Ill informed claims and counter claims are by no means endangered species in the forestry debate. The interpretation of finance and economic statistics is often a cause for concern, even alarm. Usually one can safely turn a blind eye to the PR boys when they venture into areas of ‘benefits of Project A’ or ‘economic value of Industry B’. But when the executives involved in some of the decisions enter the public arena with similar fatuous claims, it is little wonder how confusing it is to interested observers.
Dr Hans Drielsma, the Executive GM of Forestry Tasmania (FT) in a letter published in the Mercury on 22nd January 2009 under the heading ‘True economic value’ attempted to argue that the true economic value of the State’s forestry industry can be measured by reference to its annual turnover.