old-growth forest logging

[Strider]

I think you'll find its FROM Hartz NP. Not IN it.

[stepbystep]

As much as I hate the burn offs and have seen plenty of them, but that looks photoshopped to me.

[photohiker]

As much as I hate the burn offs and have seen plenty of them, but that looks photoshopped to me.

Agree. I've never seen such brown smokestacks as that.

[Nuts]

Biolite stoves perhaps?

[Hallu]

More than the colors, it looks as if they all have the same sharpness, whereas they're supposed to be at different distances from the viewers... Some should be more white and blurry, just as the mountains, but they're all on the same level. Nevertheless sometimes a real photo looks weird and fake after it has been polished and sharpened for publication, like this one for example : http://bushwalk.com/photocomp/images/21 ... 021631.png

[gayet]

I asked Beth what she had done with the image. Her response

Beth Heap : This is what it actually looked like. Only the usual minor adjustments done with a RAW image in photoshop. It was taken in the late afternoon, and the sun behind the clouds of smoke gave it the very orange colour. When you turned around the other direction, the mountains and vegetation all had a very golden hue.

[stepbystep]

I asked Beth what she had done with the image. Her response

Beth Heap : This is what it actually looked like. Only the usual minor adjustments done with a RAW image in photoshop. It was taken in the late afternoon, and the sun behind the clouds of smoke gave it the very orange colour. When you turned around the other direction, the mountains and vegetation all had a very golden hue.

Interesting, it's a pretty ghastly image, content wise. I've witnessed many of these events so don't doubt it, this one just didn't look right to me, but being wrong is a regular thing for me, sorry Beth Often playing with an image can make it seem a little unreal. Here's one I've just 'tweaked' the original is a lot flatter looking, and therefore more 'real'.

[Nuts]

Ha, well, i'll admit, i thought straight away it was photoshopped (Perhaps the caption persuaded me..)
Anyhow..yep, well that's what forestry(?) burn-offs look like. Theyr'e game to light so many at once aren't they...

[Wollemi]

Advertised By: Private Job Type: Full-time

We are an established timber exporter urgently seeking deforestation engineers to remove forestation around Sydney Area. You will be directly responsible for removing trees and forestation from one million hecter land in NSW. The timber will be stored in a warehouse and shipped overseas.

This is a full time role. Training will be provided. Uni Grads/ students welcome to apply.

Salary $50,000 - $60,000

http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/sydney-c ... 1018149144

[photohiker]

https://n.getup.org.au/campaigns/tasman ... snew-site/

Getup are campaigning for Nelson, where the sitting member does not support the Forest Deal.

[Nuts]

Well, the mysterious member (Jim Wilkinson..) faces an election in early May and polling shows he is out of sync with his electorate on this and with this, other than to try and influence his electorate on other thinly veiled Green agendas... how will campaigning influence a forest agreement?

[photohiker]

I think you missed the point Nuts. The forest deal is done but needs to be ratified by parliament.

From what GetUp reckons, the forest deal hangs by one vote in the upper house.:

Here's the deal:

After years of negotiation and campaigning (including by GetUp members) there's finally a deal on the table to protect large tracts of Tasmania's ancient forests. It's supported by unions, environmentalists and industry.

The Tasmanian upper house is the final hurdle - but they're one vote short of passing the deal.

One local election will decide whether progressive, pro-deal candidates replace the incumbent, who voted against the agreement (and education reform, and Australia's first same-sex marriage laws)!

But many voters don't know about his stances, and last election 26% didn't turn up to vote.

We can change both. We've put together a scorecard showing where the candidates stand, and have a direct mail, social media and doorknocking campaign ready to go.

So, if the local population are made aware of this and think that the forest deal is worth having, they may change their vote (or perhaps even decide to vote when they wouldn't normally)

FWIW I don't rate same-sex marriage and education reform as 'other thinly veiled green agendas' Please explain?

[Nuts]

I mean 'get-up', claiming no political affiliation.. thinly veiled- c'mon, why not just allow direct campaign funding.

[Clusterpod]

I mean 'get-up', claiming no political affiliation.. thinly veiled- c'mon, why not just allow direct campaign funding.

