Patrick Rose

Selected features:

Forestry’s Uncertain Future page 2

Food Bill Leaves Sour Taste page 10

Can We Talk to Animals?page 16

1

Fo r e s t r y ' s U n c e r t a i n FutureBeauty, so the saying goes, is in the eye

of the beholder. While this truism speaks of the beauty of the human form, it would also seem to apply to a newly logged mountainside. Nelson Manager for Tasman Forest Management Craig McMiken

admits that people see the impact of log-ging differently depending on their per-spective.

“When you look at a logging site, there is no getting away from the fact that it looks destructive,” he said. “But there is cer-tainly is a lot of thought about how those logs are extracted to minimize the impact on the land. I can look at a clear felled face and if it’s a good job I think it looks fine. That is our industry.”

Mr McMiken insists that despite the ‘de-structive’ look of logging sites, it is an en-tirely ‘sustainable’ practice and conforms to ‘good land use’ policies as part of the plantation forestry rotation. The definition of these terms and how they should be applied and regulated is at the very heart

2

of a debate about the future of the logging industry. As Nelson/Marlborough looks to expand its tourism and housing develop-ments, finding the right balance with for-estry will prove essential in minimizing the dangers from potentially destructive slips caused by logging.

Helle Janssen is a holistic forestry con-sultant who lives near Pelorus in Marlbor-ough. He is committed to a radical rethink about the way forestry is practiced in the region. He says that ‘sustainable forestry’ is an oxymoron as long as the industry uses a monoculture practice of planting one species of radiata pine. Mr Janssen says that current practice is having a negative impact on tourism and increas-ing the dangers of floods and erosion.

“Everyone who comes into the region is pretty shocked by the clear-felling,” said

Mr Janssen. “The plantations are still permitted on erodable and highly erodable land and this is only setting the stage for more disasters like we had in Ta-pawera, Marlborough and Pohara.”

West Coast-Tasman MP Damien O Con-nor agrees that the forestry practice needs to be reviewed but insists that legislation, from central and regional governments can find the right balance between all the industries in the region.

“What happened in Golden Bay and other parts of our region was a combination of logging on unsuitable land and sub-par

practice of leaving slash on steep slopes,” said Mr O’Connor.

“Logging is a huge part of our local econ-omy and we have to put the right rules and improvements in place to ensure that it can co-exist with housing, tourism and farming. It’s too important for our local economy.”

While direct jobs from forestry constitute a relatively small part of the local econ-omy, the indirect employment and overall economic impact of logging is staggering. According to data from Statistics New Zealand, there are over 1300 jobs in for-estry and timber processing in the Nelson/Marlborough region and almost 18,000 jobs nationwide in first stage proc-essing of logs. These 18,000 jobs generate over $4500 Million a year in exports and account for almost 10% of New Zealand’s export economy.

While politicians are debating the defini-tions of ‘sustainable practice’, industry insiders say that changes like ‘selective logging’ would be expensive and could

have negative consequences. Piers Ma-claren is a registered forester and Edi-tor of the NZ Journal of Forestry (which is the official organ of the NZ Institute of Forestry). He says the in-dustry is designed to maximize effi-ciency and should not be overregu-lated.

3

“In New Zealand we tend to have big har-vesting coupes because it is economically efficient to do so,” he said. “A multimillion dollar piece of hauling machinery takes a while to get to the site and set up. When it is there you want to do a large area of land or else it is not worth it.”

According to Mr Maclaren, any regula-tion reducing coupe sizes could make the economics of logging unprofitable for plantation owners and might lead them to not replant. For Mr McClaren this would create an even greater risk of erosion and soil instability.

“In my mind that would be the ultimate disaster because pasture is less capable of

holding the tree roots together than pine

trees are,” said Mr Maclaren.

For Mr Janssen the issue is not just about soil stability or erosion, but ultimately about soil fertility and carbon levels that will ensure the long-term productivity of the region.

