The battle to save Tasmania's forests

[reeves]

The only way to "save" Tasmania's forests is if the Federal government again invokes it's powers to declare these forests a wilderness heritage area, like they did with the Franklin dam.

untrue, it was actually decision of the supreme or 'high' court, Sorry to say Sturdee but most of your points dont hold up to the real data on these issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam

A legal battle between the federal government and Tasmanian state government followed, resulting in a landmark High Court ruling in the Federal government's favour.

The Fed Gov may have exercised there powers to oppose the dam, a preference deal between the 2 Bobs at the time but hawke could see it had populist support from many people.

If that happened not a stick of timber would come out of those forests for woodworkers to use, it would be totally locked up and tree or branches falling to the ground would be left to rot where it fell.

Untrue, currently 70,000 hectares is set aside in the RFA (regional forest agreement) for selective logging of old growth forest for speciality timbers, this was reduced in 2006 from 140,000 hectares, mainly because so much old growth is being clearfelled (20,000 hectares per year) a 'compromise was reached that protected more of the ST allocation. Timber workers are concerned about the restrictions but access to ST's is part of the RFA.

http://www.daffa.gov.au/rfa
http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions...indicators.pdf

As this would decimate Tassies economy it would never happen for they would become a worse basketcase than they already are.

Highly unlikley, forestry is about 10% of Tassies GDP, it is quite possible to have a feasible forestry industry based on selective logging of old growth and use of plantation timbers not clearfelling or woodchipping. The clean green brand in Tasmania has seen the growth of other industries including tourism, food and wine, organic wool clips, fine furniture and many others. prophecies of doom have no realitsic backup. Once fully freed from dependance on old style industrial practices and land clearing Tasmania would probably reap many long term bounties,according to senior economists at UTAS.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...50-601,00.html

Mr Eslake said that rather than one or two "mega-projects", Tasmania's prosperity depended on its ability to produce and market premium goods and services, such as top-quality food and wine.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/...omments/truth/

This story of economic disaster and employment melt down allowed Tasmania to undergo no less than an economic revolution. Employment creation has boomed as new clean green and clever industries have not only replaced the thousands of jobs lost in the resource industries, but have created enough new jobs — some 50,000 — to halve unemployment. Growth in these emerging industries has resulted in more state income to fund health, education, social services and subsidise forestry. The multiplier effect has been enormous. There is no longer just a dim light at the end of the tunnel, Tasmania has entered sustained economic sunshine.

http://www.twff.com.au/intro.pdf

Introducing Timber Workers for Forests: What we are, what we do, why we are
important and how we want Tasmania’s forests to be managed.
Timber workers for forests is an Incorporated Association, formed in 2001 to represent
the interests of timber workers who believed that their interests were not represented by
Timber Communities Australia, or by the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania.
We represent the interests of a large number of Tasmanians who run businesses that
depend on Tasmanian special timbers for their livelihood, such as craft-workers, furniture
makers, wood-turners and wooden boat-builders, shingle splitters and restorers of
heritage buildings. This means that we constitute a political threat, rather than an
economic threat to the current forest management regime, which seeks to misrepresent
us. So we want to make it clear to Tasmanian voters and the Opposition Parties, that there
are some popular descriptions that don’t fit us at all.

We often get our materials from the forest directly as well as from the few remaining
small saw-millers because salvaging timber that would otherwise be burnt is often the
only way we can get it. This makes it impossible for us to be unaware of the huge waste
of good timber that is part of the present regime.

Hence my objection to "saving" these forests. It will not give us the timber and will make us pay more as well.

A common myth mate but one thats doesnt hold up at all in real terms. fear of 'going green' doesnt mean economic doom, the fear is that people need to change their thinking and embrace the needs of modern society, enough damage has been done, its time to get smart and create less damaging economies.

Its obvious the situation in Tassie has more legs than many people might give it credit for, everyone seems to have lots of 'reasons' for not saving the forests but high level economists in Tasmania have recently stated otherwise. Using the forests more wisely than clearfelling for woodchips and promoting a greener cleaner brand image 'would' in the opinion of many experts result in a stronger and more sustainable economy than dependance on resource based industrial practices.

I can post more links with data that supports this, as i did in the other thread if anyone wans to read more about this issue.

