old-growth forest logging

[stepbystep]

They're playing at the wrong end of the market. Until they fix that, they'll always be eyeing off 'cheap' native old growth forests they didn't have to grow.

This is so spot on. The industry must change but without 'political leaders' with some foresight and bravery the blame game and self destructive cycle will continue.

[walkinTas]

Europeans arrived in Tasmania, it was full of trees, they need houses and farming land so they started chopping down the trees. No one said you couldn't, in fact they were encouraged to do just that, so they kept on chopping down trees. Eventually people started asking questions. There were articles in the Mercury about the "devastation" on face of Mt. Wellington and the ugly look it created. So industry just moved to another area and cleared that - for farming, of course. Early accounts of mining are much the same. People just went out and took the resource with little regard for the mess they made and no real attempt to clean up. Some of the mistakes of the past were massive and the destruction and legacy have been lasting. I don't think you can say it was PLANNED. More like it was totally devoid of a plan. But I do acknowledge your point, big business planned to make money, and a free resource is too good to ignore.

Eventually people came to realise that a better approach was needed. I know that some environmentalist would have you believe that the green movement is the only reason that anything changed. Different people approaching the 'problem' from different angles: some wanting to save and protect the best of what remained, others looking for alternative resources. Plantation pine was popular when pine fibre was essential for making paper, but then the Japanese perfected alternative practices and long fibres weren't required. Pine was less popular and research into Eucalyptus plantations gained momentum. The search for alternatives was very extensive and very expensive. Tasmania lead the world in a lot of this research. I know, I was there, I saw first hand. The whole venture into Plantation managed resources was very much voluntary restructuring.

Given the ultimate destination for most the harvested forest, it's about time the industry woke up and moved away from the lowest common denominator of wood products: chips and pulp. They're playing at the wrong end of the market.

And there's the rub. Every single effort to establish any form of processing in Tasmania since the 1980s has been opposed by the environmental movement, without exception. We are left to believe they are only doing so to help the forest industry improve. I am not an apologist for the timber industry, they are not without blame, but I do know there are two sides to this story. I am pretty sure that there are some people who will settle for nothing less than a complete end to forestry practices in Tasmania - and some of them have very good rate-payer funded jobs. I think that is irresponsible. As I said before, I think we need a forestry industry, unless we can find an environmentally friendly alternative to timber and paper. Now I'm starting to repeat myself and that's boring, so I'll leave the debate there.

[photohiker]

And there's the rub. Every single effort to establish any form of processing in Tasmania since the 1980s has been opposed by the environmental movement

Can you blame them when they know that the feedstock is largely old growth forest?

I accept that there are two sides to the story, but I can also see that it won't have a snowball's chance of getting resolved until old growth is taken off the table. As of the latest talks, it's still on the table, apparently because:

A leaked consultancy report indicates that Forestry Tasmania will struggle to meet existing contracts with its current forest estate, never mind trying to do so with one that is substantially reduced.

(From The Conversation)

Like I said, people have PLANNED the structure and size of the industry. In the early days, it just happened as you suggest, but not now.

I agree we're repeating ourselves, someone else might like to share a different view to those aired so far...

[Ent]

Just a note of correction. Even the figure of Paul Lennon accepts that non rapid growth plantation timber is not needed for a pulp mill due to the massive growth in superannuation driven plantations.

Old growth is actually long cycle plantations set aside so minor species such as Blackwood., etc can mature. In addition the furniture grade hardwoods To my knowledge no significant commercial plantation of these timbers exist in the private sector. More than a few old growth plantations are on more than one rotation.

When places like South Australia were planting foreign species Tassie was allowing the regeneration of native species. Which approach is better or worse?

Regards

[stepbystep]

Which approach is better or worse?

How about different thinking?

Rather timely, this group has just started up...

https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Hemp- ... 89?sk=info

[Going where]

Not just logging but also mining. This article came out today.
The Australian Workers Union is fighting against plans to list sections of Tasmania's Tarkine wilderness as heritage sites.

