who needs who with the mill, page-10

I don't know the answer to that because I've just concentrated on this one area so that I have some understanding of the specific details. I could feel the fear in Tassie, of speaking about a company who's influence is so far reaching and backed 110% by the state government for years.

http://www.safecom.org.au/flanagan-gunns.htm

I agree. Gunns is just a commercial operation driven and motivated by profit. Only the government can dictate the way it operates to conserve what is left and repair what is depleted.

If a plantation company had leased your land they would have had you sign a complex agreement to protect 'their' interests.
ie. if it gets wiped out by a fire they walk away, you get nothing but the mess.
They are selling the fertility of the land for a pittance when we have an obligation to care for the land in our custody for a brief period in historical terms.

The shires have the land graded by it's fertility to protect it from abuse. You can't build on most rural blocks to ensure buyers don't turn them into lifestyle blocks.
Yet commercial operators can buy/lease high grade basalt loam properties and use it for tree plantations. This was Australia's food bowl.

So much more could have been done on that island paradise than have operations like this strip it to fill rubbish tips around the globe.

Forestry Tasmania, you've sussed that out already.

Thanks for taking the time to research these issues.