Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[stepbystep]

An excellent summation Pteropus!
I've long since given up on this 'discussion'. Meanwhile day after day this Autumn Tasmania sits beneath a pall of smoke from FT burn offs and the barricades are being built for the next round of battles in the forest wars. Long live the status quo and the ultimate conservationists. Huzzah!!!

Photo credit: Nick Monk Photography

[photohiker]

G'day NNW,

Not an industry stooge. But quite happy to discuss the facts (very few of which are derived from Forestry Tasmania btw). If we focus on the the facts, rather than allow passion and speculation to dominate over perspective and the science of forestry, there is little dispute - the forests are in safe hands.

Cheers.

Well, if not an industry stooge, you seem to be very close to them. Perhaps you would put everyone's mind at rest by declaring your interests.

Currently, I'm thinking nnw has a valid point... After all the history, declaring point blank without any rider that 'the forests are in good hands' is a bit over the top. Perhaps you just like toying with people's passions? I'm also agreeing with Pteropus so I won't repeat those points.

What part of 'in good hands' includes chucking anyone who dares to protest in prison?

[Nuts]

a hint of disagreement or exposed 'position'[/i].

--
Pteropus do you know how much land under forestry tenure is not in one stage or other post-harvest?
Are you aware of any audits of the habitat within maturing plantations? (They seem awfully lifeless at eyes length)?
I've always understood that second generation monoculture is a fairly poor resource, this is most definitely the case in Pine plantations, native monocultures?

Size, NNW. Perhaps size isn't the issue but focus? Forestry (or other overseer) moving towards representing another tier of access. They have some recreational commitment now, why not build on this. Similar to the status quo but a shift in focus to public service. Accommodate the-rest-of-the-public and their pursuits. Develop the facilities to do so... Charge an access fee. Return plantations to native habitat? Selectively log, by degrees, high quality timbers... even if only for a domestic market. From 'land managed, collectively, for a higher conservation value'. Promote such a catchphrase.

Oh ps, Iv'e only read 1984.. was forced to read Men from Mars/ Women, Venus once though

[maddog]

G'day Pteropus,

As discussed the plantation forestry estate is too small to provide for the nations timber needs, let alone provide export income. The expansion of plantations onto arable farmland, an expensive folly, was reliant on subsidy that no longer exists. Native forests have the potential to satisfy both domestic needs and supply international markets. They will do both.

When activists chain themselves to machinery it is behaviour fairly described as an antic. When an activist engages in 'monkey wrenching', or launches a 'greenmail' campaign against third parties to undermine the markets and / or financial viability of an industry, it is sabotage. So long as nobody gets hurt I'm sure it is all good fun. Not so fun for the families and communities depending on an income though. Our mutual friend George spent time with common people and from personal experience of their plight gained understanding and found empathy.

There is no need to shut anyone out of conversation and no reason people should not form their own opinions on this (or any of a wide variety of subjects). But if we are discussing medicine, the opinion of a doctor or nurse carries greater weight than that of a bricklayer or carpenter. If we are considering cattle, the opinion of a farmer is likely of more value than that of a dentist or plumber. If the subject of our conversation is forestry, we are best guided by the science of forestry and the experienced foresters so disciplined, rather than the opinions of media savvy possum experts or photographers. It is the omission of the forester's input that recently undermined the credibility the ABC's 'fact checking' unit. In the current political climate it is unlikely this mistake will be repeated.

Forests are well represented in the national reserve system, particularly so in Tasmania (15% of pre-european distribution satisfies comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) requirements). If environmental activists are serious about conservation outcomes they would be more concerned about grassland, savanna and sedge. It is these that are underrepresented in reserve and threatened as a consequence. But it is obvious environmentalist activists are indifferent to the survival of such rare communities or other environmental issues of genuine importance. As Paul Keating observed:

The environmental movement is basically not interested in 'brown issues'. They are not interested in dirty water. They are not interested in salinity. They are not interested in soil degredation. They are interested in trees.

In the eyes of the environmental activist, some ecological communities are more equal than others, even if it is the 'others' that are threatened.

Photohiker,

I am interested in discussing the contribution of foresters to conservation. Foresters are not throwing people in prison, it is the government of Tasmania that proposes to do that. I have never argued that the people of Tasmania are in safe hands.

Cheers.

[stepbystep]

maddog

Are you at all interested in technologies or alternative industries that make current forestry practices redundant if it meant less 'harvesting' of native forest?

Yes or no?

[geoskid]

...I believe there is a good case for maintaining a small, efficient, native (looking) forest zoned for a higher level of management- multiple uses and some 'high end' product return. Additional to parks & WHA.

I doubt if there are many reasonable people who would disagree with that. Although we do need to reach a consensus on the precise meaning of 'small'.
Part of the problem, however, is that the reasonable people aren't in charge.

I agree with this, and I wish I could say it like Cleaver Greene.