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/ ... m_content=

[photohiker]

When places like South Australia were planting foreign species Tassie was allowing the regeneration of native species. Which approach is better or worse?

Because I come from SA Brett? This is a laughable comment. Allow?

Neither. You cannot compare an arid region's plantation of non-native species to growth conditions in Tasmania. If we 'Allow' regrowth, there probably won't be any. In Tasmania you'd be flat out stopping it. There are places in SA where you can drive for hours without seeing a decent tree by Tas standards.



Some would argue there aren't any, but the remaining River Red Gums on the Murray and other watercourses are spectacular if not in the same height league as ancient Tassie rainforest timber.

Regeneration in much of SA involves Mallee which takes hundreds/thousands of years and the result is rather small timber of no significance to the forest industry.



Sadly it has suffered the same fate as a lot of Tassie forest, much having been cleared for dry land farming and used as fuel.

[Ent]

Hemp. Now there is a classic example of politics, misconception and hogwash combining against the use of a plant. Hemp is a useful source of fibre and one that needs to be investigated without the drama that seems to follow the name. We agree on this I think but it is not going to make table and chairs, or at least as we know them. In fairness is has long been considered so what is old is new again.

The simple economic fact is most rapid growth plantations are aimed at the production of fibre. The remainder are hoping that cutting and drying technology improves along with standards developed to make the timber production salable in some markets. You are looking at return as short at 10 years and not much longer than 20 years to satisfy private investors and this simply does not produce quality timber.

Furniture grade timbers come from long rotation forestry. Or as it is now called by some, old growth to distinguished it from unharvested areas. It is amazing walking through long term rotation mixed forest areas to distinguish them from "wilderness" areas. The clues are there such as in the uninformative of the growth and absence of old fallen trees. But even in nature huge bushfires have raged across the landscape and resulted in similar effect. The best example of absolute clear felling and regeneration is the Montezuma Falls track. Here every thing that could be was cut down to feed the industry at Zeehan with no thought for soil conservation. Now it is dense rain forest again. In this case the work I think was left to nature to regenerate itself. Meander Falls area clues appear in the old stumps with shoe holes cut in that confirm that it was harvested forest.

It is amazing what was considered just sound forestry practice is now considered immutable and untouchable. The foresters of old could have planted single foreign specie in straight lines and not much would be considered wrong when it came to harvest the areas. Nature is a powerful force. The main practical issue is conservation of soils and the impact of harvesting methods but that consideration has been lost in the pitched battles where No is the only acceptable answer to one side. It is a shame but such is modern politics. Oh yes, the highest value adding actually comes from plywood/veneer as it is massively labour intensive.

Regards

Yes Photohiker it is laughable a South Australian telling a Tasmanian what to do when it comes to forestry. We have looked after and nurtured forests for generations. We do not have to dam a watercourse to call it a river either Has the smell departed?

[photohiker]

Yes Photohiker it is laughable a South Australian telling a Tasmanian what to do when it comes to forestry. We have looked after and nurtured forests for generations. We do not have to dam a watercourse to call it a river either Has the smell departed?

As a South Australian, I am detached from the personal politics that cloud the issue for many living in Tasmania such as yourself. I am also not exposed to the ongoing propaganda from either side except when I choose to go looking for it. I offer commentary and my opinion as a long term observer and visitor to Tasmania. Spit in my eye if you like, but you won't alter my vision that way.

Making fun of residents of areas suffering under drought and lack of water due to interstate water use mismanagement is hardly a relevant or cool way to engage in discussion over old growth forest logging in Tasmania. I'm surprised that you have stooped to personal attack against me and where I happen to live when you are someone who complains of this yourself at the slightest hint of personal comment.

As for dams on watercourses, hardly any of note in SA, and if you are taking about the Murray, check your geography book you will see that those are Locks on the Murray in SA, not dams.

photohiker out.

