Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[walkon]

I've just had the biggest WT *$&# of the Year when Ol mate Tony Abbott announced that 'The timber industry are the ultimate conservationists'...........
Really...
Not often am I struck speechless but i was absolutely dumbfounded. This got me thinking about what or who are the other 'Ultimates'

Abbatours are the ultimate in animal welfare
Gamblers are the ultimate philanthropists

Russia are the ultimate democratic freedom fighters

Drug cheats are the ultimate athletes

Japan are the ultimate whale scientists
Chernobl was the ultimate in nuclear safety
Kfc are the ultimate dietary nutritionists

Bp are the ultimate at risk adversion




Sorry there are a few gaps where I had to delete a number of lines to avoid defaming anyone, pc issues and well I wanted this thread to stay up for a bit.

[GPSGuided]

Read that yesterday and was certainly a major stir. I don't have an issue with a decision to stop additional NPs as that's a policy decision and he is the elected PM and party, but sticking up a statement like this is just pathetic. Knew he was up to no good and glad I didn't send my ticket in his direction.

[Nuts]

Greenies are the ultimate democrats.. ?

Ridiculous cutting down old growth forests.. but even the conservation arguments rely more on what they are worth to 'us' rather than any intrinsic value.

Just like timber workers Did practice conservation (in some distant past) with 'their' future in mind.

Tourism is great, minimal impact (just moving people around) but an empty shell in terms of sustainable economic growth, we should have done more to preserve and transition these primary industries right back to the early days of 'conservation'.

I'm not sure whether it even matters if the facts are right, it seems otherwise intelligent people will ignore them in a frenzy of blogging. Kinda sad really.

Screen Shot 2014-03-06 at 9.58.01 AM.png (211.93 KiB) Viewed 23407 times

or

https://theconversation.com/still-here- ... ding-10827

[wander]

The timber industry are the ultimate conservationists

A very deeply disturbing indication of a lack of basic knowledge as to what timber industry does and what conservation is about.

[Clusterpod]

"sustainable economic growth"

Whats worse, an empty shell or a logical impossibility?

[Nuts]

Sustainable economic growth and sustained long-term environmental protection are one in the same?

[Bubbalouie]

Sustainable economic growth and sustained long-term environmental protection are one in the same?

I think Clusterpod is alluding to the fact that unlimited growth is impossible in a finite system.

When taken a little less literally I do agree with you.

Personally I don't see the need for constant growth beyond bringing everyone up to a good living standard. After that why keep growing? Population growth shoots that rather naive thought of mine to bits though

[stepbystep]

From today's Mercury

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 6846896583

Will Hodgman asked about it on the radio described this use of resource described it as "...a tragedy for Tasmania" the mentalities at play are astounding.

[maddog]

The 'ultimate conservationists' may be a bit of a stretch, but a reasonable argument can be made to support foresters as the 'original conservationists'.

The forestry profession has a noble linage. Practices of forest stewardship and silviculture, the science of forest management spread from thirteenth century Prussia, through France, Great Britain, and her colonies in India and Malaya, to arrive in twentieth century Australia. In 1916 the New South Wales Forestry Management Act established the Forestry Commission to take over the management of the State's forests from the Department of Lands. Up to that point there had been little in the way of forest conservation; the clearing of forests for settlement had largely gone unchecked. The Act charged foresters with conserving and providing adequate supplies of timber, and ensuring "…the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the environment." Over the next 60 years the Commission's foresters established a system of forest reserves that they protected from clearing and settlement. They licensed sawmills and steadily reduced harvesting volumes to bring the forests towards sustained timber yields…In this way, they built a reputation as the State's forestry experts, and proudly called themselves 'the original conservationists.'

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9_l ... ts&f=false

A similar story can be told of forest conservation in the United States. Gifford Pinchot, a contemporary of John Muir, was the founder of modern forestry practice in the US. Pinchot advocated conservation (as opposed to preservation), and set to work protecting timber resources from deprivation by the influential robber-barons of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot

The modern conservation movement can thank professional foresters for the survival of what are now national parks. If it were not for the 'original conservationists', much of that estate would not exist.

Cheers.

[stepbystep]

All good and well maddog. Totally ignores the reality on the ground in Tasmania over the last 20 years. Go stand on ANY peak in NE Tas on a clear day and come talk to me about the conservation credentials of FT. Or for that matter much of the SW or the SE or the NW.....

Ignorance is no excuse. I've been there and seen it and documented it. Have you?

A more laughable concept is barely compressible!

[ILUVSWTAS]

From today's Mercury

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 6846896583

Will Hodgman asked about it on the radio described this use of resource described it as "...a tragedy for Tasmania" the mentalities at play are astounding.

