Greens even against removing fallen trees!!!

June 21st, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

If you ever wanted an example of how extreme and nutty the are on conservation this is it.

Nick Smith announced:

Special legislation is to be passed by Parliament to enable the recovery of high value native timber blown over in Cyclone Ita on West Coast public conservation land, Dr Nick Smith announced today.

“We need to take a pragmatic approach and enable the timber to be recovered where it can be done so safely and with minimal environmental impact. This initiative will provide welcome jobs and economic opportunities for the West Coast at a difficult time, and will provide a financial return to DOC that can be reinvested in conservation work,” Dr Smith says.

Cyclone Ita hit the West Coast on 17 April this year and caused the worst windfall damage in generations, felling an estimated 20,000 hectares of forest and causing significant damage to a further 200,000 hectares.

The West Coast Windblown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill confines the recovery of useable wood to areas affected by Cyclone Ita and specifically excludes World Heritage Areas, national parks, ecological areas and the white heron sanctuary reserve at Whataroa. Authorisations are only to be issued where the Department’s Director-General is satisfied the proposed method of removing the timber is safe for workers and the public, and minimises environmental impacts. The recovery of timber is limited until 1 July 2019 when the Bill expires. All revenue from royalties will go to the Department of Conservation.

So who could be against that? These are trees that have been blown down, and will rot. It clears them away to allow new plantings, creates jobs, and generates revenue for DOC. I mean sure a few fallen trees are good for regrowth, but this is 20,000 hectares of fallen trees.

Eugenie Sage says:

“It is illegal to log these forests, a storm is no reason to change the law,” Green Party conservation spokesperson Eugenie Sage said today.

This is why Whale calls them the Green Taliban – that is beyond extreme. They are against removing trees that have been blown down. I guess their view is Gaia decided to destroy the forest, so they must be left there to rot.

Tags: ,

78 Responses to “Greens even against removing fallen trees!!!”

  1. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Gaia must be protected, Gaia above all!, shout the demented Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Northland Wahine (655 comments) says:

    I wonder how many of these green morons live in houses with kauri on their floors be it reclaimed or an original villa? The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kiwi in america (2,464 comments) says:

    The Greens have worked hard to paper over their crazy ideology. Norman and Turei have managed to partially mainstream the party after the Donald/Fitsimmons days when Morris dancing was de régur at their conferences. But underneath the suits and pseudo business talk they believe that the earth reigns supreme over humans and that core belief lies at the heart of such a bizarre response to a pragmatic law change.

    Lest we forget how nutty they can get at the fringes – for your Saturday viewing pleasure: Earth First http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4. Perhaps they can come and mourn after the clear felling is completed!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Daniel (186 comments) says:

    The Greens are showing their true colours. This law is good for the environment, and with revenue going to DOC to reinvest in conservation any environmental lobby group should be singing the government’s praises. But the Greens aren’t. Because they don’t really care about the environment, we have an election coming up and they care about trying to hurt National. They are putting political tactics above what is best for the environment. It was similar when voted against the vulnerable children bill by Paula Bennet – by all accounts that would improve conditions for children (not even a left/right issue) but the Greens opposed it, because it came from National.

    It’s quite a shame because if the Greens put the environment ahead of their political manoeuvring they could actually make some positive impact.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. PaulL (5,977 comments) says:

    This isn’t new. There was a world recognised logging scheme running in the West Coast forests when Helen Clark came to power, and it was closed down. It was all cable driven – so trees that were old and about to fall (or had already fallen) were stripped of their branches (via chainsaw) and then lifted out on cables and/or helicopters (can’t recall which). It had almost no impact on the forest, created jobs, sequestered the carbon in the logs (a log that is milled holds all the carbon within it, one that rots releases some CO2 into the air), and left much of the green matter on the forest floor (the waste branches and leaves).

    It was shut down, because all logging is bad. Evidence and logic aren’t things you should associate with the Greens. And once you understand that, you really have to discount their views on everything, as you have no way of working out whether they’re well founded or just opinions being shouted really loudly.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PaulL (5,977 comments) says:

    Ah, there we go, a small wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Accord

    The whole thing related to timberlands, an SOE.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Maybe Metiria Turei wants to maintain her body weight by eating all the huhu grubs in the rotting logs

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “… This is why Whale calls them the Green Taliban – that is beyond extreme….felling an estimated 20,000 hectares of forest and causing significant damage to a further 200,000 hectares.”

    Given that those estimates are absolutly true – what else could be done with the wood?

    And why then would ‘special legislation’ need to be passed? – shouldn’t the bleeding obvious be done – just out of common bloody sense?