[stepbystep]

You seem to assume I'm saying hemp is the answer Brett. It may well be an answer for fibre and pulp along with plantation and byproduct. However you aren't even acknowledging there is a problem here?

Selective logging for premium sawlogs will always have its place. Doesn't mean we have to condone clear felling of vast areas of wilderness.

The industry is stuck in the past and requires new thinking. New solutions.

Any ideas Brett or are you happy with the laughable way FT, Gunns and our legislators have been shafting the workers on the ground?

Oh that's right it's all the greenies fault.....

[walkinTas]

Oh that's right it's all the greenies fault.....

Oh come on, not all of it surely? (Oops! ...there I go again with that selective thingy).
Some blame for the current down turn can be attached to “greenies” for their market campaigns conducted in Japan and elsewhere against Gunns, Ta Ann and Forestry Tasmania. It is by no means the only reason, but it is part of the mix, or are we to believe the campaign wasn't successful?

Part of the mix is the inexplicable hatred for a home grown Tasmanian company that managed to fight off and buy out the foreign investors and interstate companies to be a leading player in the state forestry industry. Killing them off was surely much more sensible than working with them to build on-shore, value-added processing. Oh, that's right it's all their fault.... they bought out the others so we had no one else to hate.

Part of the mix is the failure to build post-harvest processing. Again the greenies are not blameless. Originally, E.nitens was never intended for anything but woodchips. In the days when it was first planted it was clearly envisaged that Tasmania would have both pulp mills and paper mills, not stock piles of woodchips. It was always intended that those mills would be feed from plantation grown timbers which would be cleaner and require less bleaching to produce high-quality white paper. Believe me, that was PLANNED. I remember the campaigns against plantations and all the mixed messages, do you. So now what's to happen to the plantation wood of the future. Yep, we'll continue to export more and more woodchips as the plantations mature.

Part of the problem is lack of vision. Just as horrible as a clear-felled old-growth forests, are the piles of woodchips sitting on a wharf exporting jobs to create someone else's prosperity. Tasmania exports $136mil in woodchips while Australia imports over $2billion in paper and over $4billion in total timber products. But we have no mills. The same can be seen in mining. We export $220mil worth of iron ore and import $289mil worth of structural iron and steel. But we can't manage a single ounce of down stream processing. Talk about can't see the wood for the trees. Who ever came up with that was surely thinking of Tasmania.

Part of the problem is lost opportunity. The woodchip harvesting from old-growth forests is not only destructive, it is extremely wasteful. An estimated 1.4 million tonnes of special species timbers (including some of Tassie's finest) are lost annually. The potential economic value of this timber: $53 million in royalties; $680 million in sawn timber; and >2,000 timber processing jobs. But the loudest message is STOP LOGGING, when we should be shouting lets have selective logging, more sawmills and more jobs. Where is the constructive effort to build & grow the timber industry instead of planning for and then celebrating the demise of the industry leaders.

Hemp and similar high fibre crops offer a lot of potential and should be part of the mix. Especially in a state where hemp grows well. Add selective sawmill logging and veneer milling to the pot and surely we can build at least one sustainable industry. Its not a new industry, we already do particle boards and veneers, but there is room to grow. Panels are a multi-million dollar business and Australia is a net importer. Ok, there would be some work to do. Hemp is a long fibre, so a different product from hardwood, but there is plenty of existing plantation wood to add to the the fibre mix. So a particle board mill would be possible right? White paper from hemp would still need a lot of development work - or a change in attitude about the need for pure white paper, but cardboard and other paper products are very possible. We'd just need a pulp and paper mill - small thing really.

