Consequences of total clear-felling obvious

LETTER

Forestry companies continue to show an arrogant disregard for the environment and their neighbours by clear-felling plantation forestry without regard for the consequences.

Other landowners are responsible for confining stock within their legal boundaries, and are obliged to make all efforts to recover their property if stock escape and pay for any damage they have caused.

It makes no difference whether the landowner’s stock is alive or not.

If the “escaping stock” comprised 100-year-old kauri logs, bales of wool or a mob of bulls, the owner would claim ownership and recover his property. Whether or not the “escaping” property had value is immaterial; ownership remains unaltered.

In the Tolaga Bay instance, which has suffered severe inundation in 1977, 1989 (Bola) and 2018, the consequences of harvesting without stream protection set-backs, especially near boundaries, should have been obvious to all concerned.

In my view, the cost of recovery and restoration should not fall to the ratepayers, but should be the full responsibility of the property owners who allowed their “stock” to escape.

Graeme Foster, Porirua

Forestry companies continue to show an arrogant disregard for the environment and their neighbours by clear-felling plantation forestry without regard for the consequences.

Other landowners are responsible for confining stock within their legal boundaries, and are obliged to make all efforts to recover their property if stock escape and pay for any damage they have caused.

It makes no difference whether the landowner’s stock is alive or not.

If the “escaping stock” comprised 100-year-old kauri logs, bales of wool or a mob of bulls, the owner would claim ownership and recover his property. Whether or not the “escaping” property had value is immaterial; ownership remains unaltered.

In the Tolaga Bay instance, which has suffered severe inundation in 1977, 1989 (Bola) and 2018, the consequences of harvesting without stream protection set-backs, especially near boundaries, should have been obvious to all concerned.

In my view, the cost of recovery and restoration should not fall to the ratepayers, but should be the full responsibility of the property owners who allowed their “stock” to escape.

Graeme Foster, Porirua

Your email address will not be published.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

Winston Moreton - 4 months ago
Exactly. Gisborne District Council Mayor and council heads have been duped by the offshore forest owners' lobby.