plantation risk

here is a reasonable question while gunns were raping and pillaging a natural resource what measures have been undertaken to preserve those areas of natural beauty that havent been destroyed by the timber industry.

while we are contemplating that question,when a fire ,flood,earthquake destroys a natural resource of flora and fauna which investor is at risk-is this covered by insurance

conversely if you are an investor in a plantation as a grower,investor,mis tax schemer,or the manager what compensation might be paid for your loss,i know when my fathers crops were destroyed by flood he got 0000,destroyed by fire 0000, the grower dependant on rain 0000,poor market price 000,porr management 000,so thats primary industry full of risk,plantations certainly mitigate risk for the majority of flora and fauna,provides a sound basis for economic management given the needs of a civilised society and service the needs of a majority.

why not complain about the horticultural enterprise in tasmania,livestock all these industries service human need,
and all have one thing in common they displaced the natural flora and fauna to service human need.

so lets have a discussion about environmental risk,not just the onesided argument that gunns represents the biggest environmental risk in Tasmania ,but the risk that coincides with a population that cannot be supported by the natural environment t,with the exception of
native australians the true environmentaly aware australians
who managed a regime of preservation an endeavour to respect their environment.

who has a total solution or would you prefer as most of us would that it happened in someone elses backyard


bring on the solutions,gunns is not the real problem as i see it,land management practices are changing the environment will still carry the burden.so who do you propose to do a better job given the need of human beings