Coroner & Legal
Lilydale: the arguments for logging
#19 Thanks G. I would like to engage in an intelligent discussion with the supporters of this plantation but have yet to find one to engage. The contributions of riprip for example are hardly intelligent are they? Also it is not possible to legally challenge the FPP and the FPA, and I believe the FPA is the only government body that has no appeal process within its legislation. So saying it is approved by the FPA sounds good but there is no way to challenge.
Sitting on the fence as you do seem to be doing suggests that this is a level playing field. It isn’t. If we just sit around and have cordial discussions this coupe WILL be made over to a plantation. If you want that to happen OK, but I don’t.
So far the only arguments for this conversion of native forest to plantation have been the following:
1: He owns the land and can do whatever he wants.
2: He has a followed the rules ie FPP through the FPA so its all good.
3: It was logged before so can be logged now.
4: He drinks the water so he won’t pollute it.
5: Lilydale was built on forestry so its OK
6: I’m going to make $20000 in employment out of it, so its OK.
then there are the somewhat crackpot arguments
7: DTK is local so its OK
8: He/she is 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation so its OK
9: Its all a socialist/greenie plot.
10: Its outsiders/non locals/new comers etc who oppose the plantation.
11: Only those that drink the water can have a say in it.
12: If you don’t play bowls or footy you can’t have a say in what happens around Lilydale.
Now I can expand why each of these arguments for the plantation is based on flawed logic or dishonest or simply wrong in fact if anyone likes to ask in this forum or others.
At least at the most recent community meeting some of the pro-plantation people turned up and although they did some heckling each of their arguments was answered. Their arguments were:
Why are you using the draft FPP? Answer: Because the certified FPP is not publicly available, a FOI for it could take months and the proponent is not sharing the certified FPP.
You have to boil the water anyway so why all the fuss? Answer: Most people do not boil the water and historically never have. The boil alert is BLW covering themselves because the water is untreated.
You can not say this meeting represents the community view because not everyone is here. Answer: When would it be possible to get every single person’s view on any subject. Even elections which are compulsory are not 100%. If community meetings open to all to attend do not represent the community view than what does?