Comments
Wait for it ... wait for it.
Just waiting for the usual list of suspects to start heaping crap on Bob Brown, the defence lawyers, the judge, the decision and the law itself.
Just wait - it’s coming ....
Before the shitfight starts, I’d like to congratulate those people who risked $500,000 of their own money on a case that (it now appears) should have been prosecuted by the authorities. Of course, in this case, the authorities fought tooth and nail against the proper imposition of their own law.
Congratulations to Bob Brown and all his (little?) helpers. It’s the best present yet.
Yours,
Jason LovellPosted by Jason Lovell on 19/12/06 at 03:35 PMThank (insert preferred deity) we have some wise heads still making important decisions in this country. I was interested to hear Senator Abetz interviewed by Roisin McCann on the ABC earlier today - it was just incredible to hear him, after accusing Senator Brown of “spin”, attempting to “spin” a very negative result for Forestry Tasmania into something positive. I think it is time to discontinue the use of that word “spin”, and call it what it is - lies.
Posted by Anne Johnston on 19/12/06 at 04:43 PMI would like to thank Senator Brown for the fantastic Christmas present he has given myself, my children and grandchildren to come. Let’s hope Grinch Abetz doesnt try to steal the gift through the appeals process. Merry Christmas to all.
Posted by Hooray on 19/12/06 at 05:02 PMAm I stupid? Did I just hear the lead ABC Radio article as Senator Abetz still pushing the line that national parks/conservation areas caused the bushfires? Has no member of the Tasmanian media access to the same public web-based satellite sites that TT writers and readers have access to. Am I living on a different planet to the rest of the Tasmanian mainstream media?
The amazing coincidence of these fires (all starting on private and foresty tasmania land) and the occurence of the Wielangta court hearing and the handing down of the ACT Coroners decision - are all too spooky to go without comment in the media.
Posted by some dont learn on 19/12/06 at 05:08 PMwell said, Anne. People can say what they like about Brown (and indeed they do) but I challenge the usual suspects who frequent this site—you know who you are, me boyos—to name one other politican in this country with the integrity and the guts to stump up their own money for their cause, in the belief that what they are fighting for is important enough to risk personal loss.
Just one will do.
And congratulations to the wise Justice Marshall. Stay close, please; Tassie needs you now more than ever.
Posted by Cameron on 19/12/06 at 05:09 PMYay! My wife is going to wear her Wielangta Stag Beetle pin proudly to work tomorrow in celebration of the win.
Well done to Bob Brown and all who worked so hard and at great personal financial sacrifice to make this happen. How sad that this action was necessary for something that should have been so plainly self-evident.
Posted by Tassie Smurf on 19/12/06 at 06:23 PMWhattaguy. Well done Bob and friends. Wish there was more of em’ made of the same stuff as you Bob.
Eric Abetz? Didnt I hear him firing back a ‘warning’ to John Gledhill (the chief of Tasssy fire services) over Gledhills well justified disapproval of the great Tissmanian siniters untimely politicisation of the bushfire.
Shouldnt be suprised though, when Abetz’s boss makes an artform of scapegoating, and indulging unprecedented levels of disrespect for the nations top servicemen and women.
And we do know how the great brownoses of the coalition like Downer, Pyne, Nelson and Abetz love to mimic their leaderPosted by Rick Pilkington on 19/12/06 at 07:12 PMHow sweet it is, a blow for for common sense and reason at long last , but it,s no finished yet by along chalk ! let,s not drop the baton in our euphoria !.
I think i,ll get pissed !
d.d.Posted by DON DAVEY on 19/12/06 at 07:38 PMJason - I have every confidence that if the judiciary make a judgement on this case, then it is likely the correct one. So, that is a good one for this particular bit of forest as far as the relevant issues in front of the court goes. What might have been missed though is the judicial stamp on the RFAs. The Wielangta case specifically appears to have breached the RFA in terms of laws related to environmental protection, and thus the successful court action. I would give Bob Brown full marks for working hard for this result and backing up his commitment fully. There may well be grounds to extend this to other areas of native forest. This is the way to proceed in my opinion - if some particular forest issue transgresses a regulation or law, then those concerned should go for it, within the law of course.