    This is the problem that National has been having for the last 6yrs – having to set up the likes of select commitees – on every conceivable problem that -in realty- a ‘group of people’ raise – in this case the Greens. The Green’s MAINTAIN votes over this no matter WHAT the outcome – so why waste time and taxpayers money?

    National has done terrificly well in 6yrs of governance given the GFC and a devasting earthquake in it’s second largest city -but it must be said- why pay homage to EVERY demand that the opposition suggests – isn’t the practical history of dealing with the GFC and an earthquake good enough to just say ‘fuck off – stop wasting everyone’s time and money by…….’ ?

    This cuurrent issue is just another example of National having moved TO the center – and NOT the center having moved TO National!

    What’s the point of having 51% of the votes if you are going to waste time and money on select committees – by talking with the opposition on EVERYTHING THEY RAISE – as all you will be doing is to continue down the very well trodden path of ‘objective marxism’ the past history of NZ – a one party socialist state that ‘talks about wealth disparity, race, genitilia, genatila subordance, dreams of genatilia, religion, et el ALL THE FUCKEN TIME!

    “This is why Whale calls them the Green Taliban.”

    No shit – vote for The Conservatives! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Tauhei Notts (1,642 comments) says:

    who came up with that wonderful quote;
    “The Greens say they care about the planet, but spend so little time on it.”

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PaulL (5,977 comments) says:

    Well, presumably the longer the Greens object, the fewer votes Labour get on the West Coast. Which could be good politics.

    Whats the odds of Damien O’Connor becoming an independent and declaring that he won’t be part of any govt that includes the Greens? He might have to if he wants to hold his seat.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Mobile Michael (430 comments) says:

    Logs left to rot will realease tons of carbon. Thousands of hectares of logs will rot and release billions of tons.
    Milled logs will capture the carbon.

    And here I was thinking that Climate Change was the most urgent and important issue facing the peoples of the world. I’m sure that I’ve heard that from the Greens more than once.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. grumpy (249 comments) says:

    This from the extremist that with the aid of a few key staff who were Greenies, single handed almost destroyed ECAN, with a little help from spineless ex Labour whimp, Kerry Burke.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    Mobile
    Thats a good point. First class Hypocrites

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. jackinabox (753 comments) says:

    “These are trees that have been blown down, and will rot. It clears them away to allow new plantings,”

    Have you seen how “new Plantings” line up on either side of a fallen tree? They do that to draw off the nutrients released by the rotting log.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. martinh (1,163 comments) says:

    jackin a box
    you dont at all need a felled tree to be left to allow new plantings to take up.
    It will still rot releasing carbon too

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. duggledog (1,424 comments) says:

    Harriet has nailed it.

    We’ve arrived at a stage where New Zealand’s supposed centre right party, the one that enjoys the support of the vast majority of New Zealanders, has to tiptoe around the mental Greenies and Maori who have been led to believe that they are royalty.

    Both crowds are happy to take all and any of the benefits of living in this country, often without any real input, yet veto any and every project tabled by anyone to earn that money, from iron sand harvesting to surgically extracting gold on Great Barrier.

    I would love it if every person’s actual input into the country was recorded and their say in how it was run was modified in accordance. Then we might be able to get somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Dave_1924 (97 comments) says:

    I am a conservationist at heart – I love the outdoors. But the Greens are just over the top. They oppose everything, bang on about clean and green tech and lifestyle. All the while using high tech gadgets full of toxic materials. The mining of rare earth minerals crucial to things like iphones is not exactly conducted in a green and clean way in China and South America. Hypocrites is a label that springs to mind….

    The trees are down. There is lots of them down by all reports. Its a very valuable resource given the limits on native timber milling in NZ. Greens own goal – they could have shifted public perception on their extremist nature here very easily by SUPPORTING the harvest. What a head line – “Greens Support Coasters in Wind Felled Native Timber retrieval”. Instead they come across exactly as portrayed by the Government – the Party of NO, lead by Dr NO!!!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Keeping Stock (10,166 comments) says:

    I’ve also just blogged on this; here’s my closing paragraph:

    It is telling when the ideological purity of the Greens prevents them from supporting legislation that will directly benefit one of New Zealand’s poorer regions. After Jan Logie’s comments about child poverty on Thursday, you’d think the Greens would be in favour of a law change that was going to provide jobs to West Coasters, put more money into the community, more food on tables and generally benefit the region. But no; they would clearly prefer that the bugs of the forest get a feed as valuable native trees rot away in the wilderness.

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/what-will-greens-oppose-next.html

    Will Green MP Kevin Hague, seen by many as a future leader of the party, put the needs of the people of the area he lives in ahead of the Green Party’s ideology and vote in favour of Nick Smith’s Bill? And even if he wanted to, would the Greens allow him to break ranks? The debates next week could be very interesting indeed…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Dave_1924 (97 comments) says:

    And one other thing – Green Party Strategists. You are going to look incredibly silly in the eyes of many, many New Zealanders especially those in the provinces who rely on the extractive industries for work, with opposition to harvesting DEAD Trees.