Is that right? Wow. Why cant they accept something different might be the answer....

Shame as i get the feeling he is going to romp it in next weekend too.

[stepbystep]

From today's Mercury

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 6846896583

Will Hodgman asked about it on the radio described this use of resource described it as "...a tragedy for Tasmania" the mentalities at play are astounding.

Is that right? Wow. Why cant they accept something different might be the answer....

Shame as i get the feeling he is going to romp it in next weekend too.

Of course he will. People are unbelievably stupid.

What Mr Wood will do for Triabunna is revolutionary but many, including the devils advocates that play on this forum don't seem to see the wood from the trees so to speak.

Rip, rip wood chip .....

[walkon]

From today's Mercury

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 6846896583

Will Hodgman asked about it on the radio described this use of resource described it as "...a tragedy for Tasmania" the mentalities at play are astounding.

Is that right? Wow. Why cant they accept something different might be the answer....
.

When its all about money they dont want to accept a different answer. Then again if we form a lobby group that tips in more cash to their electoral campains than the timber industry, then I'm sure they'd be singing out a different tune!

[Nuts]

Settle down sbs, maddog simply proposed some points to consider.

I like the idea of sustainable use of local products, we could have got there Much sooner.

Half the problem here seems to me the blind refusal by the green leaning to consider any compromise. It keeps environmental issues in stalemate. In a sense, a political party based on green ideas is anathema to conservation- happening. The quick judgement definitely stifles any good discussion (on here, anywhere but with birds of a feather).

Your stupid coz you don't think like me... mantra of the 'green' movement..?

[maddog]

All good and well maddog. Totally ignores the reality on the ground in Tasmania over the last 20 years. Go stand on ANY peak in NE Tas on a clear day and come talk to me about the conservation credentials of FT. Or for that matter much of the SW or the SE or the NW.....

Ignorance is no excuse. I've been there and seen it and documented it. Have you?

A more laughable concept is barely compressible!

G'day SBS,

I have been to Tasmania. On holidays. I found the whole experience quite pleasant, thanks for asking. The PM's comments are not however confined merely to Tasmania's foresters.

On the subject of ignorance, you may be interested in the perspective of many of the old loggers, caught up in the 'rainforest wars', those hard working men accused of the devils own work. One common story is of blow-in protesters presuming to teach them, many of whom had spent an honest lifetime of toil within the forests, the nature of their surrounds. Sincere simpletons explaining the importance of preserving untouched rainforest. Amused, but with generosity of spirit (considering the hostility directed against them), the working men would generously show the interlopers old tree stumps deep within the 'untouched 'wilderness', proudly sharing knowledge of the resilience of nature that many years of first hand experience had taught them. Needless to say it all fell on deaf ears.

After perhaps 100 years of sustainable timber extraction, the foresters lost the estate in the 'rainforest wars'. Those same stumps are now within National Parks, 'World Heritage' and 'Wilderness' status no less. Appellations serving as testimony to the 'original conservationists'.

Cheers.

[eggs]

I put my money where my mouth was and invested in Earth Sanctuaries - Dr John Wamsley - in order to preserve native wildlife.
The moneys all gone, but his position was that the failure was due to the government not allowing him to sell his produce.
He noted that we only value what we put a price on. Hence the idea of cows going extinct seems very far fetched.
That made sense to me. If we can trade a natural commodity, we have more incentive to preserve it, if not multiply it.
If it is valueless because of law locking it away, few people really care about it.
His point was that pragmatics is more beneficial to conservation than idealism.

So a forestry industry that runs out of trees is insane.

On a similar note was someone else's observation from experience that the best principle for nature conservation is to enrich people so they are no longer poor.
Poor countries see their forests stripped merely for survival.
Stopping 3rd world countries from getting coal and gas power stations is simply condemning their poor to an early death from foul smoke and their forests to being denuded.

[walkon]

Sustainable is the operative word here I feel, but the logging industry has real parallels with the fishing industry. In the fishing industry they bought bigger and better gear with the end result of depleted resources, the logging industry is the same and I would hate for my taxes again to go to paying off more businesses through unsustainable practices. Just because they over capitalize doesn't mean that we have to keep feeding their juganaught.

Written spoken and authorized by walkon

[Strider]

Walkon that is an extremely simplistic view of the fishing industry that, I can only assume, stems from a small number of well known but poorly managed fisheries worldwide.

Better equipment and infrastructure does not equate to unsustainable practice. In any industry.

[GPSGuided]

Text of the actual address.

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-04/a ... r-canberra

[GPSGuided]

Walkon that is an extremely simplistic view of the fishing industry that, I can only assume, stems from a small number of well known but poorly managed fisheries worldwide.