“Everyone knows about erosion and eve-ryone is discussing erosion,” Mr Janssen. “Forestry people will tell you that it is

4

much worse on grass than it is on forests, that is not the issue. The key thing is soil carbon.”

In Mr Janssen’s ‘holistic’ analysis, the planting of pine monocultures inhibits the development of long-term ecosystems, with a layer of leaves and litter that holds carbon while releasing nutrients and moisture to the trees. If current carbon

depleting practices continue, Mr Janssen says that the region could suffer a cata-strophic collapse of fertility.

“If business as usual continues in the log-ging industry, we will be slipping down the slope to sub-Saharan levels of fertility where everything is depleted,” he said.

Craig McMiken disagrees and says that the proof is the increasing productivity of forestry harvests on sites that are in their 2nd and 3 rd round of the 30-year growing cycle.

“We think we’re a sustainable industry,” he said. “After harvesting we are looking to replant the forest and reestablish them in such a way that they go on in perpetu-ity, continuing on forever.”

Mr McMiken says that the key to main-taining the ‘sustainable’ levels of fertility is the practice of leaving branches, roots and unwanted logs on the logging site. If they are evenly spread, they break down and eliminate the need for chemical fertil-izers. Its precisely this practice of leaving ‘slash’ that residents of Pohara Valley Rd

say caused the damaging floods in De-cember 2011.

One resident, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals, bullying and threats (tactics she has experienced for speaking out in another part of the country), says that the risk of logging debris causing more floods has not been removed.

“The logs still haven’t been removed from the slopes above us,” said the woman.

“If we have heavy rains the logs could start moving again and the whole thing could repeat itself. The slash just slips be-cause these hills are so steep you cant ac-tually walk up them.”

She is worried that more floods on Pohara Valley Rd could raise insurance premiums for residents, penalizing the homeowners while there are no consequences for the logging companies or the council who approved roading for the activity.

The industry depends on logging compa-nies adhering to a voluntary code of prac-tice to mitigate negative impacts like ero-sion and slips. Proving sub-par practice is not easy, especially after a flood when the slash and logs have shifted. The council has bowed out of investigations into pos-sible sub-par practice in Pohara with the publication of the CEO’s report on the December floods.

Tasman District Council acting CEO Dennis Bush-King said that because of

5

the ‘unparalleled’ amount of rain on the 14th of December, it was a ‘1 in 500 year event’, and no council forecasting was de-signed to deal with the effects of such an event. In addition to these unique cir-cumstances that absolve the council of liability, Mr Bush-King says they myopi-cally focus on question of access.

“The rules focus on tracking and roads,” said Mr Bush-King. “The actual harvesting of trees does not require a consent and we rely on forest owners observing best practice through environmental manage-ment systems that should be in place.”

Mr McMiken said that even with best practice, there is always a risk of floods from logging sites after it has been cleared.

“After harvesting occurs there is a win-dow of vulnerability,” he said.

“The risk of storm events having those sort of downstream effects is increased. There is no getting away from the fact that after the period of 30 years of grow-ing trees, there is window of vulnerability where there is an increased risk. You can’t avoid that heightened risk over that pe-riod.”

Once a site is cleared of trees and the slash is distributed, the roots of the trees are left to rot. As they rot, they hollow out and allow rainwater to penetrate deeper under the soil creating circumstances where slips are possible. Industry insid-

ers admit that this window of vulnerabil-ity can last between 5-6 years before the roots of the newly planted trees take hold.

It is this inherent risk that has led Mr

Janssen to advocate permanent canopy forests in the region. While this model would require a higher initial investment to plant mixed species forests, he said that once they reached maturity, selective log-ging of these forests would yield similar financial returns

A conventionally logged forest can return between 8 and 22 cubic meters of timber per hectare. This model requires contin-ual replanting investments and has a 30-year incubation period. Mr Janssen says that permanent canopy forests established over 250 years ago in northern Germany produce up to 35 cubic meters per hec-tare over a 4-year period. Not only does this method eliminate the replanting costs, but it also has social and environ-mental benefits as the forest can be used for recreation.