BTW Ozwinner, like i have said before, i dont consider myself a greenie, dont belong to any green groups and dont vote green. so please stop calling me a friggin greenie.Its obvious to me that both jobs and the environment are important issues, i just dont buy the doomsayers who wanna promote the old ways of thinking and I feel enough has been learnt to know that we have more to gain by improving and sustaining environmental integrity than exploiting it.

Woodbe, check this thread for info on timber collecting in Tas

http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...0&postcount=23
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...light=tasmania

[Ashore]

hawke could see it had populist support from many people.

and was after votes , he didn't ask me or anyone I know, did he ask you personally or for that matter anyone on this forum I would be interested to know

Highly unlikley, forestry is about 10% of Tassies GDP, it is quite possible to have a feasible forestry industry based on selective logging of old growth and use of plantation timbers not clearfelling or woodchipping..

pure supposition your thoughts without positive backup, to use terms "Highly unlikely" or "it is quite possible" without giving any facts is supposition

A common myth mate but one thats doesnt hold up at all in real terms. fear of 'going green' doesnt mean economic doom,

I live in newcastle and the local Green group " Rising tide" want to stop any new coal mines opening and to stop exporting coal from Newcastle all together now as this is the largest export port in Australia and more than 70% of the exports are coal how would this impact in job losses and the economic doom of the city
I note that in the last month or so the group have stopped using the term " Global warming " and now only say "climate change " does this mean that the "Global warming " scare tactic and myth used by some people , has been proven false , and if so then perhaps there are other statements used by people , without factual backup that are false
I have talked one on one to tassie wood mill owners and workers over a beer or two and their assessments of timber reserves are somewat diffrent to some of the Green groups as posted on web sites, but what would they know about timber industry only that it has been their liveyhood and has been for 4-5 generations so they may have been stretching the truth but I doubt it, you on the othert hand has demanded your right to have a rant and used the wonderfull terms Highly unlikley and it is quite possible , these fit well alongside other polli speak like " In the Fullness of time " , It will be good for the consumer "These tax cut's are in LAW" I will not introduce a GST" No child will live in poverty "
We as members of this forum all use wood ( proberly ) your ideas and opinions have not been silenced, and the locked threads were because the moderators thought that they were becoming personal or for what ever reason as is within their brief so live with it
My only advice is to go to tassie visit the local mills have a beer with the locals and get a real feeling for the place not quote web addresses with someone elses opinion who may have an axe to grind or a political or green message to push, speak to the locals live there for a few weeks and see the real picture befor coming on too strong .

Rgds

[Clinton1]

Certainly the title of the locked "Battle to save Tasmania's forests" should give rise to a little reflection.
Battle
Save

The title indicates that a position has already been taken, hence any information can be viewed as being provided to support the position.

Would a discussion on:
"A fantastic resource, what is the best way to use it" be better?

Anyway....

[rsser]

It's not a matter of either lock them up or clear fell them, certainly not if you're talking about high value-add furniture timbers.

PS Several economic assessments I've come across indicate that if the real value of the resource were charged rather than the nominal one currently applying in State gov't royalties, then logging would become uneconomic overnight - in Tassie, NSW and prob. Vic as well.

[reeves]

My only advice is to go to tassie visit the local mills have a beer with the locals and get a real feeling for the place not quote web addresses with someone elses opinion who may have an axe to grind or a political or green message to push, speak to the locals live there for a few weeks and see the real picture befor coming on too strong .

Rgds

Now `why would you assume i havent ? Is it possible i have gethered info and done research 'because' I have visited Tassie and talked with people.I have visited many times and spoke with many people, the figures offered by the RFA and FT/DPI give specifics of forest cover and timber use. As this is a web based forum, web links offer good useful and relevant support info, i really feel that more people would benefit from using the web to gain more info to inform their opinions.Like actually read those links and absorb the data. If you wanna find out about timber cutting ask the timber cutters, if you wanna find out about economic issues, ask the economists, if you want overall land clearing ratios check the RFA stats or overall 'productivity stats at years end, if you wanna find out about the effect on tourism, ask the tourists or tourism operators..anyone can have an opinion but facts are facts.

Pretty much everyone I spoke to on any or all sides of the debate has views and cocnerns about the future of the forests, availability and cost of specialty timbers, jobs/employment and tourism.

I used broad terms because this is a friendly discussion forum not a law court its not up to me tot define the issue for eveyone..personally i dont undertsand why people want to continually argue the negative on this one..everyone i have spoken to from loggers, crafts people, greens and academics, tourism operators have concerns about the future of their self interest in Tassie, worthy of disscussion..in a friendly manner...

