Don´t give up guys!

You have our support!! We do what we can to help as well!

*Marcus & friends from Germany*

What is the logic behind such decision of NOT demarcating because of saving the trees? Will you now pick up all the signs to save all the trees from loggers? Or should you go home and save even more trees?

Hey Eino! We haven't stopped demarcating! The demarcation goes on!

That's what you get when people get angry! And for a reason.

Understandable expression of anger from the loggers. I would be mad too, if some worldwide opportunist and blackmailer Greenterror organisation would distribute false and unscientific propaganda to the whole world about everything what's going on in my home area, and my life-work would depend on it.

Great, now the reindeers can actually really get horsetail lichen from that tree.

Actually Eino - a percentage of the lichen blows to the ground, as a windfall (like apples!). It's not necessary (and probably not a good idea) to cut down trees just to feed reindeer.

Eino - Don't worry, we didn't get angry - but it is sad that someone felt that they had to respond to our demarcation in such away. Thanks for your support...

Eino wrote:

"Understandable expression of anger from the loggers. I would be mad too, if some worldwide opportunist and blackmailer Greenterror organisation would distribute false and unscientific propaganda to the whole world about everything what's going on in my home area, and my life-work would depend on it."

- Eino, sometimes, by your postings, it's hard to see whether you're a Greenpeace supporter or not! I assume here that here you're speculating on the actions of the aforementioned treecutter as opposed to your own opinions - let me know if I'm wrong!

Anyway... if someone has been distributing false and unscientific propaganda - it sure ain't been us. We've got no financial axe to grind here - we've been open, transparent, and ready to help out and talk to anyone who wants to sit down for some serious discussion.

IF anyone doubts this - try reading the report: "Lapland: State of Conflict - How the Finnish government is abusing the forest rights of Sámi reindeer herders" (pdf)

Actually, as far as I can see, the most unscientific claim so far is that jobs will be lost in forestry, or the most ludicrous one - the claim that we are here to take jobs away from people. That one has us scratching our heads!

Greenpeace does not oppose logging in general?... ok?

In fact - what we're seeing here is a technique used time and time again by the logging industry - and other industries too, like industrial fishing.

As soon as any proposal is made by an environmental NGO about improving environmental standards, conservation or whatever, logging companies - basically, the big money - rather than cleverly spending a few euros improving their situation, instead spread rumour and allegations amongst their own employees. Companies like Metsähallitus and StoraEnso, as well as the Finnish Government are well able to bear the cost of any changes to logging practices in Upper Lapland, without causing any loss of jobs. Instead, they choose the - albeit common - practice of expecting their employees to bear the burden - thereby deliberately creating a whole new conflict. It's a nasty and unfortunate situation- but basically, you have companies hiding behind their own employees.

It's very easy to mobilise people when they think they're jobs are at risk!

And even more sadly - when the natural resources are screwed up from over-exploitation - it's the employees that also suffer.

Also don't forget - the debate here, is not isolated, and not the first - check out this article about Tasmania, and this one about how things got sorted out in British Columbia. And here's an interesting piece about the forest industry.

Yes, Finland is an environmentally conscious country - so are many other countries (I'm from one of them) - but just having a green outlook or reputation doesn't mean that everything is automatically ok.

Hello again Eino,
Thanks for the link!

But harsh words my friend! Hasn't Metsahällitus broken many promises? Hasn't they started to logg ancient forests in areas where those forests were to be protected? Who is really lying here?

"...I would be mad too...and my lifework would depend on it". Aren't we talking about the Sami reindeer herders as well here? Isn't their lifework dependent on ancient forests? Probably to a greater extend than the local logger's!

Yes, of course because you have "no financial axe to grind here" You can say that:
"we've been open, transparent, and ready to help out and talk to anyone who wants to sit down for some serious discussion." But your actions speak for themselves. Your real goal is to protect more forests than you usually demand. This has not given your organisation a very good reputation. Another fact is that you present only the "studies" that are useful for your causes. You only comment other reports. This further declines your reliability.

[Hey Rednose... uh... Rudolph? Not sure what you mean by "your real goal is to protect more forests than you usually demand" - can you elaborate?

Also - naturally, as we have taken a particular position here for this campaign, we're not about to start promoting studies that are harmful to the campaign. Not only would that be confusing, it would be a little silly to start contradicting ourselves!
] - dave

So where's the catch? How come should your organisation be the one spreading the truth and objectivity? Because you have no stakes? Except for the conservation.. That makes you in a way less trustworthy partner, because you have NO interests (with stakes).

[That's an interesting take on things - the idea you find us less trustworthy because we have no financial interests? Can you elaborate on this? As for "truth and objectivity" - we're an environmental NGO that works all over the world protecting fragile ecosystems, and with indigenous peoples. We try to tell the other side of the story, the story that doesn't normally get told- dave]

In this project you have found "indigenous" people to make it a "just cause". But in this case the facts are not on your side, except among the minds of people who do not no the facts. Or do not know that Finland is a country that takes care of its forests. Or think that old forests are real forests and do not know that use of wood is the most sustainable choice.. (of course we should find substitutes for paper or perhaps lower the consumption)

[Fact: The Finnish Government has a history of not taking care of its indigenous people. Fact: Wood is a sustainable choice - but only if managed sustainably, and in harmony with other forest users - Dave]

GP has a single quite boring method in their projects. The counterpart is always the industry that has only such values as greed, materialism, destruction, carelesness etc. GP talks of stakeholders but disregards the ones with economical interest as relevant/reliable stakeholders. Economical activity is simply activity between humans and valued interests. Its a concept not an independent factor.