    The Trees are DEAD – if you can get them out with minimal impact on the live stuff around them – then you have the perfect solution to opposition to live native tree felling. just harvest end of life and wind blown trees….

    Politically 3 months before an election the Greens have given National a gift – the perfect opportunity to sheet home in the minds of Kiwis that the Greens don’t want jobs, don’t want progess and believe everyone should do what they do – eco tourism and working in high tech jobs.

    Which completely ignores those jobs are sitting firmly on a based of industries doing all the stuff they hate – mining, forestry. Oh the irony

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Komata (1,140 comments) says:

    My Good Lady, after being told about this, suggested that, if the gweens are that ‘fanatical’ about ‘saving’ said (dead) trees, then they should take them home to their own properties, place them on their front lawn/s and ‘purr over them as they (the trees) decay’.

    Says it all really…

    (They won’t of course; it’s so much easier to go and crap in someone else’s nest and interfere in their lives, than to do so in your own…)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Keeping Stock (10,166 comments) says:

    Well said Dave; both comments. My post above includes a link to the TVNZ story last night. I had no idea of the scale of the damage from Cyclone Ita, and when you see it on video, it’s quite staggering. The Greens are definitely on the wrong side of this argument, especially when their beloved Dept of Conservation is also going to benefit from receiving the royalties from the companies who extract the fallen trees.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Other_Andy (2,483 comments) says:

    @keeping Stock

    “…put more money into the community, more food on tables and generally benefit the region…….”

    They will, by using tax payers’ (Rich pricks) money.
    Don’t forget they are Marxists, Leninists, Maoists and anarchists turned communists first.
    Dr. No himself has impeccable Marxist-Leninist roots.
    The ‘green’ part is just a convenient cloak of moral righteousness.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott1 (480 comments) says:

    The problem with the greens is not that they are hypocrites – the problem is that they are trying so desperately hard not to be hypocrites and as a result they don’t care how completely contrary to common sense (and the rest of our basic assumptions of what matters) their idea is.

    In that sort of case as per Harriet – such people just need to be told they are wrong and their opinions completely ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. jackinabox (753 comments) says:

    The only reason I’d agree to helicopter logging of these areas is that I hate to see good stuff wasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Maggy Wassilieff (310 comments) says:

    Sadly there has been a complete disintegration about collective knowledge of how forests grow and regenerate. Storm blow-down is a constant factor in old-growth forests. New seedlings will come away on the open forest floor. Yes, some seedlings may start their life on the duff that’s accumulated on a fallen log, but for most of NZs soils there’s more available nutrients on the forest floor proper than in decomposing wood.
    As I have posted elsewhere (on the June 19 GD) this example of massive blowdown by Cyclone Ita shows that the contention by the previous Director General of DOC that native trees are somehow especially adapted to with-standing storm conditions is absolute nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Komata (1,140 comments) says:

    Scott1

    Re: ‘In that sort of case as per Harriet – such people just need to be told they are wrong and their opinions completely ignored’.

    A great idea, except that the MSM won’t do it. Based-upon casual observation and their past actions, in the MSM-world (as relayed to us), the Gweens are ‘protectors of the ‘poor and helpless’ plants and animals, and as a result you will be very unlikely to hear anything of consequence about this latest idiocy from them. As all they (MSM / Gweens et al) are all good socialists together, to say otherwise, simply doesn’t fit the pre-scripted narrative.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. macdee (38 comments) says:

    You’re all missing the point, the jobs will come on the West Coast when the newly elected Green Minister for Conservation authorises the Department to go in and stand them up again!!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Redbaiter (7,962 comments) says:

    “Dr. No himself has impeccable Marxist-Leninist roots. The ‘green’ part is just a convenient cloak of moral righteousness.”

    Other Andy has hit the nail on the head.

    The truth about the Greens is that they are frauds.

    They’re communists using the “environment” meme their like communist media friends have generated to smokescreen their real intent.

    However the Nats are too frightened to speak this truth. What’s their strategic response? Nick Smith starts a Green Party within National and calls it the “BlueGreens”. Thereby surrendering to the confidence trick the Watermelons have played and simultaneously giving credibility to their cause.

    So we end up with National acting as a de facto arm of the Greens and stifling industry in this country when it is needed so badly. They still haven’t fixed the RMA. Oil companies are being heavily penalised for wanting to explore. Sand mining companies can’t get licences to operate. And here we see this capitulation being so deeply rooted that new legislation is needed to allow industry to access fallen trees.

    All this because the Nats don’t have the balls or the brains to understand things and tell them as simply and as well as Other Andy does.