Despite Mr Janssen’s efforts to convince councils, communities and industry insid-ers of the benefits of this approach, there have been no major commercial experi-ments with permanent canopy forestry in New Zealand. Mr McMiken says that the economics of the initial planting costs make the proposal prohibitive but he said that the industry needed to be looking at alternative models.

6

“For our mainstream industry it would be difficult to see us moving to one of those high cost models just because the eco-nomics currently wouldn’t allow it,” he said.

“That’s not to say we shouldn’t be explor-ing that. There needs to be another spe-cies outside of radiata pine to make per-manent canopy forestry possible. We need to keep exploring and looking at options.”

Destructive floods, like the one on Pohara Valley Rd, that were intensified by logging activity, have caused collective question-ing of accepted methods within the for-estry industry.

“The debate about practices is ongoing and is often debated in forestry circles,”

said Mr Maclaren. “There are plenty of

forestry solutions that the industry needsto explore and look at ways we can grow trees profitably while still maintaining the hillside.”

Even Mr Maclaren, who is an outspoken critic of increased industry regulation, says that there are areas where the code of practice could be improved.

“There are rules and regulations for con-trolling this sort of thing,” he said. “If someone has come and done a harvesting operation not consistent with the code of practice, they should be brought to task. Perhaps regulations need to be tightened up to be sure that does not happen.”

Tasman District Councilor Martine Bouil-lir has been investigating the role of log-ging in the Pohara floods, even before the

7

major flooding event in December last year. She said she was amazed by the lack of regulation that the industry enjoys.

“'I have real concerns about logging issues, especially in light of recent events,” said Ms Bouillir.  “It amazes me that there are so few requirements or guidelines.  We need better national policies, tighter local checks and con-trols and a concerted move towards healthier, more sustainable and less damaging practices.”

As the Ministry of the Environment pre-pares a new set of National Environment Standards for Plantation Forestry, Mr O’Connor is concerned that the standards will create a uniform set of rules that will be applied nationwide.

“We don’t need a one size sits all ap-proach to forestry regulation,” he said. “There are lots of geological differences between regions and the local councils have to be involved in determining where and how forestry is practiced.”

Despite these statements, the new envi-ronment standards are likely to reflect the reduced regulation policies of the Na-tional government. While Mr O’Connor is quick to point out that a change in gov-ernment could lead to more industry oversight after the next election, this is cold comfort for the residents of Pohara Valley Rd, who live with logging debris on the hillsides and creek banks above their homes.

“We’re very lucky that no one has been killed or hurt,” said the fearful Pohara resident.

“We live with concern. We are out check-ing the creeks every time it rains, as are all the neighbors. When the logs move you get moving log dams and they are really dangerous. You can’t get out of the way quickly enough once they are coming.”

8

9

Food Bill Leaves Sour Taste

It was not supposed to be this way. Food

Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson says the controversial Food Bill was really just a routine update of existing laws – oppo-nents are not portraying it accurately, she says.

"Much of what they claim is untrue and causing many people unnecessary con-cern," Ms Wilkinson says.

Almost a decade in preparation, the Food Bill will make its way through Parliament this year.

Concern about its reach and the powers it gives the Government has spurred 40,000 people to sign an online campaign against it.

Ms Wilkinson says the proposed law aims to ensure the food people eat is safe.

"The bill is designed to simplify 30-year-old food safety regulations and ultimately

aims to reduce our high level of food-borne illness and corresponding eco-nomic cost," she says.

While the 200,000 cases of food-borne ill-ness reported each year is enough to make you gulp as you eat your cafe break-fast, more than half those cases were caused by unsafe food handling at home, according to the World Health Organisa-tion.

Debbie Campbell runs Bay Subtropicals near Takaka. Her avocado and citrus busi-ness will have to absorb increased com-pliance costs from the bill and she has signed the petition opposing it.

