specified in legislation, was an ”aspirational goal” rather than an enforceable requirement. ”If a complete and utter guarantee had to be enforced in all respects it may be that harvesting would cease absolutely,” he said. ”Yet it is obvious the regime is to promote and allow harvesting.”

The trial is due to continue before Justice Robert Osborn, who today will view the contested site.’

.

Logging ‘a threat to wildlife’

Source: Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100302, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/logging-a-threat-to-wildlife-20100301-pdlh.html

‘STATE-SANCTIONED logging of old-growth forest in East Gippsland poses a risk to threatened and endangered species and is at odds with the government’s own legislation, an environment group has said.

Environment East Gippsland is suing VicForests, the government agency responsible for logging in state forests, over plans to log about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain, which greens and the timber industry see as a symbolic battleground.

The group won an injunction last year preventing logging in the area before the trial, which began in the Supreme Court sitting at Sale yesterday.

The group acted after Environment Minister Gavin Jennings lifted a seven-month moratorium on logging at Brown Mountain, saying government scientists had found no evidence of endangered species there. But in an opening address yesterday, Debbie Mortimer, SC, for Environment East Gippsland, said VicForests relied on ”desktop planning”, using often outdated records that were at odds with evidence from field experts on the ground.

She listed nine species in the area that were recognised as being ”in a demonstrable state of decline” and prone to extinction, including the square-tailed kite, powerful owl, spot-tailed quoll and giant burrowing frog.

She said the long-footed potoroo, which the federal government listed as an endangered species, was particularly vulnerable.

”To an outsider it’s tempting to characterise this as a case about trees and whether they should be cut down,” Ms Mortimer said. ”In our submission that is to see this forest only as a kind of farm … for the purpose of harvesting trees.

”Our case is to see it as an ecosystem that grows and decays on its own cycles. Flora and fauna depend on it. It is complex and not fully understood.”

Ms Mortimer said logging in Brown Mountain was incompatible with a ”suite of legislation” enacted in Victoria aimed at protecting and conserving biodiversity.

She said the legislation was ”not intended to turn tracts of forests into islands where isolated populations of species inevitably lack biodiversity and the optimal breeding conditions and habitat range to recover and flourish.

”We do not dispute that native forest logging involves very different, frequently competing interests. What we seek to demonstrate is that logging of old-growth forests inhabited by many threatened species … under the present administration by VicForests favours logging in a way that the legislative and regulatory scheme does not envisage or allow.” She said forests were a ”community resource” that belonged to all Victorians.

The case before Justice Robert Osborn is due to continue today, when lawyers for VicForests are due to respond. ‘

.

‘Old-growth trees logged at Brown Mountain over 500 years old’

Source: The Wilderness Society, 20100301, ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/old-growth-trees-logged-at-brown-mountain-over-500-years-old

‘The Brumby government’s 2006 policy to protect old-growth forests in East Gippsland has been put to shame by VicForests who has been caught out logging trees over 500 years old.

In a state first, radiocarbon dating has confirmed that a tree logged and killed at Brown Mountain began growing before Christopher Columbus ‘discovered’ the Americas. The carbon sample shows that there is a 68% chance that the tree started growing between 1435 and 1490 AD, and it is believed that there are even older trees being logged.

In 2006, the ALP state government promised to protect the last significant stands of old growth forests. In a move that can only be described as environmental and political vandalism, VicForests sent the bulldozers into the first of three logging coupes at Brown Mountain in October last year.

Recent flora and fauna surveys have revealed that Brown Mountain is extremely rich in arobreal species and contains endangered species such as the Orbost Spiny Crayfish and the Long-footed Potoroo.

However, VicForests continues to ignore community calls to end the logging at Brown Mountain and has refused to remove two more coupes planned to be logged any day now.

VicForests must be reigned in from destroying East Gippsland’s last remaining unprotected old-growth forests.’

.