    Most of the problems in this country exist because National has drifted far to the left and away from its founding principles. Time to stop supporting these surrender monkeys and appeasers and send the Nats the message that we’re done with people who won’t fight for what they profess to believe in.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Komata (1,140 comments) says:

    macdee

    But, but, to do so will require the use of (gasp!), vehicles, petrol, steel, bulldozers etc. etc. etc.!! That will never, ever do. No, best to round up unemployed miners and sawmillers, put them into gangs and then march them in to the areas. Once there , by the force of their bare arms and backs and using only hemp ropes and horse power, they will be compelled (by force if necessary) to prop the trees back up again, and keep them standing. Gaia MUST be placated at all costs, and, if some human should die to ensure that this occurs, then all the better; fewer mouths to feed and the costs will be reduced.

    And you thought Pol Pot was extreme….

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Other_Andy (2,483 comments) says:

    @Komata

    Yes, the ‘fourth estate’ has lost its independence and has become part of the second estate.

    Your reasoning why the MSM isn’t going to criticize the ‘Greens’ comes close to something I read recently on a US site.
    Some people are wondering why the MSM isn’t going after Obama in the same way as they were going after Bush.
    Here is their reply:
    The reason the media aren’t going after the IRS scandal, the deadly Benghazi attack and the botched Fast and Furious operation is because Barack Obama is their president. Not since JFK’s fictitious “Camelot” have the media invested so heavily in maintaining the image of a president, an image of competence and success that can be maintained only by ignoring all contrary evidence and pretending that all criticism of Obama is racist — RAAAAACIST!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. polemic (418 comments) says:

    So now this begs the question ….

    Will the Dear Leader Cunnliffe support this initiative for Labour or not because if not then a Vote for the Green party is a vote for Labour and not a vote for the West Coast or the renewable welfare of NZ……

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. OneTrack (2,777 comments) says:

    Komata – Agreed. The progressive intelligensia of the media – I am thinking Campbell and Smalley as the best (worst) examples – will give the Greens a free ride no matter what they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Keeping Stock (10,166 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter (9.08am) – In case you hadn’t noticed Red, it’s actually National that will pass legislation under urgency next week to create jobs and income on the West Coast by over-riding some of the protections in the Conservation Act. I would have thought you’d have applauded them for doing something proactive to support a community which is too dependent on welfare.

    You may despise John Key and National, but sometimes, you can endorse some individual measure being taken by them without abandoning your pathological hatred.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. OneTrack (2,777 comments) says:

    polemic – I’m guessing the answer is – Yeah. Nah.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RF (1,341 comments) says:

    Message to my loyal subjects from Lord of the Gweens.

    Stuff the West Coast economy, who cares about jobs. It’s more important to have the timber rotting in the bush. We will turn what’s left of the West Coasts towns into hippy camps and maybe one castle after the rich pricks move out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (7,962 comments) says:

    The Conservation Act was passed in 1987. 35 years ago and the Nats have done SFA in that time to fix that Act.

    As for “hating” the Nats, when they stop being a Progressive govt and return to being the Conservative party they were formed as I will support them.

    Key and his mates are a disgrace who have taken the party far to the left. I’ll never support them. Its not a matter of hate, its just a matter of political preference.

    The Nat’s arrogance in supporting the far left Louisa Wall’s Marriage Redefinition Act did it for me. Woke me up to what useless bastards they are. I’ll never forgive John Key or the Nats for that utter treachery.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    To think NewstalkZB are going out of their way to give these Taliban bastards a hand to try and get more traction! Redbaiter is starting to make a lot of sense, especially when it comes to supporting socialist-inspired legislation. As a supporter of the right, I was disgusted when National supported the depraved Wall Bill, also Bradford’s Smacking Bill. Both smell of UN interference. Why can’t we get a party that would repeal the Homo Act, Marriage Act, and RMA, abolish WFF, DPB (except in extreme cases), then this country may get out of the filthy rut it is now in.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    With a few exceptions (Larry Williams, Leigthon Smith) NewstalkZB roster is full of socialist cheerleaders, including the hopeless hack Barry Soper.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Don the Kiwi (1,640 comments) says:

    “The Nat’s arrogance in supporting the far left Louisa Wall’s Marriage Redefinition Act did it for me. Woke me up to what useless bastards they are. I’ll never forgive John Key or the Nats for that utter treachery.”

    Agreed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock#

    The problem National has is that they have spent 6 whole years getting the center vote by being ‘tolerant and inclusive’ – accomodating in some way the demands from the left that they raise. They haven’t taken the center anywhere. There’s been no real change in anything, if anything, Helen’s policies have only been twinked at best.