Imagine driving down a Tasmanian road in the future and driving through endless kilometres of hemp - like driving through the US corn belt, only its the Tassie hemp belt. It's an annual summer cash crop, so an alternative to other farmed crops, not just a forestry thing. And it only needs a low to moderate amount of irrigation (2ML - 3ML /ha). It is not the magic panacea, but it might well be part of the solution. Who is likely to object to any of that (he asks naively)? We'll still need plantations of trees for real timber and solid timber products, but I agree with SBS, hemp should be considered as part of the mix. However, for any of that to happen we'll first need a forestry industry. Easily fixed, we've just got to find someone dumb enough to invest in this state. John Gay perhaps?

[stepbystep]

OK well at least we agree on some things

...their market campaigns conducted in Japan and elsewhere against Gunns, Ta Ann and Forestry Tasmania. It is by no means the only reason, but it is part of the mix, or are we to believe the campaign wasn't successful?

Very, it's called accountability.
Are Ta Ann not to be made accountable for what they are doing in SE Asia? I'd do anything else to not work for a company that made it's profits in this way.

As for Gunns they have built a massive level of public animosity through the exposure of deep seated nepotism and dodgy back room deals. When the going got hot first they shafted their loyal contractors then flogged off an aging wood chip mill to 'greenies' rather than a timber company. John Gay dumped his shares to cut his own personal losses at the expense of yet more loyal shareholders. I saw all of this type of behaviour in WA in the WA Inc era, and there is no saving a company like that.

So where to next? We've just seen Norske Skog choose an upgrade to their paper mill(yes there is one in Tasmania) in order to diversify with an eye on bio fuels and renewable energy. Now it's a horrible eyesore but at least they operate in a transparent way. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-10/p ... ed/4251890

I agree totally, sustainable selective logging is the way to go. Personally I think we have reached bursting point in Tasmania with tree farms. I travel to every corner of this state regularly and it is astounding what has been planted...

So perhaps pulp for a paper mill can come from mixed resources? Perhaps some tree farms can be tailored for saw logs? Perhaps stricter recycling legislation can be passed? Perhaps we can explore the idea of more renewable building products at least at the residential level(this can be assisted with strict legislation)? etc etc

I'm tired of people settling for and therefore becoming apologists for mediocrity. The answers are there, but for fear of repeating myself true leadership is required and frankly the pollies on both sides, federal and state are so afraid of their own shadows I have no faith in any progress anytime soon.

[walkinTas]

I'm tired of people settling for and therefore becoming apologists for mediocrity. The answers are there, but for fear of repeating myself true leadership is required and frankly the pollies on both sides, federal and state are so afraid of their own shadows I have no faith in any progress anytime soon.

Anytime soon or anytime later. I personally believe Tasmania will enjoy a long future of wasted opportunities. Compromise to mediocre would have been amazing compared to the total void we have settle for.

There is no ability to placate, no meeting half way, no compromise or even acknowledgement of the offer to compromise in an all-or-nothing argument. And too often the discussion is just that, all-or-nothing. In the delusion of an argument won, both parties will simply take a step sideways, draw a new line and begin the whole argument again. Every forest "agreement" has been through the same cycle. It's not going to change! Between development and conservation there would appear to be a giant ideological canyon to cross, and we only get to take one tiny side-step at a time.

And just in-case someone should read this and misconstrue. I firmly support the need to conserve and preserve - read my signature. I just don't believe it's a matter of the cake OR the meal. Surely we can have the cake and eat sustainably. Ah, the magic pie! Then again there will always be gluttons! ..."stupid dreaming" (another thread maybe).

Oh well, keep this thread going for another decade, then at least we can join the rest of the population - growing old rewriting history and squabbling over lost dreams.

[Ent]

Dear Photohiker

I long for the day such National energy that is directed at Tassie forestry is turned to water management issues in the river system that you mention and breaks the endless state squabbling. One day someone might actually wake up to the fact that one way to create drought is to remove vegetation and/or change the type. Many issues in South Australia are self inflicted by greed. When Israel was described as the land of milk and honey it was a vastly different place to now in vegetation. Saladin started the process to keep moralizing invading hordes out and I do now feel some sympathy for his aim. It has been strongly argued that the dryer conditions in Greece are due to the change from citrus to olive production. There are more than enough examples of cities and civilizations wiping themselves out by destroying their environment by turning native vegetation into unsustainable farms but I would not surprise me that they blamed the weather as well. Forgive me when I look at someone's backyard when they make comments about mine.