Tags: Brown Mountain, East Gippsland, John Brumby, Logging, VicForests
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Possums and Gliders, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Habitat Topics

Recommended Links

Action Bioscience

Activists Rights

African Wild Dog Conservancy

African Wildlife Foundation

Amazon Rainforest

Ancient Forest Alliance

Animal Defenders International

Animal Info. on Endangered Animals

Animal Justice Party

Antarctic Ocean Alliance

Arid Lands Environment Centre

ARKive (endangered species)

Australia World Heritage List (UNESCO)

Australia's Threatened Species

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Fauna.com

Australian Geographic

Australian Native Plant Society

Australian Paper Watch

Australian Platypus Conservancy

Australian Registry of Wildlife Health

Australian Seabird Rescue

Australian Stable Population Party

Australian Student Environment Network

Australian Wildlife Carers Network

Australian Wildlife Conservancy

Australians for Animals

Badger Protection League

Badger Trust

Badger Watch and Rescue

Bagheera (Endangered species)

Ballaarat Wildlife Park

Biodiversity International

Birdlife Australia

Birdlife International

Birdwatch Ireland

Blue Marine Foundation

Blue Mountains Bird Observers

Blue Mountains Birding

Blue Mountains Conservation Society

Blue Mountains Wildplant Rescue Service

Bob Irwin Wildlife Fund

Bookend Trust

Born Free Foundation

Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation

Botanical Gardens Conservation International

Buffalo Field Campaign

Buffalo Field Campaign blog

Bush Heritage Australia

Bush Warriors

Butterfly Conservation

Cairns and Far North Environment Centre

California Gray Whale Coalition

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Cat Action Treasury

Cave Hill Conservation Campaign

Center for Earth Jurisprudence

Center for Plant Conservation

Chipstop

CITES

Coalition Against Duck Shooting

Code Green Tasmania

Colong Foundation for Wilderness

Conservation Council ACT Region

Conservation Council of South Australia

Conservation Council of Western Australia

Conservation Evidence

Conservation International

Convention on Biodiversity

Cool Forests

CREO (recent extinctions)

Cruelty Free Shop (The)

CSIRO Publishing

Cybec Foundation

David Suzuki Foundation

Defenders for Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife (savewolves)

Devils in Danger

Eaglehawk Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre

Earth Justice

Earthcare St Kilda Inc.

Earthwatch Institute Australia

Earthways

Earthways Foundation

ECO

Eco Ranger

Ecology Project International

Ecos Magazine

EDGE of Existence Programme

EnAct International

Endangered Species Link

Endangered Wildlife Trust

Environment East Gippsland

Environment Institute ANZ

Environment Tasmania

Environment Victoria

Environmental Defenders Offices

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Law Foundation

Environs Kimberley

Essex Badger Protection Group

Ethical Paper

Eurobodalla Regional Botanic Gardens

F.A.M.E.

Fauna & Flora International

Film Makers for Conservation

Florentine Protection Society Inc.

Forest and Bird

Forest Media

Forest Network

Forest Peoples Programme

Forest Policy Research

Forest Protection Portal

Forest Rescue

Foundation for Critical Thinking

Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife

Foundation for Rabbit-Free Australia

Four Paws International

Friends of Five Forests

Friends of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment

Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Friends of the Earth (UK)

Friends of the Earth Australia

Gilbert's Potoroo Action Group

Ginninderra Catchment Group

Global Raptor Information Network

Global Trees Campaign

Goongerah Environment Centre

Great Barrier Reef Blog

Green Belt Movement

Greenpeace Australia

Gunns 20 Case

Habitat Destruction

Habitat Network

Hancock Watch

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

Healesville Sanctuary

Help for Wildlife

Herts and Middlesex Badger Group

Humane Society International

Huon Valley Environment Centre

Iberia Nature

Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association

Inland Rivers Network

Institute of Wildlife Research

International Anti Poaching Foundation

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Intl Community of Ecopsychology

Intl Union for Conservation of Nature

Invasive Species Council

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Kakapo Recovery

Kanuguba

Keep the Habitat

Kew Gardens

Keystone Conservation

Kimberley (Save the Kimberley)

Kimberley Wildlife Carers and Associates

Kimberley Wildlife Rescue

Lake Pedder Restoration Committee

Lawyers for Forests

Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Linnean Society of London

Markets for change

Mass Extinctions

Melbourne Water Catchment Network

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Molonglo Catchment Group

Moon Bears (Korea)

My Environment

National Birds of Prey Trust

National Geographic

National Geographic Network

National Geographic Wild

National Institute for Amazonian Research

National Parks Association of NSW

National Parks Conservation Assoc.