    Keating said you have to carry the country with you, instead, National seems to govern day to day on issues raised by the left – then twinks existing policy after ‘all inclusive select committee participation’.

    And in doing so – then being seen to be answerable to socialist and marxist matters.

    the point is – National doesn’t take the center anywhere because they don’t even bother to give the center options. How far should government be involved in education, and how should education be funded, are just two points to be ‘disscussed’ – but never are. There are certainly no options ever givern.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Komata (1,140 comments) says:

    Don

    But who then will you vote for (there ain’t much alternative)?

    One has to ask…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. alloytoo (462 comments) says:

    Greens, letting the country Rot!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ross12 (1,250 comments) says:

    It is a shame this has been “publicised” so much before it goes to the vote in Parliament. It would have been interesting to see how Labour voted under other circumstances. As it is, I cannot see how they will NOT vote in favour now –they would create WWIII on the West Coast if they voted against it. But given recent events I would bet against it and if so, I’d love to see Damien O’Connor cross the floor at voting time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (8,330 comments) says:

    I had a discussion with a person over dinner last night on this topic. My original stance was that it was ridiculous, and that the land should be tidied, however, the other person argued from an ecological stand point. Storms and such are natural, and trees falling etc are also a delicate part of the ecology. Their rotting etc provides food for insects, who in turn fertilise the soil, and allow better and richer future growth.

    Whilst tidying up the land would provide jobs, it is not the most ideal situation for the land. The argument is similar to why we shouldn’t kill sharks – because they are an important link in the ecological system, and if we want to have reserves etc, to be able to enjoy the natural world, then we need to let nature do its thing – at least in some parts of the country.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. tom hunter (4,552 comments) says:

    We really need to apply the following slogan to the Green Party at every opportunity – it would also provide a good history lesson:

    Everything within the environment, nothing outside the environment, nothing against the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Keeping Stock (10,166 comments) says:

    @ Judith – there will be plenty of fallen debris that can’t be harvested. Get the valuable stuff out, and leave the rest to nature. What’s more important; jobs on the West Coast, or fat bugs in places where no one ever goes?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Other_Andy (2,483 comments) says:

    @Judith

    “Delicate part of the ecology”, are you kidding me?
    No matter what the Gaia worshippers are trying to tell you, there is nothing delicate about the ecology.

    We are talking about 20,000ha of forest that is completely flattened and 200,000ha of forest with significant tree loss.
    Do you really think taking out a 1000 trees or even a 100.000 trees (If they can find that many trees that are economically viable for recovery) is going to make a difference?

    “The argument is similar to why we shouldn’t kill sharks…”

    Are you serious?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Maggy Wassilieff (310 comments) says:

    @ Judith…. did you ask your dinner colleague for information about the nutrient budget status of the forest floor and soils? For perhaps there is going to be more than enough for a goodly quantity of native decomposing bugs and fungi to live on.
    I’m more than happy that a one-off harvest of some fallen logs will be handled by these west-coast forests. Gee what would have happened to that ecosystem if some of the logs had been swept down a river and out to sea?

    Sleep easy about this one, I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Unity (392 comments) says:

    I was totally amazed to see the Greens stance last night on TV. For me, even though they didn’t really have any previously at all, they have completely lost any shred of integrity. It seems they will oppose absolutely anything regardless of whether there is any merit in it or not. If the fallen trees are logged there will still be plenty of bits and pieces from the trees left for the ecological system or whatever. Some of the trees won’t be logged in time and will rot.

    National should just say they are doing it regardless but I still applaud them for doing what they deem fit to not only log these valuable trees but the consequent creation of jobs that will result for that job-deprived part of the country is marvellous.

    The Greens have made themselves totally irrelevant. They obviously don’t have a brain in their heads.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ross12 (1,250 comments) says:

    Judith

    As others have said your friend’s argument is right, from a theory point of view, when things are normal in the forest –the odd tree falling over or dying is natural working normally. But this loss is far more than normal. Smith said on TV last night that probably only 1% of the fallen trees would be removed and will be done by helicopter –ie. no logging roads being built etc. Even if it is 10-20% in some areas there will be plenty left for the ecology. ( Smith’s 1% would be an average over the whole area.)

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. holysheet (295 comments) says:

    The question I have is who is the brilliant National party strategist who thought this up right at this moment. They know full well that the gweens would oppose this and liabore would be unable to vote with the nats on anything at this late stage just before the election.

    Just another nail in the coffin of the coalition of the crazy left.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. kiwi in america (2,464 comments) says:

    Toad – where are you? Time to come on and defend your party.

    Judith
    That’s what you’d expect true believing tree huggers to say – they are oblivious to how out of step they are with ordinary NZers and what an over-the-top reaction the Greens have had to a reasonable proposition. The Nats needed a simple narrative to define the Greens propensity to ban everything and be economic luddites and they’ve handed it to Key wrapped in a easy sound bite package!

