say NO to the proposed Great Forest National Park

[Jen58]

https://www.change.org/p/victorian-...ish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg

 

[AtomRat]

Thank you Jen. We need to keep it ours. Thanks for posting

I've seen the boundaries they want to put in and shutus off to all areas. A joke.

These people behind desks have no clue what's out there

 

[AtomRat]

Bloody greens trying to protect what they don't even know.

Whens the protest march Jen?

This petition is around my area.. well many peoples.Very very large. Please help

 

[user 5415]

Won't count unless your from Victoria, signed this morning

 

[AtomRat]

Cheers Phil..edited my comment.

The amount of area they want to close is astounding. This isn't just prospecting but all reacreational use in the forest.

 

[user 5415]

Right AR, it's about removing access from land that we the people have right to under our constitution in the guise of conservation.
No point in having forests if your banned from using them, having access to forests without use of or activity in is pointless.

 

[Bazz]

Bloody nit-wits

Signed, I'll sign it for the Minister for everything as well

Bazz

 

[SCROUNGER]

While i'm not in favour of this proposed new park, i think a couple of the points used by the bloke (Timothy Surtees) in the original attachment are misleading at best and downright wrong at worst. I think when proposing a submission (petition) against something along these lines it would help to stick with the facts and not stray into grey areas that dilute the good cause (which can then be used to discredit the petition) of trying to halt this proposal.
I have still signed the petition however as i think a national park on that scale in that area isn't warranted.

 

[tryhard1968]

HAve signed and left comments.

 

[Guest]

Signed and comment left.

 

[user 5415]

While i'm not in favour of this proposed new park, i think a couple of the points used by the bloke (Timothy Surtees) in the original attachment are misleading at best and downright wrong at worst. I think when proposing a submission (petition) against something along these lines it would help to stick with the facts and not stray into grey areas that dilute the good cause (which can then be used to discredit the petition) of trying to halt this proposal.
I have still signed the petition however as i think a national park on that scale in that area isn't warranted.

Yeah a bit far fetched in some areas, but the first casualty of war

 

[SCROUNGER]

While i'm not in favour of this proposed new park, i think a couple of the points used by the bloke (Timothy Surtees) in the original attachment are misleading at best and downright wrong at worst. I think when proposing a submission (petition) against something along these lines it would help to stick with the facts and not stray into grey areas that dilute the good cause (which can then be used to discredit the petition) of trying to halt this proposal.
I have still signed the petition however as i think a national park on that scale in that area isn't warranted.

Yeah a bit far fetched in some areas, but the first casualty of war

Yep, you can put up a good, solid argument against a park (in that area specifically) without using 'scare or false' statements that don't standup imo.

 

[user 5415]

While i'm not in favour of this proposed new park, i think a couple of the points used by the bloke (Timothy Surtees) in the original attachment are misleading at best and downright wrong at worst. I think when proposing a submission (petition) against something along these lines it would help to stick with the facts and not stray into grey areas that dilute the good cause (which can then be used to discredit the petition) of trying to halt this proposal.
I have still signed the petition however as i think a national park on that scale in that area isn't warranted.

Yeah a bit far fetched in some areas, but the first casualty of war

Yep, you can put up a good, solid argument against a park (in that area specifically) without using 'scare or false' statements that don't standup imo.

I too like you expect transparency at all times but I'm also not surprised when self interest wins out

 

[Goldtarget]

It's funny how things get sensationalist when trying to influence an outcome. It's rife, a local PM just submitted a retort to activities of recent weeks. I pointed out using words like Extremists was a bit over the top and the article would be better served stating the facts, of which said comments were promptly deleted.
Seems the same case here.
I wonder what they think when the come up with these proposals? Crazy to think such a swath of land could be properly managed, no doubt justifying someone's position to receive additional funding only to see it under utilized and poorly managed.

 

[Swinging & digging]

The proposal is that all the jobs lost in the timber industry will be replaced by new jobs in Park management ( Rangers etc, eco tourism ).
Don,t believe the lies on the Greater Forest National Park Facebook page about recreational access been aloud for traditional outdoor activities either, this is nothing short of a greenie land grab. Most of the existing 4WD tracks, campsites etc will be closed, to pay for the new rangers Park Access fees will be charged.

Be warned its not the only National Park proposal for Victoria as a number of new parks are proposed within the Golden triangle and this will restrict many areas for gold prospecting, dark days indeed.

 

[ozziii]

Signed last night, more national parks are not whats needed, stopping people using the bush for family activities & hobbies isn't going to help the bush in any way, it will just create an even bigger fire hazard.

 

[SCROUNGER]

Signed last night, more national parks are not whats needed, stopping people using the bush for family activities & hobbies isn't going to help the bush in any way, it will just create an even bigger fire hazard.

Yep, totally agree. Maybe they could look at intelligent management instead of locking areas up and letting the blackberries and wild dogs take over.

 

[jethro]

Signed last night, more national parks are not whats needed, stopping people using the bush for family activities & hobbies isn't going to help the bush in any way, it will just create an even bigger fire hazard.

Yep, totally agree. Maybe they could look at intelligent management instead of locking areas up and letting the blackberries and wild dogs take over.

spot on scrounger, but unfortunately the deal will already have been done between labour & the greenys. I have seen this happen before. By the time the proposal for another new park is made public the minister & her dept heads will have all their ducks in a line and their arguments & rebuttals down pat. Nothing short of a campaign of civil disobedience will change there minds, so if you really want to stop this be prepared to go to war.

 

[SCROUNGER]

Latest i've read is that the clowns down in town are now thinking about using the desal plant (to no doubt justify a bloody huge pink elephant) and pumping water uphill instead of downhill in the north south pipeline (another huge pink elephant). You know who'll be paying for that little example of a brainwave. Shite, give me strength, these people have no bloody idea, if brains were gunpowder they wouldn't have enough to blow their heads off. About the only thing they seem to be able to do is start burnoffs on days they shouldn't

 

[SCROUNGER]

I know that should be 'white elephant' but pink elephant seems more relevant imo