Posted by Tomas on 19/12/06 at 07:44 PMAnd just what else would Bob Brown spend his money on Cameron?
Posted by John Herbert on 19/12/06 at 08:17 PM“...they are not a panacea.!!!”
ABC Regional Online, Australia - 1 hour ago
Abetz claims firefighter support over bushfire comments
Tuesday, 19 December 2006. 18:47 (AEDT))Senator Abetz argues that if more logging had been allowed, there would have been less fuel to burn.
The federal Forestry Minister says dozens of Tasmanian firefighters have rung him to express their disagreement with the state’s chief fire officer about the cause of Tasmania’s bushfires.Senator Eric Abetz claimed last week that bushfires in south-east Tasmania and on the state’s east coast might not have been so severe if forests had not been locked up.
He said selective logging and hazard reduction eased fire risk.
Chief fire officer John Gledhill called the comments inappropriate and unhelpful, and said they were wrong because the fires in question appeared to have started on private land.
Senator Abetz says he has since had many calls from firefighters disagreeing with their boss.
“Absolutely, yes, very strongly,” he said.
Mr Gledhill says he stands by his comments and does not want to get into a political debate.
“I was saying it’s not the time at the moment to discuss those matters, there’ll be plenty of time once we’ve got these fires finished,” he said.
Mr Gledhill says he supports fuel reduction burns but they are not a panacea.
Posted by Wombat Tonight on 19/12/06 at 08:20 PMThere is some balance in this world, and more importantly in this state. I am drawn to Billy Bragg’s lyrics “When did it fall apart, sometime in the 80s , when the great and the good gave way to the greedy and the mean “.....it’s nice to see the “great and the good” have a victory over the “greedy and the mean” . Congratulations to all involved !!
Posted by Craig Woodfall on 19/12/06 at 09:12 PMThe article just three below this one is about the Yangtze River Dolphin, apparently now very sadly extinct.
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/dolphin/
If those who think that ‘Greenies’ are extreme, radical, crazy or any negative adjective you care to use, please consider this, in reference to the above;
The Chinese economy’s incredible accelerated growth and demand for more energy, more factories and more food, more of everything, looks to have been the signicant factors contributing to the dolphin’s extinction.
Here in Tasmania, there are people, in this case Senator Bob Brown, who are willing to put everything they have on the line, to save a wild creature, before it is too late.
Creatures that we know are at risk of extinction.
What legacy will we leave future generations, our children, if we destroy these habitats and thus kill these creatures?
We might as well concrete-over the state now, if that is the world we want to live in. Do we really want to be like the Chinese?
Fortunately, to my lasting relief, sanity has prevailed, and the three species now have a chance. If the various logging supporters now want to argue against this decision, their selfish greed will be completely exposed.
The Chinese government probably did not care overmuch about the dolphin. The Laborials and their corporate ‘friends’ do not seem to care about the eagle, the parrot and the beetle.
The extreme and greedy behaviour is theirs, for wanting to make a fast buck and gravely risk imperilling an already endangered species.Senator Brown has put his money where his mouth is? Are there any Laborial politicians that you can imagine doing this?
My congratulations, well done and above all thanks to Senator Bob Brown!Posted by Toby Rowallan on 19/12/06 at 09:17 PMPeople need to read between the lines in this court case. The judge spelt out the way our Federal and State Governments have corrupted the plain meaning of words to justify rape and plunder of our natural environment.
Note the judge’s comments on the use of the word ‘impact’ at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html
It isn’t just our natural environment that is now massively degraded. So is our democracy. Wake up everyone. Corporate power has now shaped the very meaning and everyday actions of our elected ‘representatives’. The unions, who are claiming to act as a form of countervailing power, have also shrunken into a narrow and mindless institutional grab for more money, just like big business.
Environmentalists, indigenous peoples, women, church groups and all other minorities need now to combine to address their common cause. The dangerous, ‘significant’ and ‘cumulative’ impact of corporate power now gone mad.
Congratulations, Bob Brown and all who contributed to this court case.
http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj
Posted by Brenda Rosser on 20/12/06 at 08:09 AMHey Cameron (#5)- Steve Kons springs to mind.