    Ross12
    Whale is saying Labour are going to oppose the legislation as well. Might cost Damien O’Connor his seat and, courtesy of the pseudo man ban and Labour’s poor polling, he’s toast on the list.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Scott1 (480 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Sounds like your friend uses poor logic. Once the trees are harvested does anyone you really think they will be able to notice a difference in the ecology? Or that we will loose the reserve?

    In my charitable moments I was imagining they might have an argument like that the logging activity itself would cause some damage (and that those harvesting should and might not pay for that damage) or that the law change opened us up to a slippery slope.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Gulag1917 (787 comments) says:

    If the Greens administered agriculture in NZ we would all be starving.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RF (1,341 comments) says:

    KS. 10.44am. I agree as not all the fallen trees will be taken out. The winds were very severe so there are plenty of rubbish trees that can be left to rot.

    I have flown low over the area many times pre storm and its massive. You could see the various trees and there was a good mix of various timber.

    The West Coast has suffered enough.

    From what I have heard not many Greenies are brave enough to frequent their local Taverns owing to their opposition to milling.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. goldnkiwi (1,145 comments) says:

    Fallen trees, God’s gift to the West Coast economy, humankind are part of nature too.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Gulag1917 (787 comments) says:

    The Greens banned list
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. holysheet (295 comments) says:

    The gweens should change their name to the “Ban progress Party” after reading all the things on their ban list.
    Just a bunch of idiotic fuckwits. And people are saying they will beat Liabore in the coming election. just unbelievable!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (7,962 comments) says:

    “And people are saying they will beat Liabore in the coming election. just unbelievable!!!!!”

    Yes it is unbeleiveable but a large part of the Watermelon’s support comes from young people who in the same way the Nazis inculcated their beliefs into the German young, are fed scare mongering and lies about the environment in NZ’s politically corrupted education system.

    Something else the incompetent National Party will not do anything about. How much trouble is it for the Education Minister to get lies about the environment removed from the education curriculum?

    Cleaning Watermelon scare mongering and lies from the curriculum would cause at least a 5% drop in support for these duplicitous modern day communists. Yet National will not do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. UrbanNeocolonialist (219 comments) says:

    You could do even better by helicoptering in a mobile sawmill (they are pretty light), mill the fallen tree in situ leaving >50% of tree in place to rot. Helicopter lumber out.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. rangitoto (218 comments) says:

    But think of the snails!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Judith (8,330 comments) says:

    Gulag1917 (484 comments) says:
    June 21st, 2014 at 11:57 am
    If the Greens administered agriculture in NZ we would all be starving.

    If the greens administered agriculture we would not need to be spending billions on fertilisers to treat the land because we’ve stripped too much off it, nor would we be spending millions on treatments for stock because they do not get the nutrients they need due to intensive farming practices, and we would not be paying absolute billions in methods to clean up the pollution that farming has caused to our waterways etc.

    In short, instead of farmers holding this country to ransom, we might actually have developed a heap more industry and business that would make us able to compete on the global market.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    @Judith: I always suspected you were not only a Bainite, but a Green supporter. Shame on you. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Gulag1917 (787 comments) says:

    Totalitarians in the last century have had a strategy; eliminate problems = eliminate people.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Ross12 (1,250 comments) says:

    This confirms the Greens are stupid ;

    Part of F&B comment ” Advocacy Manager Kevin Hackwell says flooding the market with large volumes of timber will only threaten the industry’s sustainability ”

    Don’t they think the industry has any business and financial brains !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Maggy Wassilieff (310 comments) says:

    @Ross 12…. well you can’t have sustainable use of a resource if you prevent its use in the first place.

    NZs efforts on researching sustainable use of its native forests came to a grinding halt in the late 1980s. Foolish decisions about the management of NZ native ecosystems have ensued. Neglect of native forest is not wise stewardship.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    I am a conservationist at heart – I love the outdoors. But the Greens are just over the top.

    This is the essence of it. We are all environmentalists now. There is no need or space any more for a true environmental political party to exist. The Green Party is not an environmental party however, it is a fascist party cynically appealing to fake threats to the environment in the same way the Nazis milked a supposed ‘Jewish problem.’