I noticed with interest when in Melbourne a park, Flinders Park, was converted to a Tennis Centre, thus continuing the fine Melbourne tradition of turning parks into sporting venues.

In Tassie it is rather tiring that people that have destroyed their environment are so made keen on passing on their wisdom. We appear to be the sacrificial lamb to salve their conscious for environmental degradation that they have brought upon themselves. All I ask is that same environmental passion is turned locally.

Tasmania is the second oldest state in Australia yet we still after all that time, over two hundred years, of "mismanagement" have large areas to be "declared" untouchable. Not a bad effort for two centuries of "mismanagement". By all means we can do better and should do better.

Lets look at Tasmania. We have a political system designed from day one to provide a voice to the minorities unlike the winner take all approach in other states. From that political freedom has grown a"Green" party. We are called red necks and insulted by many but are rare in bringing an environmental item to a referendum and when political forces conspired to rig the vote we then voted in massive numbers informal to show our displeasure. We have a strong sense of justice and democracy. I still remember when a long term activist was to be arrest on the steps of State Parliament was not as a leading political figure that was their mortal enemy appeared and waived off the police and invited them in.

We have numerous people that have worked in forestry and agriculture dedicate time and resources to look after what they love. Bush people have often led the charge for ares to become National Parks. We grow up in close proximity to the bush and treasure this. Yet we are constantly ridiculed as environmental vandals. We see just about every major economic development ruled upon by people outside our area to be frustrated and watch our friends and family leaving their homes as economic refugees.

Old growth forests are mix long term plantations that have been set aside on rotation cycles that are measured in decades/centuries not years. Might I suggest new glasses for some and maybe to develop an interest in their own areas rather than blaming weather patterns that have been around for much longer than European settlement.

My comment you take offense from mirrored comments made in television comedy, "Boston Legal", where Willam Shatner, playing an American Lawyer was arguing that Canada was not protecting its environment to which the judge replied in words to this effect, "let me get this straight, you are an American telling a Canadian about protecting the environment?" As for your other comments I will leave them unanswered as they are yet another highly personal attack from you, the sort you decry but then do.

Regards

[north-north-west]

Can you please stop the slagging off? This is a good thread but it'll be locked soon if you don't pull your heads in and play the ball rather than the man.
BOTH OF YOU!!! Someone has to stop kicking back first.

*I wish I could reach your heads and knock them together*

[Son of a Beach]

NNW - you sound like my Mum (that's not a bad thing).

Ent - environmental referendum? Do you mean the dam in the eighties? If so, the only options in that referendum were which part of the (now world heritage) wilderness do we destroy. There was no "No Dam" option on the ballot except when written by the voter in pencil.

[Ent]

NNW - you sound like my Mum (that's not a bad thing).

Ent - environmental referendum? Do you mean the dam in the eighties? If so, the only options in that referendum were which part of the (now world heritage) wilderness do we destroy. There was no "No Dam" option on the ballot except when written by the voter in pencil.

Exactly what I meant, the informal vote was massive and showed that Tasmanians did not like having a rigged ballot paper placed before them. Though impossible it would have been interesting to see the result had the "No" option been included. My guess the vote for it would have been significantly less than the informal vote that was recorded. Then I might be totally wrong. Still a remarkable result given that in the rest of Australia at the time environmental issues did not rate much a mention. Such voter "creativity" and passion has yet to be shown anywhere else in Australia to my knowledge.

