Readers give forestry thumbs-down

THE Herald web poll this week provoked a strong response on the positive and negative impacts of forestry on the region, and most people who responded feel the bad outweighs the good.

The question was “Do you think the benefits of forestry to the region outweigh its negative impacts?”

A total of 719 people responded.

Of that number, 580, or 81 percent, felt the negatives outweigh the benefits and said ‘‘no’’. Just 18 percent (126) see it the other way and said ‘‘yes’’.

There were 13 people, 1 percent, who could not decide either way.

“No — This district is being mugged. All we get is a few highly-dangerous jobs, largely for youngsters, plus broken and crowded, inadequate roads. We will be left with a hell of a mess when it’s all over,” was one comment.

“Trickle down to truckies and bushmen is not a benefit. The real money goes offshore.

“There is more benefit in developing the port for tourism like Lake Wakitipu and using the rail link,” another said.

“If a toll of $200 per logging truck entering city limits was established to assist in repairing roads, then the benefits would still not outweigh the negatives of logging on the community.”

And so on . . .

“Yes — The benefits outweigh the negatives. It provides employment for many who would otherwise probably be on a benefit.”

“Yes — What a stupid question.”

“No — Logging trucks that are the most inefficient means of transport, are wrecking our roads and causing much traffic annoyance.”

“Tourists are unimpressed by the number churning up our roads and in the CBD — nowhere else in the world permits logging trucks anywhere near the CBD or through suburban areas.”

“Agricultural sectors on The Flats contribute majorly to Gisborne, with no negative impacts whatsoever, and forestry needs to be brought to account.”

“No. When you see the mess and damage caused by logging to the hills, rivers and beaches, plus the damage to the roads.

“The long hours that drivers have to work for not a lot of money. There has to be a better use for the land. Plant more native timber, especially on slip-prone country.”

“No. I suspect the insular people in this region who have never left for any period believe it is of the greatest benefit possible.”

“Yes. But I think forestry could pay more for roads though. Locals should not be paying the cost of big businesses like forestry. It is horrible to be known as having the worst roads in New Zealand.

“Yes. Forestry is essential on much of our erosion-prone land and provides many jobs to this community.”

“No. Get those trucks off our roads!”

“The benefits are very limited as no progressive city would ever allow logging trucks to enter city limits.

“There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of forestry and another group pays to fix up the mess forestry makes.

“How fair is that?”

“No. The Eastland Wood Council needs to plan for alternative transportation and port loading facilities to ensure that logging trucks do not enter the suburbs or city, causing all residents to suffer for the benefits of a minority.”

“I do not believe that GDC councillors, ECT, or the Eastland Wood Council have any idea of the strong feeling the vast majority of residents have over the problems of logging trucks in the suburbs, or in the region.”

“No. You are joking right?

“Yes. By a narrow margin, depending on tree varieties planted. A wider margin if rail is used substantially for transport.”

“Forestry employs many people and is one of the few industries that allows Gisborne to exist.”

THE Herald web poll this week provoked a strong response on the positive and negative impacts of forestry on the region, and most people who responded feel the bad outweighs the good.

The question was “Do you think the benefits of forestry to the region outweigh its negative impacts?”

A total of 719 people responded.

Of that number, 580, or 81 percent, felt the negatives outweigh the benefits and said ‘‘no’’. Just 18 percent (126) see it the other way and said ‘‘yes’’.

There were 13 people, 1 percent, who could not decide either way.

“No — This district is being mugged. All we get is a few highly-dangerous jobs, largely for youngsters, plus broken and crowded, inadequate roads. We will be left with a hell of a mess when it’s all over,” was one comment.

“Trickle down to truckies and bushmen is not a benefit. The real money goes offshore.

“There is more benefit in developing the port for tourism like Lake Wakitipu and using the rail link,” another said.

“If a toll of $200 per logging truck entering city limits was established to assist in repairing roads, then the benefits would still not outweigh the negatives of logging on the community.”

And so on . . .

“Yes — The benefits outweigh the negatives. It provides employment for many who would otherwise probably be on a benefit.”

“Yes — What a stupid question.”

“No — Logging trucks that are the most inefficient means of transport, are wrecking our roads and causing much traffic annoyance.”

“Tourists are unimpressed by the number churning up our roads and in the CBD — nowhere else in the world permits logging trucks anywhere near the CBD or through suburban areas.”

“Agricultural sectors on The Flats contribute majorly to Gisborne, with no negative impacts whatsoever, and forestry needs to be brought to account.”

“No. When you see the mess and damage caused by logging to the hills, rivers and beaches, plus the damage to the roads.

“The long hours that drivers have to work for not a lot of money. There has to be a better use for the land. Plant more native timber, especially on slip-prone country.”

“No. I suspect the insular people in this region who have never left for any period believe it is of the greatest benefit possible.”

“Yes. But I think forestry could pay more for roads though. Locals should not be paying the cost of big businesses like forestry. It is horrible to be known as having the worst roads in New Zealand.

“Yes. Forestry is essential on much of our erosion-prone land and provides many jobs to this community.”

“No. Get those trucks off our roads!”

“The benefits are very limited as no progressive city would ever allow logging trucks to enter city limits.

“There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of forestry and another group pays to fix up the mess forestry makes.

“How fair is that?”

“No. The Eastland Wood Council needs to plan for alternative transportation and port loading facilities to ensure that logging trucks do not enter the suburbs or city, causing all residents to suffer for the benefits of a minority.”

“I do not believe that GDC councillors, ECT, or the Eastland Wood Council have any idea of the strong feeling the vast majority of residents have over the problems of logging trucks in the suburbs, or in the region.”

“No. You are joking right?

“Yes. By a narrow margin, depending on tree varieties planted. A wider margin if rail is used substantially for transport.”

“Forestry employs many people and is one of the few industries that allows Gisborne to exist.”

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Do you support the $6 million proposal for Rugby Park, which includes synthetic turf, an athletics track, additional sportsfield, all-weather sports pavilion and conference/function centre?