Remember when he was Primary Industries Minister and claimed that the proposed free trade agreement with China would be ace for Tassie, only to later realise that the very same proposed FTA is a looming nightmare for the vegie farmers in the Fair Dinkum Food Campaign.
So Steve put his own money, $5,000 I believe, into a couple of adverts stating that he totally and utterly supported Tassie’s farming sector, to the hilt, forever and eva, to the last man, with abiding love, etc etc.
And then he put out a press release drawing everyone else’s attention to his total commitment to Tasmania’s vegie farmers, as evidenced by spending $5,000 of his own money on advertising.
Strangely, no-one ever mentioned his support for the proposed FTA agreement again, despite (to the best of my knowledge) Minister Kons never withdrawing his support for it.
Cake and eat it too was my thought at the time.
Tomas - Interesting to see you parroting Eric Abetz’s position again. At 7:44pm on the same night of the court decision what’s more.
Regards,
Jason LovellPosted by Jason Lovell on 20/12/06 at 09:47 AMThe FPA are quick off the mark to respond. Perhaps they knew they were on a hiding to nothing!
Manager Biodiversity Program (371902)
Applications Close:– Friday, 12 January 2007.
Salary:– $76,920–$82,118 per annum.
Professional Employees Award, Level 4.
Permanent full-time 36.75 hours per week.
Location:– Hobart.
Duties:– Lead, direct and coordinate the state-wide functions of the branch, providing high level expert advice, education and training on the management and conservation of biodiversity values under the forest practices system to ensure that recognised high standards are achieved in the context of the Forest Practices Act and other relevant legislation and policies.
Desirable Requirements:– Current driver’s licence
Essential Requirements:– Satisfactory completion of an appropriate course of study at a recognised tertiary institution.
Enquiries to Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, phone 03 6233 7451, email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Applications to Manager, Human Resources, Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, GPO Box 936, Hobart, 7001, phone (03) 6233 5004, fax (03) 6233 5337, email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
To be considered for an interview an applicant must address the selection criteria that are contained in the Statement of Duties. A Job Kit and Statement of Duties may be obtained at http://www.jobs.tas.gov.au or by contacting Andrea Morris on (03) 6233 5004 or .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
http://www.jobs.tas.gov.au/notices/index.php?type=vacancy&id=15479
Posted by Luke Vanzino on 20/12/06 at 10:12 AMThe Australian newspaper hasn’t bothered even mentioning the Wielangta decision in today’s paper. Not a word!
Posted by kate on 20/12/06 at 11:39 AMpoor old pathetic eric,the so called minister for forests couldnt give a shit about them or the environment,only his rich ceos of the timber and woodchipping industries.he makes me want to puke every time he opens his pie hole.
Posted by crud on 20/12/06 at 01:55 PMThe ultimate Christmas present - the gift that keeps on giving. Congrats Bob and all involved. Nice to see a positive slant on majority of comments received ! Must be the season to be jolly !!!!
Posted by Adrian Beard on 20/12/06 at 02:14 PMJohn, in reply to Post #10, Bob Brown has proven yet again that he is motivated enough by his political and cultural beliefs to risk financial loss to fight for them.
This cannot currently be said of any other elected representative in this country.
Let me know, please, how much of his own money Senator Abetz will chip in (pun intended) to help with the appeals that are apparently being lodged. (I have a pretty fair idea already, though.) If he believes in his cause with the same integrity as the man he constantly belittles, he’ll put his money where his mouth is.
Posted by Cameron on 20/12/06 at 03:52 PMAt present, Abetz is about as popular as a “Life Be In It” T-shirt at a funeral. Check out the letters to the ED in the Mock lately. B.Brown/wielangta vs Eric Abetz Bushfire comments.
Simply a case man vs boy.
You’re a fairdinkum prawn Eric. What have you actually done for Tasmanian mate.Posted by samps on 20/12/06 at 08:17 PMRed has contacted the howard to intervene in the court decision over Wielangta forest saying it is a desperate situation and that thousands of jobs and livelyhoods are on the line. hmmmmmmmm, how about the umpires decision. Stand down Lennon !and take Abetz with you.
d.d.Posted by DON DAVEY on 20/12/06 at 08:49 PMReasonable response (#15), Jason, but I would argue that there is a difference between investing your own money in spinning a convenient image to the electorate, and investing in legal action for the good (in this case) of the environment.