    Unfortunately most students go through a strong know-it-all fascist phase, so for the Greens its like a guaranteed 5-10% constituence.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Gulag1917 (787 comments) says:

    Judith
    “If the greens administered agriculture we would not need to be spending billions on fertilisers to treat the land because we’ve stripped too much off it,”
    The application of huge amounts of superphosphate post WW2 was a mistake but there are often deficiencies in the soil e.g. central Waikato where cattle grazing in the 1930s suffered from bush sickness which was eradicated as a result of the application of cobalt to the soil.
    “nor would we be spending millions on treatments for stock because they do not get the nutrients they need due to intensive farming practices”
    Agreed re factory farming but that hardly occurs in NZ. Stock do require various supplements.
    “and we would not be paying absolute billions in methods to clean up the pollution that farming has caused to our waterways etc.”
    I have travelled extensively throughout NZ and rivers seem to be ok. Have you you got documented evidence that billions are being spent cleaning up waterways?
    “In short, instead of farmers holding this country to ransom, we might actually have developed a heap more industry and business that would make us able to compete on the global market.”
    Do not know how you get that idea that farmers are holding the nation to ransom. Some politics actually discourage business and competing on a global market takes a lot of capital which unnecessary rules and regulations can stifle.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. hj (6,671 comments) says:

    I can see the advantages of leaving the trees, it makes an interesting forest. One thing I notice in Fiordland is the way the forest starts in moss on the steepest slopes (eventually it reaches a critical mass and comes down in a storm).
    On Gillespies beach (Fox) the driftwood accumulates on the north side of the point and is rotting, with grasses growing in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    The beautiful Julie Genter would look really sexy riding a kauri scooter down the empty motorways once she comes to power. I sincerely hope I live long enough to see that day! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Northland Wahine (655 comments) says:

    JB, you’d die a happier that night!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. hj (6,671 comments) says:

    wat dabney (3,643 comments) says:
    The Green Party is not an environmental party however, it is a fascist party cynically appealing to fake threats to the environment in the same way the Nazis milked a supposed ‘Jewish problem.’
    ……
    You gonna pay those court costs Watt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. tom hunter (4,552 comments) says:

    …. If the greens administered agriculture we would not need to be spending billions on fertilisers to treat the land because we’ve stripped too much off it, …

    I recall you telling us that you’re a trust fund baby with the trust invested into a 2000 acre(hectare?) farm. I assume you’re therefore pushing for these sorts of farming practices within the trust. After all, you could be in for a terrific windfall from whatever fabulous new businesses result – so much so that you’d be willing to sacrifice year or two of that delicious trust income for the investment required?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. wat dabney (3,716 comments) says:

    hj,

    That the Green Party is fascist is not an insult but a demonstrable fact. Fascism is, after all, essentially an economic model.

    Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it.
    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

    Since the Green Party does not propose to nationalise the means of production and distribution, but does support severe curtailment of property rights, the case is made.

    And that the Green Party’s message is one of repeated exaggeration and lies is also a demonstrable fact. Try going to their blog and presenting scientific evidence against the global warming scam. You will quickly find yourself banned. True environmentalists, such as Greenpeace co-founder Michael Moore, have long since repudiated the dangerous charlatans that falsely operate under the environmental veneer.

    These people are evil. The movement as a whole has killed more people than the Nazis ever did, most of them poor blacks in Africa denied the progress (and the DDT) they so desperately need. The Indian government is correct in labelling Greenpeace an economic terrorist organisation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. UrbanNeocolonialist (219 comments) says:

    Judith: usual townie bullshit believing all that dirty dairy shite that the greens spin out. You and your ilk don’t have the faintest comprehension of how far dairy farmers go to keep the land in top condition. They don’t want valuable nutrients (like nitrates) or water (in irrigated areas) leaking off their farms into water-ways when it has more value in their soil, and they have done and are doing a ton of work to reduce any impacts on waterways etc.

    Like the kings of old the urban greens drive through the countryside at 100km/hr a few times a year and think that on the back of a few Greenpeace pamphlets or other weak minded Luddite propaganda that they have some great insight or divinely granted ownership rights over the land they view. At the same time maintaining a wilful ignorance of just how pivotal that farming industry is to maintaining their cosy urban existences via massive tax-driven wealth transfer from provinces to cities. It’s NZ’s version of the Aussie minerals gravy train.

    But as a leftie hypocrite do feel free to go on enjoying your lower tax rates, high cost imported luxuries, overseas holidays and all of those other little benefits paid for by the evil farming and primary production sector to give you your high standard of living.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Coasta (2 comments) says:

    Indigenous Sawmilling -It is hard to believe that we have failed to progress our indigenous forest industry in this age of environmental consciousness.
    You could not invent a more environmentally sound system than one whose consumer products are non-toxic, biodegradable, recyclable, energy-efficient and come from a natural, renewable resource that cools and cleans the air of carbon dioxide, produces oxygen, stores clean water and provides both wildlife habitat and recreational enjoyment.
    To rural people in Westland, it is ironic that those from urbanised areas, living the least sustainable lifestyles, demand that we who live in a largely forested land should not have access to any public indigenous forest for sustainable timber production.
    Remember the lone pine tree at One Tree Hill? Aucklanders try to tell us how to run HUGE FORESTS, yet they cannot even look after their TREE.
    How many Kiwis know that in 1990,UNESCO advised us that in World Heritage Parks, allowable activities include making roads, sustainable logging and tourism?
    We chose only one of these.
    With DoC’s current funding difficulties ,is the public attitude any different? How long will it be? As a licensed rimu sawmiller, my access is limited to perhaps 1% of the 10% approx of the West Coast that is private land. DoC pay few rates. DoC’s pest control funding could come from the forest itself.
    We export our children.
    My saws are still sharp, if under utilized. We still have helicopters, so there’s no call for foreign investment and we need the jobs.
    1 ton / hectare / year of rimu both grows and falls over on the millions of hectares of the DoC Estate, on an acidic forest soil that would not grow 1 sheep!!!!
    A mature rimu tree can realise $10,000 in wet sawn timber, double if processed.
    We cannot / will not see the wood for the trees.
    I sent this to Nick Smith a year ago, well well well, the wheel goes round….and he replied that the government was looking into it.
    It is really heart warming to read the support here and in the media for the West Coast, we’ve lost 1020 jobs in the last 5 years.
    A few more facts- clear felling rimu was the norm 30 years ago,at 1000 tonne (or cubic metres)per year, per job. Now, a job comes from a decent rimu tree per month. I used to feed big sawmills with logs as a bushman, now when I can buy a certified tree,I log it,organise transport to my little 1.2m saw, mill it,dock and tally the timber,make up a pack,send it to a customer and get paid within the week.Then it’s repairs and maintenance etc,nice work if you can get it!
    Helicopters are affordable if the lifting cycle can be kept down to several minutes each. Portable sawmilling and partial milling are useful methods,especially on terraces.

    Clearfelling went on at the rate of 150,000 ton per year in the 80s in Westland alone, so that wasn’t sustainable when millions of hectares of rimu forest were locked up!
    The State Owned Enterprise of Timberlands with their Gazetted 100,000 hectares of rimu was reportedly harvesting a conservative 0.4 tonne/hectare/year. Government research showed rimu growth of 2.0 tonne on terrace and 0.6 tonne on hills. Pine does 10 tonne/ha/yr.
    It fell to private industry to prove sustainablity through the Forests Act 1993, as controlled by MAF then MPI. So 5 years of access to the bush will be worth the wait…..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. soundhill1 (113 comments) says:

    “Nutrient deficiencies are already being encountered in several exotic forests and in one locality, at least, there are indications of a significant decrease in growth rates in some second-rotation radiata pine stands” http://nzes-nzje.grdev.co.nz/free_issues/ProNZES15_15.pdf

    So when removing fallen trees the nutrients go with them and the bush cannot regenerate to what it was.

    Furthermore soil stores a large amount of the CO2 budget
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
    “The primary way that carbon
    is stored in the soil is as
    soil organic
    matter (SOM).
    SOM is a complex mixture
    of carbon compounds, consisting of
    decomposing plant and animal tissue,
    microbes (protozoa, nematodes, fungi, and
    bacteria), and carbon associated with soil
    minerals. Carbon can remain stored in soils
    for millennia, or be quickly released back
    into the atmosphere. Climatic conditions,
    natural vegetation, soil texture, and
    drainage all affect the amount and length
    of time carbon is stored” http://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/carbonsequestrationinsoils.pdf

    I hope for thought on dying of soil and CO2 release when fallen trees are skidded out.

    Let’s have Nick Smith’s carbon budget please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Coasta (2 comments) says:

    We live in a secular society,but we have come a long way.In a life time we have gone from telegraph to tweet.
    We used to be a church going people. U2 said”the less you know,the more you believe”.Some people have found a new church,yes the Environment! Consider this- there are the same old human traits here- righteous persecution, “holy-er than thou” attitudes,narrow mindedness and shuttered thinking.I’m sure that a shrink would have something to say here! Perhaps bad breeding,poor potty training or some abuse even may have lead to alienation and other lefty traits…
    Looking at the big picture, the energy needed to make each cubic metre of metals is 30 times that of wood, but making wood REDUCES carbon in the air.
    As to soil quality, nature has that under control,removing tree stems can be seen in the same light as removing carrots from a garden. It’s not rocket science. Wood is cellulose,a carbo-hydrate made from CO2 and sunlight in the air,H2O in the ground and minerals from the bedrock released by acidic soil. All carbo-hydrates have in common a varying formula of H something,C something, O something.So the tree uses sunlight and photosynthesis to split the carbon(C) from CO2 with water from the soil to make wood and releases oxygen(O2). You don’t have to do anything,just eat your carrots and TRUST me to sustain myself and the environment at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.