Better equipment and infrastructure does not equate to unsustainable practice. In any industry.

Not sure about that. My understanding on the worldwide fish stock issue is no longer a "small number of well known but poorly managed fisheries". Irrespective, the depletion of fish stock is world wide. "Improved" fishing techniques in efficiency and quantity clearly have an impact here.

[Strider]

Walkon that is an extremely simplistic view of the fishing industry that, I can only assume, stems from a small number of well known but poorly managed fisheries worldwide.

Better equipment and infrastructure does not equate to unsustainable practice. In any industry.

Not sure about that. My understanding on the worldwide fish stock issue is no longer a "small number of well known but poorly managed fisheries". Irrespective, the depletion of fish stock is world wide. "Improved" fishing techniques in efficiency and quantity clearly have an impact here.

Depletion does not denote unsustainability. Management techniques (or lack thereof) are the reason for stock depletion.

[walkon]

Walkon that is an extremely simplistic view of the fishing industry that, I can only assume, stems from a small number of well known but poorly managed fisheries worldwide.

Better equipment and infrastructure does not equate to unsustainable practice. In any industry.

Ive been on the executive on fishing organizations in Australia and I've got family involved in the fishing industry (timber as well). Theres plenty of literature about the overfishing in our waters especially the eastern seaboard, not to mention the tuna catch. Thats why the federal government bought out alot of licenses/businesses and got boats effectively off federal waters not long ago, thats not to get mixed up with the different states that have bought out licenses from state waters.

Worldwide overfishing is another matter but it is definitely not a few poorly managed fisheries but quite the opposite.

From firsthand experience people who have spent millions on better gear, which invariably has a greater capacity, actively chase and lobby for more work. It's naive to assume that the updated machinery sits idle, not all are worn out no longer able to work anymore. And since the resource is limited, pressure is on to allow more of it to be available. Its ironic that this better gear/infrastructure means less workers as well, which is what governments of all perausions seem to base the justifications of their arguments on.

And yes some of the family get togethers are quite interesting at times. Everyone seems to think that their industry is well run and the others aren't.

[Strider]

What I perhaps should have stated more directly is that improved equipment can only be used to better exploit a resource if its management allows it to be employed in such a way.

[Clusterpod]

Some Australian fisheries are touted as the best and most sustainable in the world.

I've worked in multiple fisheries and can't bring myself to believe that the amount of bycatch from trawling or purse-seining can be sustained indefinitely.

Like in forestry, fisheries use the term sustainable on a sliding scale. Even almost entirely damaging and unrecoverable systems could still be "sustainable" if even partly. Its very misleading and deceptive.

Orange Roughy "stocks" will not recover in our lifetimes. Bluefin tuna never will.

You can't remove trees that are hundreds of years old, and therefore dependent understory, fungal, vertebrate and invertebrate animals and expect a recovery. Its never happened elsewhere, and its not going to happen in Tasmania. Its unique, irreplaceable, and for some reason its acceptable to exchange that for money. And not even very much of it.

Theres a finite number of these trees. If they can't be replaced in the lifetime of the industry, then the industry isn't sustainable. By definition.

Then you have incredible terms like "sustainable growth" thrown about. The logic, or lack of, is truly staggering.

Almost as staggering as "ultimate conservationists".

[maddog]

If unsustainable, the exploitation of natural resources by modern day robber-barons is the result of inadequate regulation. This is the fault of government. Neither foresters, or the discipline of forestry, should be held responsible for the failure of governance. Those environmentalists who enjoy attacking working men, be they foresters, fishermen, scientists, miners, farmers or others of whom they disapprove, do little to achieve their aims.

Given the blatant attack on the wages and conditions of the working man by the current government, the only thing that could tempt the CFMEU to accept the Prime Ministers overtures would be further scapegoating of working men by environmental fundamentalists. These misguided bigots should rethink their caricature of foresters as vandals. Politically and factually the portrayal is wrong.

Foresters deserve recognition as the original conservationists.

Cheers

[Nuts]

Well we are discussing the political statement, not historical fact
Anyhow, just seen as 'old' thinking, 'be great when they're gone'

C'plod- My Comment? If it's not sustainable then perhaps the current model wasn't what i had in mind. I (sometimes) try but it does get tedious considering all the ways things here can be taken.

SBS gave a good example of a different model, the sort of project that ticks a lot of boxes. I don't believe these projects can be of a scale to replace large industry in the short term, good movements though! Politically (and I only have a passing interest.. similar to that in the toilet on any given day..) again... I can't see how these more sustainable/ value adding projects can ever be moved to the mainstream without serious party support. Like mining, something that will probably never happen by force.

And (especially) usurping local community choice through activism.. may leave a Pyrrhic victory here and there but this 'mainstream' support?