The former paves the way for re-election; the latter establishes protection for fragile species and environs that will, all being well, last considerably than anything so brief is a mere parliamentary term.
Posted by Cameron on 20/12/06 at 10:19 PMwell done bob brown!!! once again he proves to be the only honest polly in oz. competent forthright and honest,how has he lasted so long?? well done and long may he remain mark elliott
Posted by mark elliott on 21/12/06 at 06:34 AMStill no mention of this issue in The Australian. Obviously when Matthew Denholm takes his Chrissy hols Tassie ceases to exist. So much for a “national” newspaper.
And the despicable Paul Lennon says “oh no it’s illegal, we’d better change the Act so it’s not anymore”. What a corrupt human being. Be prepared for a total travesty of justice occuring in the months ahead. Supported by the Libs no doubt. All to make sure Tasmanians have “certainty”, a word that has taken on a whole new meaning in the BS speak of the modern Tasmanian propaganda lexicon.
Posted by kate on 21/12/06 at 08:42 AMOnce again. law and order stands in the way of someone making a quick buck.
Same thing happened to me last time I tried a burg.
I didn’t carry on about getting the law changed, though. What’s the bet Big Red, John Notsad or Heath Wagers do?
Posted by Justa Bloke on 21/12/06 at 08:57 AMpost (22) Belay ! that last request “John Lennon”, instead, take the whole motley bunch with you, no one can tell me that there is not one that disagree,s with this govt,s behaviour ! but not a peep from a single one! as duly elected representatives of “we the people” you are a bloody disgrace, get out !
Don DaveyPosted by DON DAVEY on 21/12/06 at 02:16 PMCongratulations Bob Brown you are a hero.
So the RFA was designed lobbied for and written by the industry to guarantee them access to communties’ assetts for a song. They hold it up and use it at every opportunity to justify trashing our resources for the minimum royalties to us and maximum profits for them.
Then along comes Bob Brown and shows that they are not sticking by their own rules again, just using the document as a cover for their environmental vandalism. Same as they do with the Australian Forestry Standard (that the industry wrote) and the Tasmanian Forest Practices Code.
They don’t stick by them either, but what more can one expect from a profit, stockholder driven industry that runs on the rule of open slather as long as there is quick buck.
John Gay this morning on ABC radio stated that he thought that his buddies Thuggo ( lennon) and Little Jobnny will quickly grab the goal posts and move them so that business as usual can proceed.
If the industry and the government had really been practicing “Worlds Best Practice” this court case would not have succeeded.
So the minister for fish and chips MR WORMTONGUE and his mates have been caught out again.
Yep not spin but great big LIES is what they peddle.
There are many more areas where the big guns have been flouting their own rules, I have hundreds of photos and a couple of prosecutions to prove it.
Good on Bob Brown.Posted by Pete Godfrey on 21/12/06 at 02:19 PMToby Rowallan’s melodramatic analogy in #13 shows a lack of understanding of facts in the Brown v Forestry Tasmania case, the summary of which Brenda posted a link to in #14.
Very few listed Tasmanian threatened species are, or ever conceivably could be, in as much trouble as the baiji has been in recent decades. The idea that if the forest industry was not curtailed these species would have no chance of survival is ludicrous.
Indeed concerning the eagle, Marshall J notes in detail the evidence given by Nick Mooney to the effect that the impact of the proposed logging on the eagle is not “a significant impact considering all other threats” to the Tasmanian subspecies of the Wedge-tailed Eagle. Marshall differs from this view only because, as he states in para 94:
“Even though forestry operations in Wielangta (in coupes 17E and 19D) and the proposed forestry operations in coupes other than 17E and 19D will cause a loss of breeding and foraging habitat for the eagle which is relatively insignificant in the context of other factors causing loss to such habitat, that loss can still be considered ‘significant’ in the context of legislation which is designed ‘to protect native species (and in particular prevent the extinction, and promote the recovery, of threatened species)...’. Loss of habitat caused by forestry operations, while small when compared to other causes, has a significant impact on a threatened species where ‘to protect’ is seen as a duty not just to maintain population levels of threatened species but to restore the species.”