It is one of the things I like the most about Tassie is the sense of fairness that flows through. I worked at a council where a councilor hated an employee's politics with a passion but he would never have dreamed of compromising that person's career as this is "just not right". Sadly in more than a few other states employees were singled out for their view on things.

Cheers

[north-north-west]

It is one of the things I like the most about Tassie is the sense of fairness that flows through. I worked at a council where a councilor hated an employee's politics with a passion but he would never have dreamed of compromising that person's career as this is "just not right". Sadly in more than a few other states employees were singled out for their view on things.

Well, things have changed since I was in the Tassie Public Service, then.

[photohiker]

Discussion seems to have died for some reason. Perhaps this will spark it up:

[Ent]

Well, things have changed since I was in the Tassie Public Service, then.

NNW sadly any suitably large employer will have people that think it is in their interest to force people to tow the line. Very rarely have I struck political interference from elected members but yes some do meddle but most of this comes from within the bureaucracy. A smart politician knows that when word of their attempt to heavy people gets out it is a political end game as a particular legislative member recently found out.

[north-north-west]

Bureaucracies consist of people. It's not the 'Department', or the 'employer', or the 'bureaucracy' that does these things, it's the people.
Humans are, by nature, political animals. Any organisation, regardless of size, will contain a fair proportion of people who behave that way, it's inevitable.

[stepbystep]

The Tasmanian political system has been so obviously affected by corporate influence and the current labour government is desperately trying to distance itself from what has gone before. There actually lies in the current messed up circumstance the opportunity of a fresh start. Just need a few dinosaurs to leave the stage.

The late Jim Bacon had a very interesting conversation with Peter Cundall not long before his death. It really strikes at the heart of the matter.

[corvus]

Bureaucracies consist of people. It's not the 'Department', or the 'employer', or the 'bureaucracy' that does these things, it's the people.
Humans are, by nature, political animals. Any organisation, regardless of size, will contain a fair proportion of people who behave that way, it's inevitable.

Yes Lee I agree, tis a pity though that non elected people in Bureaucracies come up with the most bizarre ideas as to how we who pay their wages decide what and where and how much it is going to cost us
corvus

[GerryDuke]

The late Jim Bacon had a very interesting conversation with Peter Cundall not long before his death. It really strikes at the heart of the matter.

For those wondering what stepbystep is talking about there are many interesting passages in Anna Krien's book 'Into the Woods".

http://annakrien.com/book/

I went to school with Bill Manning. I gave him a call one day about 10 years ago and met up with him after work for a coffee. I put to him what my thoughts were on the forestry situation. After an hour or so he said to me "I'm loving this" - let's have a wine. We ended up having a meal and wandered down to the museum in Launceston to a public meeting on the pending clearfelling around The Blue Tier. Barry Chipman just happened to be there at the time which made for an interesting encounter. When discussing the situation with other colleagues with a vested interest in the industry, I have been personally abused and threatened with the demand to drop the forestry debate. The reduction in the size of the lower house (without reference to the people) and the funds pumped into the propaganda campaigns I would suggest warrant an inquiry.

For those of us around in the 70's, we were subjected to similar propaganda with the flooding of Lake Pedder. The simple face that squashes the Hydro debate is this . If there were 2 million people on the island, Hydro Electricity would never satisfy demand.

Gerry

[steveh72]

Interesting Debate this.

Having grown up on the Murray River, lived in Gippsland and now in Tassie, I will make some general comments that I'm sure will be howled down etc but anyway

The Murray River - now a glorfied irrigation channell. Pre Locks or Weirs depending on which Gov department you are talking to (ie Torrumbary is Lock 11 from memory but is also known as Torrumbarry Weir). Pre weirs the river would regularly dry up in summer and flood for miles in spring following the snow melt, now to restore this the it's envoirmental state no doubt the large popluation base along the Murray would need to relocate as the dams/weirs/ locked would all need to be removed and therefore water could no longer be stored, I guess Adelaide would also need to then source it's water elsewhere.