Native Forest Action

Native Forest Network

Native Forests

Natural Edge Project

Natural History Museum

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature

Nature and Society Forum

Nature Conservation Council of NSW

Nature Conservation Trust

Nature's Crusaders

Naturschutzbund Deutschland

Nepenthes (defending rainforest)

North East Forests Alliance

NZ Birds

NZ Ecological Restoration Network

NZ Ecological Society

NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust

NZ Trust for Conservation

Observer Tree

Orangutan Foundation International

Otway Ranges Environment Network

Our Common Ground (Tasmania)

Photos and Feathers

Preserve Our Islands

Primate Info Net

Purves Environmental Fund

Queensland Conservation Council

Quercus

Race Against Extinction

Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Rescue

Rainforests (mongabay global website)

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands

Raptor & Wildlife Refuge of Tasmania Inc.

Rhino Resource Center

Rising Tide Australia

Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Sahara Conservation Fund

Save America's Forests

Save Biogems

Save Ralph's Bay Inc.

Save the Badger

Save the Blue Tier

Save the Cassowary

Save the Kimberley

Save the Koala

Save the South Sister

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

Saving Rhinos

Saving Species

Sea Shepherd

Sierra Club

Sierra Forest Legacy

Six Degrees

Smithsonian Museum (Natural History)

Society for Conservation Biology

Society of Wildlife Artists

South East Forest Rescue

South East Region Conservation Alliance

Southern ACT Catchment Group

Still Wild Still Threatened

Strait 4 Devils

Sussex Wildlife Trust

Ta Ann

Taiga Rescue Network

Tarkine National Coalition

Taronga Conservation Society Australia

Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.

Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill Inc.

Terra Nature

The Central Highlands Alliance

The Change Agency

The Forest Activist Network

The Forest History Society

The Kerulos Center

The Kimberley Toadbusters

The Last Stand

The Last Tree

The Monkey Sanctuary

The Nature Conservancy

The Rainforest Information Centre

The Wild Foundation

The Wilderness Society

THINKK

Tigers in Crisis

Total Environment Centre

TRAFFIC (wildlife trade)

Tree Council (Ireland)

Tree Council (UK)

Tree Project

Trees for Life

Trees Not Gunns

Trust for Nature

UN Environment Programme

UN FAO on Global Forests

UNESCO World Heritage

University of Ulster (Natural Science)

Vegan Society (The)

Victorian Rainforest Network

Voiceless

Vulturejam

W.I.R.E.S.

Water S.O.S. Tasmania

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Western Alliance for Nature

Western Wolves

Wielangta Forest

Wild Futures

Wilderness Truths

Wildlife Art Society of Australasia

Wildlife Australia

Wildlife Conservation Society

Wildlife Mismanagement

Wildlife New Zealand

Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia

Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales

Wildlife Victoria

Wildscreen

Wolli Creek Protection Society

Wolves and Humans Foundation

Wombat Awareness Organisation Ltd

Woodland Trust

World Commission on Protected Areas

World Database on Protected Areas

World Land Trust

World Rainforest Movement

World Society for the Protection of Animals

World Wildlife Fund

WWF New Zealand

Posts Tagged ‘Brown Mountain’

29 April, 2009:

.

.

Subsequent Comments:

.

‘Sell the loggers not the logs’

.

.

‘Rampant materialism and environmental destruction!’

.

.

‘Logging contracter attacks Bungewarr protesters’

.

.

‘State Government does not listen to decent protests!’

.

.

‘VicForests no different to Indonesian Timber Mafia’

.

.

‘More Lies’

.

.

‘Logging subsidised by tax-payer’

.

.

‘Proud logger with job recycles but is realistic’

.

.

‘National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI)’

.

.

‘Logging is not sustainable’

.

.

‘Earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control’

.

.

‘Twisting numbers into lies’

.

.

‘Chainsaw operator should get a proper job that creates wealth’

.

.

‘These old trees do not have a monetary value!’

.

.

Then there’s Clause 4.5.3:

‘Forest managers managing native forests shall use fire and other disturbance regimes to maintain and enhance forest ecosystem health where appropriate to the forest type or scale.’ [p.25]

.

.

.

The Ferguson Tree – lest we forget

.

.

‘VicForests accused of felling old-growth mountain ash’

’31 pre-1900 ash eucalypts had been logged’

.

.

.

.

.

.

‘VicForests’ 2009 Annual Report reveals $5.1 million loss’

.

.

.

Reflex Office Paper

Reflex Recycled Paper

THE ALTERNATIVE

.

‘Always rely on Reflex to woodchip old growth‘

.

.

Further Reading:

.

.

.

.