This interpretation of what is a significant impact may not have occurred to those who passed the original legislation, and if the ruling survives appeal (I have no reason to believe it will not) then the Commonwealth is really the party most embarrassed by the ruling, and the Commonwealth will need to consider significant amendments to the EPBC Act to prevent the Act from more or less shutting down a wide range of industries.
Indeed, some of the recent windfarm EPBC refusals over very remote orange-bellied parrot risks, widely seen as biased political behaviour by the minister responsible, were actually entirely consistent with the way Justice Marshall has interpreted the Act, and another sign of what is to come if the Act remains in its present form.
It is also interesting to note the influence of various do-gooder international agreements signed by the Commonwealth on the outcome of this case. Yet again such agreements have proven to be not merely waffle but waffle with teeth, but I doubt that will discourage governments from continuing to sign off on them, then having to deal with the inflexibility of the consequences later.
It does appear that some serious errors were made by the respondent in this case, most notably in the handling of expert evidence, but I doubt that that affected the outcome in light of the interpretation given.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 21/12/06 at 02:25 PMKevin, please explain what benefits the eagles get in return for the loss of habitat (to whatever extent - surely it isn’t zero).
Posted by Justa Bloke on 22/12/06 at 09:17 AMKevin Bonham reveals his (lack of) moral position:
“It is also interesting to note the influence of various do-gooder international agreements signed by the Commonwealth on the outcome of this case. Yet again such agreements have proven to be not merely waffle but waffle with teeth..”Those international laws designed to protect living beings in our environment are not ‘waffle with teeth’ but an expression of deep community values.
Bonham says:
“It does appear that some serious errors were made by the respondent in this case..”‘Errors’ such as presenting oneself as an ‘independent’ witness but changing your affadivit after seeking advice from Forestry Tasmania. ‘Errors’ such as providing false evidence in court. See points 118-120 for merely one of many similar examples at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.htmlBonham:
“..the Commonwealth will need to consider significant amendments to the EPBC Act to prevent the Act from more or less shutting down a wide range of industries..”Clearly Mr Bonham can’t think of any other economic scenario for Australia other than one that involves the removal of protections for our biodiversity and conservation. Consider for a moment the lack of future we have when that is lost. First, understand just how much deforestation and biodiversity loss has escalated since the taxpayer-funded corporate takeover of our forests and lands.
For the benefit of the general public who have a genuine interest in understanding the underlying causes of deforestation around the world go to:
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/MS12B-E.HTM
and
http://www.wrm.org.uy/publications/briefings/underlying.html#underlyingWe can feed, clothe, entertain and transport ourselves without abusing land and regarding it merely as a commodity instead of the community in which we belong.
Posted by Brenda Rosser on 22/12/06 at 09:44 AMOh Kev,
You’re such a sore loser ... the Federal Court now makes a finding on the scientific credentials of Forestry Tasmania, and those who advised them. And the Federal Court finding is ... their science is crap.
Posted by some more equal on 22/12/06 at 10:03 AMAt last, we find a court that enforces a meaning to the word ‘protection’. How great it is to have meaning restored to our language.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html
228 The State of Tasmania submits:
‘it is wholly inapt to construe clause 68 as simply imposing an unqualified obligation to ensure the protection of species. The State’s obligation is satisfied, not through the actual protection of species…but through the employment of the CAR reserve system.’
...
231 The Commonwealth also contends:‘in circumstances where it is non-controversial that significant tracts of habitat for the three threatened species currently before the Court are made available in CAR reserves, the Court can safely conclude that the species are protected “through” the CAR reserves.’
...
Meaning of ‘protect’240 An agreement to ‘protect’ means exactly what it says. It is not an agreement to attempt to protect, or to consider the possibility of protecting, a threatened species.
241 The method for achieving that protection is through the CAR Reserve System or by applying relevant management prescriptions. Does that mean the State’s obligations are satisfied if, in fact, the CAR Reserve System or relevant management prescriptions do not protect the relevant species? I do not think so. If the CAR Reserve System does not deliver protection to the species, the agreement to protect is empty (in the absence of relevant management prescriptions performing that role). If relevant management prescriptions do not perform that role, the State should ensure that it does, otherwise it is not complying with its obligation to protect the species. To construe cl 68 otherwise would be to turn it into an empty promise.