Gippsland - South east Gippsalnd the remmants of the old rainforest can be seen in patches however most has now been cleared, and yes you can visit the site of the world's tallest tree. This is a "tourist attraction near Mirboo North", you can visit the paddock where the world's tallest tree was cut down. I do wonder why the logging the continues in the Strezlecki Range and it does not seem to attract the same attention that logging in Tasmania does.

Tasmania, still actuualy has alot of natural forrests preserved & despite the citiscism it attracts it has done a much better job at keeping it's natural resources then what other states have done in the past , I dare say though by good luck rather than good managment though, for if it had of had the same popluation pressures of mainland states then much of Tassie would have been "changed" as was the line of thinking then - eg Western Land Lease (SW NSW) when this land was opened up by the NSW government part of the conditions of use was that X number of acres had to be cleared per year. Now x number of acres have to be replanted.

I do see some irony whilst I am anti Old Growth Forrestry Logging, Tas does need a viable forrest industry, perhaps no more importantly for all the bushwalkers who use forestry tracks with the inconic Walls Of Jersulam, Catherdal Mountain, Lees Paddock being good examples of walkers who would have a hell of a hike if the forrestry roads were closed down. Tasmania given it's small population base would no doubt struggle to pay for the upkeep. But then I hear that ecotoursim will pay for it. (LOL) However whilst this does generate income it certainly does not generate sufficent income to pay for road upkeep

To summarise my waffle

1) I do support a non old growth forrestry industry
2) I feel at times it comes accross that people from other states , countries etc go "oh sugar" now that we've stuffed up our envoiroment let's lock up all of Tasmania and turn it into a giant national park, - that's fine however it will NOT pay the bills
3) More focus needs to be placed upon restoring past envoriomental stuff up's - but here's the irony because this will cost alot of money, cause townships to cease to exit and cause alot of heart ache (re current Murray River Debate or lets say retoring the Thomspon river to it's pre dam state - but then Melborune will run out of water), well hello welcolme to the world of Tasmania.

And finally NO I don't have the answers - only that a balance needs to be struck and both sides in Tasmania appear to want it their way only when this approach will never work.

Regards

Steve

[ILUVSWTAS]

Good post Steve.

I'd estimate 80% of the SW is accessed by forestry roads..... that's been on my mind for some time now.

[wayno]

if you want to make comparisons, you can say tasmania is doing a lot better than other parts of australia in preserving its native forests
or you can compare it to new zealand and say it's a *&^%$#! poor effort since a large amount of logging is still going on. most of your parks are tiny in comparison to nz's national parks.admitedly its as much to do with the amount of rugged land there is in nz as to how much has been turned to national parks,

[frenchy_84]

Tassie needs a strong forest industry (or mining but that’s another story all together) all economies are underpinned by a strong industry, tourism is all well and good but it cant sustain an economy, it’s the icing on top of the cake. I would like to see an end to some native forest logging but there needs to be a point in the middle which neither side is prepared to make. A couple of points that I have an issue with are:
• The term “old growth logging”, it seems to have a different meaning for everyone. It seems to the environmental movement that everything which isn’t plantation is old growth. In that context, stopping all old growth logging is just stupid. To me, old growth forest is forest that hasn’t seen any form of logging, i.e growing for hundreds/thousands of years undisturbed. I think that if all logging of areas such as this plus some strategic coupes that link these stands together is stopped than that is a good thing. However some of the more contentious coupes have been logged within the last 50 years, now surely if a coupe which was logged 50years ago and is now of a conservation value then that is a plus for the forest industry
• Value adding, it needs to be done. The greens went to the last election pretty much saying that they aren’t against the forest industry, it just needs to be done with value adding so a smaller quantity is required for greater value. However since then, pretty much all logging has stopped with the “peace talks” and the only player left, Ta Ann, has faced the full focus of all green groups yet they are value adding to the timber. And don’t get me started on the pulp mill, there is something wrong when a plantation based pulp mill in a designated industrial zone (its next to an aluminium smelter for *&^%$# sake) that passes all environmental requirements faces so much difficulty from minority groups.
• So called environmentalists that are against the Tas forest industry, they aren’t environmentalists, they are “not in my backyarders” rather than have a forest industry here where it is planned and managed they would prefer to close it down and have the out of sight unmanaged destruction of south east Asian and Amazonian forests. There is certainly a difference between forest practises between our countries. It seems to make more sense to these people, to chip our plantation forest here, then export the chips to china, where their govt environmental department doesn’t give a *&%$#!, to make pulp and then ship the pulp back to Tas to our last struggling paper mill.
• The stopping of forest workers by protesting, don’t get me wrong, your more than welcome to protest but this is all at govt policy level, so protest outside their workplace. But when forest workers are working within the law trying to make a living and they have to deal with the *&%$#! they get from protesters its just wrong. Its costs the contractors thousands when all they are doing is working within the law.

