You heard me.
I just got an email from the SEAC (Students Environmental Action Coalition) email list with this article attached.

WWF Threatens Australian Old-Growth Forests

PRESS RELEASE
by Forests.org, Inc.
Monday, August 09, 2004


WWF Australia has released a policy document advocating the logging of vast areas of old-growth forest in Tasmania, Australia. The document, entitled "A Blueprint for the Forest Industry and Vegetation Management in Tasmania", has rightly outraged local conservation organizations working for the past 25 years to stop logging in Tasmania's old-growth forests.

A broad global consensus has emerged within the grassroots forest conservation community that industrial logging of old-growth, and other
endangered forests, is no longer acceptable.

As Dr. Glen Barry of Forests.org explains, "ancient forests are required
to maintain local as well as global ecological sustainability. Industrial development of Tasmanian and other endangered forests irrevocably diminishes them, whether management is certified or not. To protect the Earth and all her life, the world's remaining old-growth must be protected from commercial scale development."

WWF's support for industrial logging against the wishes of heavily invested local conservationists is the most recent instance of large environmental organizations obstructing grassroots efforts to end industrial logging of ancient old-growth and other endangered forests.
All too frequently corporate environmental organizations benefit financially from their endorsement of ancient forest logging as being supposedly environmentally friendly.

The Australia Institute recently reported that WWF Australia has received vast sums of money from the Australian Federal Government ($13.5 million between 1999 and 2003). It has also supported the majority of the Federal Government's environment policies - including commercial logging of Tasmania's ancient forests - while its name and statements have been used by the Government to promote its environmental credentials.

If adopted by Australia's government, WWF's proposals would undermine the twenty five years' campaign to protect Tasmania's old growth forests and iodiversity; continue undesirable and unpopular practices such as clearfelling of native forests; destroy wilderness areas of World Heritage value in western Tasmania; and exacerbate current divisions in Tasmania regarding the future of forests, the development of forest-consuming industrial complexes, and the proposed expansion of plantations.

Twenty-five years of grassroots campaigning have won great victories in the campaign to save what remains of Australia's precious old-growth
forests. Public opinion is behind the movement and political parties are on the verge of making the leap to true conservation policies - based upon strict protection and an end to old-growth logging - for Tasmania's precious ancient forests.

WWF's recently published 'blueprint' threatens to stall this progress.
Forest.org supports Tasmanian conservation organizations in their demand that WWF remove the document from circulation and the debate, or else
withdraw from the Tasmanian forest campaign altogether.

As Dr. Barry concludes, "greenwashing of old-growth forest destruction by corporate environmental apologists will not stand. The mega-environmental conglomerates will heed this message of lose their members."

# # #


A copy of WWF Australia's report is available on their website at
http://www.wwf.org.au/

A copy of the Australia Insitute’s report is available at:
http:/www.tai.org.au/ (see 'What's New')

A copy of Tasmanian NGO's letter to WWF can be found at:
http://forests.org/docfeed/tasmania_wwf.doc


For more information including interviews contact:

Dr. Glen Barry
President
Forests.org, Inc.
http://forests.org/
gbarry@forests.org
+1 608 213 9224

Now is this hypocritical or what? And adding to this the Tasmanian Devil is quickly becoming an endangered species due to disease and other problems.
What the hell was the WWF thinking???
What are your thoughts on this?

(I know I already posted this in global community yesterday but I thought it would be more appropriate here)

Old growth logging is BAD. DOnt do it its stupid. The old growth is home to many animals and decomposes to make soil for the plants and other trees.Plus what are they gonna make with old growth trees? TRESPASSERS TO THE OLD GROWTH FORESTS WILL BE SHOT. SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN.

hi you guys.... i think all of your ideas are great!.. but i totally disagree to what jamaica said!.. if we will depend on our government, our children or the next generation will no longer see the beauty of what god created!. i suggest that we, as a concern citizen, should make an effort in restoring not only the tees but also mother nature..(",)

exactly. when you say "i think we need trees as much as they need us to help them grow" you are 100% right. because trees dont need us to help them grow and we dont need trees. havn't you noticed that there are plenty of alternatives to trees now? we dont need them for paper or houses anymore. we have hemp and cotton and other plants and bricks and plastic and metal. we have fake woods for things that we want to look like wood adn metal is becoming very popular for furniture etc. not to mention the incredible increase in uses of plastic. we need trees for their ability to clean our air and protect us from landslides and minimize damage in earthquakes and flooding. we dont need them for their wood anymore. plus, we have plenty of recycled paper and paper waiting to be recycled because lots of people recycle their paper but not that many buy recycled paper so theres a bunch sitting around.so if we really did need paper or wood, we could use that and recycle it againa nd use it over and over again. we dont need to keep cutting down trees. if you want to help buy only recycled paper and/or hemp or cotton paper. and dont build a huge house out of wood or a huge deck, and stop buying wood furniture. then we wont need to keep cutting down all our forests and damaging ecosystems.

Um, Jamaica? It's probably worth pointing out that trees don't actually need us to grow - not unless they're in areas that we've royally screwed up and need extra care there. But trees existed for millions of years before us, and they seem to have been doing fine then. If you're not sure, just go ask one.

I dont think loggers would ever stop... coz for one thing, many of our stuff we use everyday comes from trees and i think we need trees as much as they need us to help them grow. Loggers should be able to cut down trees as long as they would plant trees in return for the ones they cut down. At least that way, one tree down, another would grow.... I just hope they are doing just that and the government should be aware of that not just stand by and watch. Its the governement's job and we, those who are aware of this are just little post-its to remind the government to do something.

of course i know that they have to replant after they cut down, but it takes trees a long time to regrow to the point where they can be used for logging again so if we cut everything down all at once then theres nothing left for like 10 years. plus, it doesn't matter that there are still trees even after they're cut down, what matters is the old growth forests that have been around for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years are being cut down and all the plants that grew in the cool damp shade of our old growth forests can't live in the open sun so they die, and all the animals that lived in the trees and off the trees and/or ate those plants then die too.you can't just say that its okay to cut down trees as long as you replant them because those forests will never be the same again.

I agree with jellybean. The point is, if loggers did not have to replant after they logged, then eventually trees WOULD be gone which would be bad for the forest and the economy, putting people out of work. Replanting logging is a VERY GOOD THING, even if you look at it from an economic standpoint only. I know this...my dad is in the lumber industry. Don't be stupid about the environment.

Do you not know that the logger buisness replants the trees that they cut down? Trees are a renewable resource and it would be foolish if the buisnesses in logging, would not use that to thier advantage and instead be dependant on expanding solely.

""so you think that it's okay to keep logging so that people can have their jobs for now and then when they've logged up all of our forests then we'll have no trees AND no jobs for the loggers? ""

you have a lot to learn about logging... seriously.. logging and clearing land are very different most of the time.. as a matter of fact in most places land that is logged MUST be replanted... ever seen commercial timberland? when it is cut it must be planted again it is viewed as a crop... so the no more trees myth is just that.. a myth!

so you think that it's okay to keep logging so that people can have their jobs for now and then when they've logged up all of our forests then we'll have no trees AND no jobs for the loggers?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with logging. In fact, what is wrong is to keep buisness to log if they replant, because it takes jobs from loggers who need them.