"Where is the food poisoning coming from?" Ms Campbell asks.

"If it's coming from the home refrigerator then this bill is not going to stop it."

Criticism of the bill covers the spectrum from being "heavy-handed" to sugges-

10

tions that it's a sweetheart deal for the global corporate food system.

Green MP Steffan Browning is neck-deep in the controversy around the bill because of his position on the primary food pro-duction select committee.

He says the bill as it currently stands is "unnecessarily intrusive" and he is push-ing for changes to protect small growers and local food production.

Mr Browning and other critics of the bill are concerned that a clumsy attempt to implement food safety might stifle small growers with costs and reduce diversity in local agriculture, making New Zealanders more dependent on global monoculture crops.

While he favours reopening the bill to public submissions, he is doubtful this suggestion would pass the select commit-tee.

With National Party MPs occupying four of the seven select committee seats, it seems more likely the bill will proceed to Parliament with only minor modifications.

One of the promised modifications has to do with seeds; an aspect that is feeding the fears of the blogosphere.

Ms Wilkinson admits the bill has inadver-tently captured seeds for propagation by classifying all seeds as food.

"We have said we will change that."

However, NZ First says other products could also be inadvertently captured. De-pending on how you read the bill, that could even include water, says its primary production spokesman Richard Prosser.

"That would never stand the test, but needs to have greater clarification around it."

This reassurance along with clarification about exemptions for backyard gardening and swapping with neighbours has not stopped the deluge of anger about the bill.

"Food grown at home for personal or fam-ily consumption, or given away to friends, is excluded from the measures in the bill," Ms Wilkinson says.

But opponents are unconvinced.

"Sharing food is a basic human right," says the author of the petition against the bill.

"The Food Bill 160-2 will seriously im-pede initiatives like community gardens, food co-ops, heritage seed banks, farmers' markets, bake sales, and roadside fruit and vegetable stalls."

The Government argues because it's cur-rently illegal to sell goods to the public that are made in a home kitchen, the bill "legitimises this Kiwi tradition" and en-sures the food being made is safe.

These polarised vantage points have left Kiwis scratching their heads and dreading the prospect of having to actually read the

11

390-page document that is Food Bill 160-2.

The legalese makes it heavy going and the internal referencing system sends the reader on a dizzying quest down byzan-tine paths of jargon, sub-sections and ap-pendices.

Sol Morgan, who runs GroWise Consul-tancy in the Nelson region, was concerned enough about the hype that he undertook his own research and actually read the bill.

While he began that process with a dose of scepticism, he believes with some changes it could be a "good piece of legis-lation".

Mr Morgan emphasises that exemptions to seeds and smaller growers need to be clarified and parts of the bill "tweaked",

but concerns remain about the powers it grants the food safety minister.

According to Mr Browning the Food Bill does leave the door open for the minister to modify the law as needed once it has been passed.

"It gives MAF and the minister significant power.

"They can amend almost anything. We would like to see the changes as part of the bill so the only way to change it is through an act that would have to go through the parliamentary system."

12

However, Ms Wilkinson says the bill is flexible so it doesn't have to be amended if something is inadvertently captured.

"That is the balance we have tried to get. You can't have certainty and flexibility," she told Fairfax.

The main concern for growers is the added compliance costs that will have to come out of already thin margins and meagre bottom lines. In order to sell pro-duce to shops or restaurants they will need to get certification from a food safety officer.

Peter MacDonald runs Sabzie Organics and supplies plums and feijoas to Com-monsense Organics from his small five-hectare farm near Wellington.

Increased operating costs and rising or-ganic certification fees have already forced him to scale back his operation from ex-port and he now grows only for the New Zealand market.

"We're a loss-making company," Mr Mac-Donald says.

"My wife and I have to keep subsidising the business just to keep in business. If we have to pay $300-$400 for a local bu-reaucrat to come round and watch what we're doing, we will have to ask ourselves some hard questions."