That’s a few of my thoughts anyway.

[steveh72]

Well said frenchy_84 & thanks for the comments Iluvtas

Hi Wayno, I must admit due to my lack of knowledge of can't really make judgement, but I have question that you may be able to answer & I think you have already, so the good managment by NZ is more likely by good luck rather than good past managment.

How much of the north island is preserved compared to the south island.

Would it be a fair call to say the majority of land locked up is on the south island where the popluation pressures are not, or in other words has NZ has done a great job of protectioning the south & a *&%$#! job protecting the north, which is when you think about very simalr but on a different scale to OZ since both styles of managment from era's gone by would have had a similar mindset given similar English background.

Cheers

Steve

PS I have ony visited the north island of NZ so feel free to correct my statement as no doubt your local knowledge would far exceed my knowledge of New Zealand.

[Ent]

Hi Wayno

When in New Zealand I did a rafting trip and was stunned when rounding a bend to find the biggest digger that I had ever seen in the middle of the river towing a barge dredging for gold. Such mining practices had long since ceased in Tassie, if indeed they were ever used.

So in a way practices and standards do vary. Probably the biggest mistake made in Tassie forest practices was using cable logging to clear fell. Forests may take centuries to re-establish but soils thousands of years. I could never understand why this practices was championed and it did cost a lot of goodwill with the public.

The challenge is to develop appropriate methods of harvesting. But at the end of the day what people are prepared to pay will govern if they are economical.

Also trust needs to exist with the market that the premium is going to correct practices. Sadly as we have seen with free range eggs a change in definition can mean bird densities that make a mockery of that term.

Misleading "marketing" happens by both sides. Suddenly we have the Tarkine wilderness. Strange that term never existed until one day. I remember when puzzled councillors asked what area this covered and the response was amazing. More than enough GPS co-ordinates to keep me occupied for days figuring them out. We then have the term "old growth". What does that actually mean and if it has a definition then is it being correctly used?

I can understand why mistrust exists but the vilification of individuals and companies is sadly as an old political trick. Catherine the Great detractors put out ridiculous stories about her. We see the same thing with companies targeted. Big hint, Minister should be talking to employers, it is not a conspiracy when they do.

I am well aware of the hatred that elements of the anti forestry exhibit with the firm view that the best forestry practice is no forestry. I when visiting ANZAC Cove was remained of this hatred when I was bailed up and abused for being a Tasmanian responsible for killing Tamanian Devils. All I did was write my address down! A certain well known figure had stayed the night before and made false claims that the facial tumour of the Tassie Devil was caused by chemicals used by forestry. Annoyingly the true cause was established by the scientific bodies and was well published in the media at that time.

Forestry and other industries use to pay well and provide job security for families to buy homes with loans. Tourism for many is a part time casual industry and this makes borrowing money for a house often near impossible. I have yet to see the anti logging economic brains trust address that issue. If they did then it might show a positive side to the negativity.