Well the way I see it is that LNP and ALP represent such a narrow margin of the political spectrum, that anything left of what they offer leaves only the Greens as a supporting party.

So, being not politically affiliated with ALP or LNP doesn't necessarily mean a political affiliation with the Greens.

It covers an awful lot of ground, but being socially and egalitarian-conscious, it doesn't really stray very far right.

So logging of old-growth forests, is naturally seen as a Greens issue.

Of course, in this case, it is.

[Nuts]

Well if it quacks like a duck, Simon Sheikh Is now an ACT Greens senate candidate.
You make a good point though, far right, far left..

Nothing in between, hit and miss Conservation outcomes perhaps a result of Conservation forming only a small portion of the popular Green mindset (in with all sorts of diverse agendas I know nothing or care little about)

Don't get me wrong, Old Growth forest needs protecting.

[Clusterpod]

Well the Greens certainly aren't a far left party, and ALP/LNP aren't far right parties.

I think a lot of people are like you though, in terms of Australian politics. An interesting contradiction in caring little about agendas you know nothing about.

Is that willful ignorance?

As a result we get an electorate that votes on economic issues as if the environment were merely a subset, rather than economics being a subset of the environment.

But you are right. The Greens have a hugely diverse agenda. Saving the forests is just one of them.

[Nuts]

Of course the parties aren't (they can only be as far left or right as politics allow can't they?), attitudes seem to be as much so as ever.

Is that willful ignorance?

Probably, though sometimes i'd swear some people need reminding that is a democratic privilege (Lol)

[photohiker]

I mean 'get-up', claiming no political affiliation.. thinly veiled- c'mon, why not just allow direct campaign funding.

GetUp generally appeals to the younger age group and is heavily into social media. If you look at their campaigns, they usually chase environment, social justice and equality issues. That might put them in the same basic values area as the greens, but it doesn't make them the greens. They've had a bit of success holding the pollies fingers to the flame of public opinion, good for them.

On a single issue basis, I reckon they have more traction than a traditional political party because the focus is on the issue not the party. Because they are issue focussed they're more likely to gather support from across the whole spectrum than just one party.

[Clusterpod]

Of course the parties aren't (they can only be as far left or right as politics allow can't they?), attitudes seem to be as much so as ever.

Is that willful ignorance?

Probably, though sometimes i'd swear some people need reminding that is a democratic privilege (Lol)

That it is! Haha.

[Nuts]

Ok, I don't understand whether it's a good deal. How many voters can? without walking boundaries, looking at the effect of concessions on industry, knowing the real extent of any change, backdoor politics and trade-offs that have happened? I can only guess that the deal itself is one worth having, nothing should stand in the way? Should I support the campaign to have people lambast local voters. If I still lived in Sth Hobes I could play a greater role as a 'useful idiot'. They won't just get a forest deal ratified, and they are 'middle-class conservative' so it's all pretty desperate stuff. Miranda Gibson better grab some winter weight thermals in the sale jic.

[stepbystep]

The deal will fail, it's been watered down so much the ENGO's will walk away.

Business as usual I reckon.

[walkinTas]

No, IMHO, it can't be "business as usual". You can't destroy so many major players and then return to business as usual. The problem is that those who set out to destroy the industry didn't really think it through. What will become of the resource? Who will maintain the forests - silviculture, weed control, control burns, etc.? Who will do the research? Who will maintain the roads? It's not just a matter of losing bush skills and know how either - there is also a bleeding of infrastructure and the high cost to replace it once it's gone - should you ever wish too.

God only knows what the future holds SBS, but good or bad, it certainly isn't "business as usual".

[taswegian]

Walkintas I'd suggest Forestry bought themselves into this mess by years of apparent ignorance of the reality of what they were doing and where they were heading.
I've lived with and around Forestry for 45 years and seen so many things that publicly is either refuted or ignored if bought to their attention.
One gets a bit tired of the sad or sick responses from those in supposedly places of authority.

Whilst the Greens, and other environmentally minded groups have added to the histeria, Forestry IMO haven't been handling our forests well for yonks.