The tiered risk structure of the bill means fresh fruit and vegetables are considered less of a food safety concern than meat or preserved jams.

While small growers who sell directly to consumers would be spared a visit from a food safety officer, businesses that sell their produce on to another retailer will have to meet the new standards of the bill.

According to Ms Campbell at Bay Sub-tropicals, this added cost will be an extra discouragement for small growers and only stacks the deck in favour of large multinational corporations.

"The bigger you are, the easier it is to ab-sorb compliance costs.

"We're not big and it's hard for us to compete."

There is still lingering uncertainty about how much compliance certificates will cost and what sort of changes might be mandated by the new law.

Rainer Puhringer of Wellington grows produce and sells it to retailers with his new business Kai Organics.

Like many small growers he is anxiously waiting to find out how the bill will affect him.

If there are substantial compliance issues, it could cast doubt on the future of his business.

Mr Puhringer has spent 16 years in the hospitality industry and is concerned new food safety standards will follow the same onerous path that now hampers tourism businesses.

13

"If everything has to be chilled and every-thing has to be monitored like they are doing in hospitality now, then it will be difficult to comply," Mr Puhringer says.

"All these things take time and you don't get money for it."

While the bill does not overtly favour the bigger growers, it's not difficult to foresee how increased costs to already cash-strapped small businesses will inhibit lo-cal growers and lead to a reduced diver-sity in food production.

Marion Wood is the co-founder of Com-monsense Organics in Wellington. For her, the bill is a step in the wrong direc-tion in an effort to make growing food more viable.

"It's an absurd situation. In New Zealand it is very, very difficult to make a living out of horticulture, whether you are growing conventionally or growing organically, so any additional compliance costs on peo-ple is too much."

According to Ms Wood, one of the reasons growers have not been heard on this issue is because they are too busy growing food and running their businesses. "Growers don't have time to fight these fights.

"They hardly ever see a computer. If you have experience of weeding a 500-metre row of beans you'll know you don't have much energy left for these sort of political campaigns," she says.

14

While the growers are out weeding beans, the primary production select committee has been holding consultations on the bill.

The ministry's website says that during public consultation on the Food Bill from July 22 to September 2, 2010, 66 submis-sions were received. While 66 public submissions from a country of more than 4 million people is sufficient input for the Ministry of Food Safety to say the public were "actively consulted", Ms Campbell feels communication about the bill was lacking. "I have had no notification at all.

"I think it's underhanded of the Govern-ment to do something this big that im-pacts the whole agriculture industry and have such little public input. It seems a bit sneaky."

While Mr Browning accepts there is little chance of reopening the bill for submis-sions, he said he will work hard to soften parts of it around enforcement by food safety officers.

"There is a section where it says they can be carrying any reasonable force and there is another part where it hasn't got the context or the limits to what that rea-sonable force might be," he says.

The bill makes provision for a situation where some "dodgy factory" might be producing dangerous food and authorities need the power to shut it down.

This reasonable, albeit rare, consideration has been jumped on by the opponents of the bill. Images of SWAT teams raiding

farmers' markets in America are used to invoke the dangers of loosely-worded leg-islation. According to Mr Browning, the bill as it currently stands could allow similar scenes in New Zealand.

"I think the context needs to be there so we can remove the fear that police are go-ing to come charging down and close down the organic shop because they are doing something that does not suit the big food business," Mr Browning says.

As Parliament prepares to vote on the bill in the coming weeks (or months), small businesses and growers will be watching to see how much it will impact their op-erations.

The hope is that for most New Zealanders the Food Bill will reduce the risk of food-related illnesses, such as food poisoning. Opponents say the Government's effort to reduce risk will also reduce diversity as small growers cave under the weight of new costs.

For Ms Wood, the problem is much deeper than the legal nuances of the bill.

"When we have a society where it is not financially viable to grow food, we have a society that is upside down," she said. "We need to totally turn that situation around. Unfortunately this Food Bill is pushing it in the opposite direction."

