Trees to chips

Press, 21 February 1987, Page 20

Trees to chips

Sir,—Some facts pertinent to this controversy are worth noting. Nelson Pine Forest, Ltd, in the course of its operations has: (1) Established an overseas market for aa primary and renewable resource worth millions of dollars; (2) Roaded, and brought into production, thousands of hectares of land which hitherto produced little or, in some cases, • nothing to the common weal; (3) Produced thousands of cubic metres of sawlogs which would otherwise not have been econo- ■ mically extractable; (4) Provided continuing employment for hundreds of workers; and (5) De-

monstrated that a market exists for beech residues. This market is essential for effective beech silviculture. These facts, coupled with the possibilities of better uses for the higher quality portions of the crop, have-made it attractive to contemplate the use of land for continuous cropping of beech. The establishment of markets for wool, mutton, fruit, and beef did not result in the destruction of all fruit trees, sheep and cattie.—Yours, etc., J. R. D’REGAN. 1 Reef ton, . ’<■ February 16, 1987.. ~ , .

Military training

Sir,—John H. Lench . asks today whether I wrote to point'out the incompatibility of compulsion and personal freedom when compiilsbry unionism was reimposed upon New Zealanders. I did not, but not out of any double standard. At the time I was travelling in Europe. However, I can only agree with Mr Lench that conscription has the same meaning wherever it applies and is always unacceptable. It is unfortunate that the New Zealand Party, in straying from its original ideals, has lost sight of this as none of the other political parties pay anything but lip service to the concept of personal freedom.—Yours, etc., R. N. SHAW. February 17, 1987.