[Unfortunately, this is because, quite boringly, the factors driving these problems tend to be industrial in nature - destruction, carelessness, etc. We don't disregard economic activity - that should be apparent from the fact that we're working with the Sámi reindeer herders - reindeer herding is, after all economic activity. - dave]

How come do you then go on and set aside the facts of over-herding or give a picture of Lapland being destroyed. There are already 40-60 % of the forests protected. Its quite simple, that with less wood to cut down some people will loose their jobs. It should not happen in a place where logging causes no "big" concerns, and where reindeer-herding, travel industry and logging can easily operate side-by-side. Have done so for 50 years, in this scale. Compare today to 20 years ago when there where 50% less reindeers and 60 % more logging.

[This is our point - reindeer-herding, tourism and logging should be able to exist side-by-side. But unfortunately your statistics are misleading - most of the protected areas are in high-altitude areas, where there's less trees. Some 30% of actual productive forest area in upper Lapland is protected. Just 30% of all forest in upper Lapland's protected areas is pine - the rest being birch, etc. Old growth forests and reindeer herding winter grazing areas are in pine forests. This is why it's so important! The land of some cooperatives is not protected at all. Also, yes, 20 years ago there were less reindeer, but this due to a parasite epidemic. The herds have since recovered to earlier levels. - dave]

"Eino - Don't worry, we didn't get angry"

Actually, I meant the angry loggers =)

"'...I would be mad too...and my lifework would depend on it'. Aren't we talking about the Sami reindeer herders as well here?"

Well, you are certainly talking about only them.

[We're not here to defend the logging industry! - Dave ]

"Isn't their lifework dependent on ancient forests?"

That's the big question, is it? Many experts and biologists say it isn't dependent on the trees, and the reindeer heirding problems are mostly because of other factors than logging.

[And many experts, biologists, etc., say the opposite. That's life! - Dave ]

Are you sure the reindeer heirders are not lying and exaggerating things too? Are they so innocent just because they're the original people?

"Eino, sometimes, by your postings, it's hard to see whether you're a Greenpeace supporter or not!"

I'm thinking about it. I'm also writing here so I could find more information about this obscure forest war, so I'm pleased that you're still answering to me nicely although I tend to be attacking.

[Attacking? No, but you do seem to be repeating yourself a little! - Dave ]

But I've heard bad stuff about Greenpeace and I can't ignore it. Now I'm also thinking about whether I can support Suomen Luonnonsuojeluliitto anymore, since they are backing you up. I've already heard about nature conservationists that have resigned from SLL because of this war.

[And again - other nature conservationists have not resigned. - Dave ]

Basically I support the Sámi rights.
But I think this Greenpeace's "whatever-means-necessery" (or maybe better in Finnish: "tarkoitus pyhittää keinot") strategy is quiestionable.

"IF anyone doubts this - try reading the report:"

I've read it, but it might be evil propaganda.

[Er... 'evil'? I think you're being a little melodramatic now! - Dave ]

"It's very easy to mobilise people..."

And it's very easy to mobilise naive activists and pressure international companies around the world after telling them lies about the situation.

[That's quite a naiive understanding of how the world works, in my opinion! - Dave ]

"Anyway... if someone has been distributing false and unscientific propaganda - it sure ain't been us. We've got no financial axe to grind here -"

You surely have a motive to produce false information, because it would help you reach your goals.

[It's much, much easier to simply tell the truth. - Dave ]

On the other hand I don't think the respected biologists, anti-Greenpeace nature conservationists and some other reindeer heirders who are not supporting you, have any reason to lie neither.

[I'm not sure anyone is lying at all! Just because two sides may disagree does not mean that one is lying - they just have different ways of looking at a situation, for instance industrial-economic versus social-environmental, that kind of thing - Dave ]

"we've been open, transparent, and ready to help out and talk to anyone who wants to sit down for some serious discussion."

As everybody else think they are. But for some reason, many people think you discuss like stalinists.

[*Giggles* How many Stalinists have people round for coffee? - Dave ]

Question left unanswered: Are you sure the reindeer heirders supporting you are not lying and exaggerating things too? Are they so innocent just because they're the original people?

"No, but you do seem to be repeating yourself a little!"

Greenpeace has repeated itself for years and years, so I guess it's a good strategy?

"And again - other nature conservationists have not resigned."

They're probably still thinking about it =)

"Er... 'evil'? I think you're being a little melodramatic now!"

Setting up a camp in the Arctic and spreading propaganda all over the world for a disagreement on _what reindeers eat_, is what I would call melodramatic. But doesn't melodrama have a happy ending?

"That's quite a naiive understanding of how the world works, in my opinion!"

I think that's realism.

"It's much, much easier to simply tell the truth."

I think it's actually harder, because the truth may not always be pretty! If telling the truth would be the most efficient option, there wouldn't be lies and propaganda in the world.

"Just because two sides may disagree does not mean that one is lying - they just have different ways of looking"

It still could mean that one is lying. But I really didn't understand that "point-of-view" stuff even when Obi-Wan Kenobi tried to explain it.

"How many Stalinists have people round for coffee?"

I think they were referring more to the discussion in media.

"This is our point - reindeer-herding, tourism and logging should be able to exist side-by-side."

I think you aren't really doing anything to help that.

"And many experts, biologists, etc., say the opposite. That's life! - Dave"

Really, I've heard of none so far! Could you NAME some of them?

Naturally, Greenpeace's own forest "experts" don't count. I haven't counted Metsähallitus experts either.