Talk:Upper Florentine Valley

Neutrality
I think the article is very much written from an Environmentalist point of view with little to no reference to Forestry Tasmania's arguments on it's operations and planned operations in the valley. Additional refferences are probably also needed for phrases like 'unique beauty' and the like. Also using Environment Tasmania as a refference doesn't seem appropriate as a non-neutral organisation. --TinTin (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Readers should definitely have concerns about the lack of neutrality of this article. The term 'high conservation-value forest' is particularly value-laden. In the Tasmanian context, it is used as a label for anywhere that environmentalists consider a valid target for reservation. During the recent (2010-2013)'peace process' resulting in the Tasmanian Forests Agreement, the environmentalists' high conservation-value forests were subjected to a highly unscientific 'validation' process that fitted the political agenda of the day while paying scant regard to mainstream conservation science. The outcome is a set of new reserves that in aggregate represent a very poor outcome from a genuine nature conservation perspective, particularly given the inevitable displacement of timber production to other areas (in Tasmania and beyond), including areas of intrinsically higher nature conservation value, which will be put under additional pressure as a result of this process. Simon Grove (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Simon Grove

PEACE DEAL UNDER ATTACK

Logging of Tasmania's forests remains a contentious issue. In 2013, a forest peace deal was agreed to by all parties, conservationists, logging industry, State and Federal governments. Substantial areas of forest were nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List and significant amounts of money were reserved for transition to sustainable forestry in Tasmania. Subsequent changes in government on both State and Federal level have resulted in both governments "tearing up the forest peace deal". The Federal government lead by Tony Abbott is attempting to have the World Heritage nomination revoked and the State premier is making attempts to ramp up the forest industry in Tasmania.

Although these two governments profess to have an interest in conservation, they have no credible plans in place and their actions are based primarily on snubbing the conservation movement. It would also appear that their motives are more aligned with EXPLOITATION rather than conservation. The Federal Liberal government has systematically attacked any organisation that challenges its climate change agenda, or lack there of, and this government has openly attacked funding of bodies such as the CSIRO, the very organisations that expose the falicy of government policy. The state government has indicated that it will sell our forests to anyone who will take them, including countries that are not interested in forest certification whilst simultaneously supporting Forest Stewardship accreditation. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Challenging the facts of this article are a cynical attempt to distract from the reality that we must protect what is left of our natural heritage. Of the original forest cover in Australia, more than 90% is degraded or gone. There is NO credible argument against this fact. The forests under threat are known to to contain threatened and endangered species. They also contain some of the biggest hardwood trees on the planet.

Australians face a simple challenge, defy the governments that have an agenda of division and policies that promote outdated exploitation, or stand up for the environment that we need for our own survival. If the forest war is to restart... SO BE IT!

Rom Sp. HOBART, Tasmania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rom Sp (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)