Recently I saw such abject waste of timber (mill logs) heaped up, covered in mud, in plain English stuffed, vandalised. And not just a few logs nor in just one 50 acre coup either.
That all whilst all and sundry were debating, and extolling the virtues of our great forestry practices.
I've seen the mismanagement, heard countless stories from ordinary p,eople trying to make sense of what they are witnessing, from many different regions of Tasmania.
All I can say is its time to wake up and get real, take a long look about, stop blaming everyone else (common problem these days) and start to do the right things for our forests and our future.

[walkinTas]

All I can say is its time to wake up and get real, take a long look about, stop blaming everyone else (common problem these days) and start to do the right things for our forests and our future.

Ok taswegian, my "those who set out to destroy the industry didn't really think it through" was one of those emotive statements bound to inflame. I am not really seeking to apportion blame, and besides, plenty of others have already done that. The truth is always much more complex than any simplistic statement or anecdotal evidence. Forestry in Tasmania has a long history of great research and in some aspects world leading practice. Forestry in Tasmania also has a long history of waste, government interference, half-truths, greed, misrepresentations and wasted opportunities. Yep, so do most human endeavours. If you want perfect, then don't involve people.

The problem with your call to arms is that no one can agree - not now, not ever - on the 'right thing for the future'.

I've stated my position before! I believe that as long as we (society) use paper and timber products, we will continue to need forestry. I also believe that the best place for that forestry is in the temperate zones - not the tropics (for environmental reasons, not silvicultural reasons). If you don't have managed forestry, then you will automatically have unmanaged forestry. That unmanaged forestry is always very, very environmentally damaging. Australia (with its tiny population and massive resource) is a bulk importer of timber and paper - so, by definition, a failure at self-sufficient, managed forestry. Therefore, Australia is a contributor to the world-wide problem of deforestation - we buy timber and paper that could go to other markets because we aren't self-sufficient. There is no viable, less environmentally damaging, alternative to timber that is readily available to the world's 7 billion people - except maybe building houses out of recycled rubbish.

So, if one wants to talk about the 'right thing for the future', one needs to talk about a sustainable, viable forestry industry.

[taswegian]

Walkintas I'm not one for shutting down the Forestry.
That was not what my comments were aimed at
Last week I was finishing off a job for an ex sawmiller who said ' somewhere in the past Forestry lost its way when it went from being predominantly saw log oriented to majority chipping '.
And he proceeded to expand from there.
I was endeavoring to sort out the plantation from the other land management issues.
Those are the conversations that to me are common place and revealing.

[Nuts]

I suspect your both 'right', why didn't they have you guys sort this out years ago
I see more irony than a chinese laundry, our bus purchase (for a tourism business) came from a forest labour contracting business. Before any pollie copies that our staff is nowhere near 14. Having seen the 'growth' in the industry over 20yrs i'd say it's possible that it could be, i'm not sure Tasmanians would appreciate the increased scale (needed statewide) and imagine it would take another five lifetimes to achieve without just taking work off others..

[north-north-west]

I've stated my position before! I believe that as long as we (society) use paper and timber products, we will continue to need forestry. I also believe that the best place for that forestry is in the temperate zones - not the tropics (for environmental reasons, not silvicultural reasons). If you don't have managed forestry, then you will automatically have unmanaged forestry. That unmanaged forestry is always very, very environmentally damaging. Australia (with its tiny population and massive resource) is a bulk importer of timber and paper - so, by definition, a failure at self-sufficient, managed forestry. Therefore, Australia is a contributor to the world-wide problem of deforestation - we buy timber and paper that could go to other markets because we aren't self-sufficient. There is no viable, less environmentally damaging, alternative to timber that is readily available to the world's 7 billion people - except maybe building houses out of recycled rubbish.

So, if one wants to talk about the 'right thing for the future', one needs to talk about a sustainable, viable forestry industry.

Yes.
Which isn't what we had in Tassie - or, for that matter, the way things are being done in Victoria or SE NSW. It's just not sustainable, so the way the resource is managed has to be changed radically.

[walkinTas]

Step one is to acknowledge that we need forestry - a big stumbling block for a lot of people.

If the federal government must interfere, it should be to establish an Australia wide industry that is focused on meeting Australia's timber and paper needs.

And Yes, the wood-chip and waste industry of the 90's was not sustainable.