- © Fairfax NZ News

15

Can we talk to animals?Everyone knows that dogs are man's

best friend, but how good a friend can it be if it cannot speak and you can't com-municate with it? Are dogs nice but dim furry creatures who follow us because we feed and praise them, or is there a richer emotional subtext that we are not listen-ing to?

Carol Gurney is an expert in the field of Animal Communication and travels the world teaching people how to "speak with their dogs, cats and horses.

For almost 25 years she has taught people how to "speak the foreign language" of their animals.

Vets, breeders, pet lovers and Hollywood stars have flocked to her to develop the latent skill of tuning into what is going on inside your pet's head.

Coming from a no-nonsense Midwestern American farming family, needless to say I approached the idea with a healthy dose of scepticism. I've had plenty of pets over the years and certainly I have been able to read their moods and wants, but the idea of "communicating" with pets had me dubious to say the least.

The weekend workshop was appropriately booked to take place in Golden Bay,

16

where the idea of speaking to your ani-mals would not be considered bizarre in

comparison with some of the far-out con-cepts that float around this side of the hill.

After introductions Carol explained the fundamentals of animal communication.

"It's like learning to speak a different lan-guage," she said. "When we meet some-one who does not speak our language, we don't assume he doesn't have anything to say or can't communicate. We just can't understand him, and, if we want to com-municate, we must either learn his lan-guage or use an interpreter."

So far, so good. Having lived in a few for-eign countries I could easily get my head round their idea that a lot is communi-cated beyond the comfortable confines of the English language.

I could even accept the fact that foreign languages take time and just as I would not expect to be conversing in Russian after a weekend workshop, I should man-age my expectations and proceed slowly with an open mind.

As we took off our shoes and closed our eyes for a meditation, things started to venture into the ethereal realm of soft voices and waterfall visualisations.

"The main factor of animal communica-tion is the ability to listen, which means to become sensitive, to use our intuition, to

allow ourselves to really feel as that ani-mal feels," Carol said in dulcet tones.

"Children have this natural ability, but as our society is so intellectually oriented, this gift of communicating with animals is slowly shut down as we grow older."

Once we had journeyed into that peaceful idyll of waterfall, enchanted forest and colourful lights, we were ready to try our first steps in telepathic communication.

We partnered up and were assigned tasks of sending or receiving. We were told to visualise an image to accompany the word "pink".

Eyes closed again, sitting knee to knee with a complete stranger, I opened my mind and tried to receive the messages my partner was sending me about "pink". My mind was blank and slightly panicky in the expanded stillness of a room full of telepathic communicators.

Pink, pink, pink ... hmm. Nothing.

OK, pink roses, pink carnations, a flower shop in Paris, fancy pink ribbons on a de-lightfully packed pink present. Maybe I was getting something. I could get into this telepathy thing.

Carol called time and we looked up from our intense concentration. I spoke with my partner and rattled off the list of thoughts and images that I was thinking about, hoping that surely with this range one of them would be from her.

17

Alas no. All she was sending was a singu-lar image of a pink sunrise. Hmm. Not top of the class in our group. The neighbour-ing group fared better though, shouting out in excitement "Yes! Pink roses! A huge bouquet of pink roses! That's exactly what I sent you!" Teacher's pets. Carol praised them lavishly for their success.

Let's try again with "green". I am sending this time and my mind races. I think maybe I should really test this out and see if she gets the image I have of the Green flag of Gaddafi's Libya and the accompa-nying image of the dictator as he is dragged from the gutter and shot. If my partner got that image, I would be com-pletely convinced that we were really, properly communicating without words.

But does that sound freaky to send that image? It probably does. OK, stick to something nice, pastoral, happy and green. A forest, a tree, light coming through the trees in the bush creating a kaleidoscope of green.

Sending, sending, sending.

Eyes open. My partner got an image of a field or a tree. Whoa, that's right. I was feeling pretty good about things until we went round the circle and every single group sent images of trees or leaves or the bush. Hmmm, still dubious.