262…The State has failed to protect the beetle through the CAR Reserve System.
267 ..the State has not protected the parrot through the CAR Reserve System.
270 ..the State has not protected the eagle through the CAR Reserve System.
273 ..the State has not protected the beetle by applying relevant management prescriptions.
275 ..the State has not protected the parrot by applying relevant management prescriptions.
281 I do not consider that the State has protected the eagle by applying relevant management prescriptions. Management prescriptions have helped to slow the eagle’s extinction but have not protected it in the sense of either maintaining existing numbers or restoring the species to pre-threatened levels.
http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj
Posted by Brenda Rosser on 22/12/06 at 06:35 PM#30 - that’a a question you need to put to an eagle expert. I haven’t made any claims that eagles benefit from logging.
Brenda in #31 argues that legislation like the EPBC Act reflects “deep community values”. If you were to ask the majority of the so-called “community” whether even the smallest impact on a listed threatened species was reason to justify major impacts on many industries I’d bet most of them would consider otherwise.
Brenda’s third reply point assumes that I support some far-reaching removal of species protection, an assumption that is total rubbish - however the radical concept of “significant impact” suggested in the ruling does suggest a need for fine tuning of the Act and more care in making both national and international commitments in environmental law.
Re #32, it’s quite amusing to be called a “sore loser” by some vindictive anonymous troll who has responded to previous defeats in debates with me with unfair attacks on my professional reputation.
SME’s “their science is crap” line is oversimplifying the ruling significantly (since it has far more to do with interpretation of the Act), but in any case, no conclusions should be drawn about the general quality of FT’s science advice (or about how courts see same) from such a case. Indeed I was personally involved in a case in which the science relied upon by FT was considered by a court to be fine and the science of the opposition to be nonsense.
SME presumably wants to pigeonhole me as an FT partisan on this one, but in fact I have sometime professional colleagues of various sorts on both sides of this case. SME will also note that I have not attacked Justice Marshall’s ruling in any way, and therefore claims of me being a “sore loser” (or even a defeated party at all) are just rubbish.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 22/12/06 at 07:21 PMIt’s interesting that a Federal court action costing $500,000 + is the only way to influence the actions of a Government department. Public submissions stating the same things as the judge get completely ignored. See attachment (A bit of history - January 2005. My submission to the Federal EPBC Board on the proposed Gunns Ltd pulp mill.)
Extract:
“..
I wish to object to the proposed pulpmill in Northern Tasmania by Gunns Ltd. The reason for this objection is that –quite apart from the issues surrounding the immediate environment and operation of the mill itself (topics on which I am not well qualified to speak)– the proposed mill will feed off monoculture tree plantations and native forest in Tasmania which are not managed on a sustainable footing. Their management consistently breaches the RFA and a multitude of other Acts, regulations, guidelines, agreements and provisions to do with protection of the environment and human health.The Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ONLY exempts forestry operations authorised under a RFA from the requirement to obtain an environmental approval under the Act if the operations are carried out in accordance with the RFA.
The indisputable fact is that there are very few forestry operations in Tasmania that are carried out ‘in accordance with the RFA’. Therefore, the pulp mill proposal must be declared a ‘controlled action’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) and ruled as inappropriate in order to protect what little that is now left of our natural inheritance.
The text and related appendices and attachments composing this submission provides ample and indisputable evidence of systemic and ongoing breaches of the RFA which represent ‘normal’ practice in Tasmania since the RFA’s introduction 7 years ago. Federal intervention is LONG overdue….
Posted by Brenda Rosser on 23/12/06 at 07:21 AMOK, Kevin, if eagles don’t benefit from logging, why proceed with it on such a scale?
Posted by Justa Bloke on 23/12/06 at 09:49 AMJB, that’s a question you need to put to someone who says that they support logging on such a scale, rather than to someone who merely opposes the use of bad arguments against it. Though a response might commence with an observation that, contrary to the views of some, fractional potential impacts on the wellbeing of the threatened Tasmanian subspecies of the otherwise common and secure wedge-tailed eagle should not be the be-all-and-end-all of what human activities do or do not occur.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 23/12/06 at 09:08 PM