[GPSGuided]

That's it. Stop buying and eating! No demand, no consumption, no depletion.

[Nuts]

Some of us will have to go.. now that can't be farmers, we wont eat.. foresters?-what will we sit on, miners- can't make fuel stoves from wood.. who are the real redundant? maybe its State Governments?

They were probably worried about the family moggy eggs!
My (clothes making) mate loved his cat hat, it was pretty gross but did start interesting conversations.

His point was that pragmatics is more beneficial to conservation than idealism.

pragmatists? yes, i think so too, they seem to be rarely the loudest voice. Demanding idealists do have some classic victories though.. though perhaps there is even more need for pragmatics since the age of instant wiki-knowledge.

[stepbystep]

All good and well maddog. Totally ignores the reality on the ground in Tasmania over the last 20 years. Go stand on ANY peak in NE Tas on a clear day and come talk to me about the conservation credentials of FT. Or for that matter much of the SW or the SE or the NW.....

Ignorance is no excuse. I've been there and seen it and documented it. Have you?

A more laughable concept is barely compressible!

G'day SBS,

I have been to Tasmania. On holidays. I found the whole experience quite pleasant, thanks for asking. The PM's comments are not however confined merely to Tasmania's foresters.

On the subject of ignorance, you may be interested in the perspective of many of the old loggers, caught up in the 'rainforest wars', those hard working men accused of the devils own work. One common story is of blow-in protesters presuming to teach them, many of whom had spent an honest lifetime of toil within the forests, the nature of their surrounds. Sincere simpletons explaining the importance of preserving untouched rainforest. Amused, but with generosity of spirit (considering the hostility directed against them), the working men would generously show the interlopers old tree stumps deep within the 'untouched 'wilderness', proudly sharing knowledge of the resilience of nature that many years of first hand experience had taught them. Needless to say it all fell on deaf ears.

After perhaps 100 years of sustainable timber extraction, the foresters lost the estate in the 'rainforest wars'. Those same stumps are now within National Parks, 'World Heritage' and 'Wilderness' status no less. Appellations serving as testimony to the 'original conservationists'.

Cheers.

Yes. point taken!!! Times and methods have changed...I've acknowledged your points. Can you not respect that things 'ain't what they used to be'??? for *&^%$# sake have a look on the ground. Look at the Florentine. Look at the Picton Valley, the entire NE. Climb Mt Victoria and do a 360degree turn....you've never done it have you maddog? So keep your romantic notions to yourself. It's not reality!

And, if you insist on making the distinction. If a 500 year old tree sits next to a previously logged coupe. Yes it is worth protecting, it' amazing, and inspiring, and ahhh what's the point..?? Here's one for your consideration...150m from a coupe and saved by some true heroes.

Get your lazy butts out of your chairs and into the bush and look at what's actually happening. I do, and I'm fed up with the ignorant crap I read on this forum...

[maddog]

G'day SBS,

The Prime Minister speech to the foresters conveyed a number of messages:

1. That the Greens have destroyed the economy in Tasmania.
2. Australia is under new management and is 'open for business'.
3. That too much timber has been locked up as national parks.
4. That foresters are 'the ultimate conservationists'.

While I am sure that the veracity of any of these messages could be questioned, it is that foresters are the 'ultimate conservationists' that is of interest to this thread. It has already been conceded that 'ultimate' is a little strong and suggested, with some evidence, that 'original conservationists' is more appropriate.

You are correct to draw a distinction between the foresters of old and those of today. Compared to yesterdays foresters, those of today are trained to a higher standard, with a stronger scientific base. The modern forester also benefits from improved mapping, that enables the identification and protection of rare communities and are able to focus their activities with greater precision within those areas dominated by common communities of little conservation value.

While you make the assumption that those with whom you disagree are too lazy to get themselves out of their chairs and so remain ignorant of the facts (as you interpret them), perhaps this not always necessary. Recently I was able to view the aftermath of a recent forestry operation from the comfort of my air conditioned vehicle while remaining seated. The operation in question caused quite a scandal at the time, with issues discussed in the broadsheet press. The timber was extracted from a compartment correctly described as a common sclerophyllous community (eucalyptus canopy with rainforest understory), while nearby a protected forest community (lowland subtropical rainforest) remained untouched.

While the area subject to timber extraction was left in a state comparatively unpleasant to the eye, there are already signs of recovery, the common pattern of resilient nature being followed. Pioneer regrowth, albeit with some weed incursion, preceding the eventual colonisation of a more stable apex community. No doubt, if left untouched for another 50 years, it would be quite possible to find the compartment described by the naive as 'untouched wilderness' (much to the amusement of others).

Cheers.