Next, we're going to try communicating with actual animals. This should be easier as there is no external verification.

The hostess brings out her poodle Jack and we are supposed to close our eyes

and ask Jack some specific questions about what he likes to do.

Eyes closed. Nothing. Come on, Jack, give me something to go on.

I look around and everyone is concentrat-ing hard, brows furrowed, eyes closed try-ing to get the messages that Jack is giving us about his likes and dislikes.

Time's up. We go round the circle and people rattle off a list of images they re-ceived from Jack. "He told me he likes riding in the car with his head in the wind," said one woman. "That's right!" exclaimed the owner.

"Jack told me that he likes having his tummy rubbed on the bed in the morn-ing," said another woman. "Yes! Abso-lutely, that is Jack's favourite thing in the world," confirmed his owner.

Carol heaps praise on the budding animal communications and everyone is aflutter with their new found telepathic powers. Hold on a minute, aren't those pretty standard dog things to like? What is the difference between animal communica-tion and guessing what the dog likes and where he likes to sleep (on the sofa or on his beanbag by the way)? Carol explains that she was sceptical at first as well and that there is always the doubt that you are just making it up.

"Time, practice, verification and trust are the key elements to knowing the differ-ence between genuine and made up communication," she said.

18

"

You will know the communication is genuine when the information you have received from the animal during your communication is verified by the animals' people."

Carol has been teaching people how to communicate with animals since 1980. She runs the Gurney Institute in Animal Communication and has taught thou-sands of people how to do this.

She runs workshops in "Death and Dy-ing" so people can speak to their dead pets and she even has a full 300+ hour certification programme to teach other people how to talk to animals. Surely there must be more to it than guessing that your dog likes playing with a tennis ball on the beach.

During a break I corner Carol and ask her to help my friend's cat. They just moved to New Zealand from the United States and one of their cats has been chronically ill for the past two months. After racking up bills at the vet, they had hit a dead end with no clear diagnosis and a cat who was visibly suffering.

I gave Carol a couple photos of Lunita along with her address. She promised to "speak" to Lunita that night and see if she could help. The next day Carol came back with detailed notes of a 20-minute con-versation she had with Lunita, long-distance, so to speak.

19

She had very specific information about Lunita's digestive problems. She said she got the word "toxic" in her mind from Lunita.

Lunita supposedly explained to Carol that the health problems preceded the stress-ful move but the uncertainty of being in a new place only made things worse.

Carol explained that Lunita was saddened by her owners' stress and tears since they had arrived to an uncertain situation in New Zealand.

When I went over these notes with my friends, they were in tears at how accurate it was. They said that the "reading was very, very good" and they did not doubt that some sort of communication had taken place between Carol and their ailing cat.

Beyond the goosebumps and jaw drop-ping details, the suggestions about Lu-nita's digestion has given them new ave-nues to explore for alternative healing methods. Incredible.

20

I began as a doubter and have found my way through to actually believing that Carol Gurney spoke to my friend's cat about how she "liked to be swaddled".

As implausible as it sounds, Carol con-tends that we all have the ability to accu-rately communicate with our pets using telepathy.

Once we begin to exercise this inherent ability that we all have, Carol says that we can deepen our relationship with our pets and even start to communicate telepathi-cally with other humans.

"Animal Communication will enhance your relationship with all animals includ-ing your own," said Carol.

"Just think what it feels like when some-one really wants to engage in conversation with you and wants to know who you are; your needs, wants, and desires. It is the

same for animals. Animals become more relaxed, less anxious or stressed and the effect on your relationship with your ani-mal companions will be life-changing for both of you."

As "California" as it sounds, somehow I think that Carol is right. These creatures we live with do have complex emotions and moods and we have a responsibility to try to better understand our animals to make their lives better.

With Nelson City Council now restricting access for man's best friend, maybe some-one should try communicating with our furry family members to hear their side of the story.

21

22

Patrick Rose0271 871 9043patrickrosejournalist@gmail.com