I definaltey think its possible to have successful strategy that conserves old growth forest and provides relevant and ongoing income opportunities.

The best way to see the effect of clearfelling and plantation growth in Tassie is to check the satellite images and maps of the past and current logging coupes, i posted links to this in the other thread but its seems some people can be more interested in voicing under informed opinions than taking the time to check actual factual data on the issues.

[reeves]

Certainly the title of the locked "Battle to save Tasmania's forests" should give rise to a little reflection.
Battle
Save

The title indicates that a position has already been taken, hence any information can be viewed as being provided to support the position.

haha yes, the title does indicate that. Its pretty much 'common knowledge' the issue has been a battle since the Frankiln river court case. I posted that thread in conjunction with a recent newspost about Forestry Tasmania shedding jobs and blaming greens for lobbying because Japanese companies ended their contracts. There have been many courtt cases in recent years involving the issue (with the greens consistently winning and Gunns FT losing).

It is a battle on both sides, a long, ongoing and at times very divisive and ferocious battle over the use of some of the last remaining wilderness on the planet. It has included assults on conservationist, job losses at FT and plenty of other ugly concflicts, documented in the Flannagn article, which even tho I have posted it several times, no one here has acknowledged reading. I so set that title because stakeholders on AL sides see it as battle, the Gov, FT, Gunns, workers and greens, its a fight and at times an all out war fought on the ground, in the courts, in the media in the workplace and in the forests, where ancients trees, animals and biodivserity is fighting to survive the encroachment of humans and machines.

Would a discussion on:
"A fantastic resource, what is the best way to use it" be better?

yes good idea Clinton, the RFA and EPBC probably has relevant data on that and the Greens own forestry plan is reasonable indicator of how to have reasonable sized industry, value add with out incurring major biodiversity loss or breaching the EPBC.

In the answer to the original question...or Clintons question

1) end clearfelling of old growth forests for woodchipping and establish a compensation package or up to 800 million bucks to be used to generate new industries and jobs
2) increase RFA quota for selective logging of specialty timbers to 300,000 hectares
3)exlude woodchipping to genuine forestry waste, regrowth and plantations not old growth
4) increase value adding of quality sawlogs and veneers
5)limit the growth and size of the industry to match 'real' log availability
6) make sure FT abides by the RFA and EPBC
7)allow timber workers wider access to the ST zones..
8)focus tasmanias economy on newer clean green brand industries not industrial resource dependant industries...

If you want more info check the CFA (community forest agreement), the timberworkers response to it and the greens forest transition strategy

http://www.daffa.gov.au/forestry/national/cfa
http://www.twff.com.au/twfftcfa1.pdf
http://tas.greens.org.au/publication...gy_Sept_04.pdf

basically keep a good solid timber industry focused on high quality produces and reduce dependant on woodchipping for profits, get the most from the resource and keep as much as possible for the future, retain environmental integrity

thats pretty brief and broad but thats generally the common plan to save old growth from the chipper, enage truly sustainable forestry, keep a level of jobs and encourge non destructive industries like tourism, quality goods supply, economic industries and creative industries....for the long term...

happy days are here again ! ;-)

[Waldo]

Reeves,

Give it a rest.

[reeves]

Reeves,

Give it a rest.

haha, just responding to peoples posts mate, even grumpy old ozwinner said the thread could continue long as no one engages in defamation its fine, as long as supplies of special timbers, jobs and the environment is an ongoing issue surely its worth discussing...but yes seeing yr such a good fair blok e Waldo i'll give it a rest for a while and read any responses..
;-)

[Daddles]

Ah well, another thread to ignore (as is my right). Sorry kiddies, but I'm sick of it.

Richard

[reeves]

Just an additive about special timbers supply, this rundown from the TWFF outlines how valuable craft timbers are being lost due to industrial clearfelling

http://www.twff.com.au/artastimes.pdf

Deceptive misuse of imagery by industrial loggers
By Graham Green of Timber Workers for Forests Inc
www.twff.com.au
In the lead up to the Federal election a cynical fear campaign has been waged by
supporters of industrial logging to exploit imagery of fine furniture, wooden boats and
timber workers families to justify their ongoing access to Tasmania’s old growth forests.
Rod Scott, Chief of Staff to Paul Lennon, had an article published in the Canberra Times
last week arguing that an end to old growth logging ‘would take away Tasmania’s
signature value-adding timber industries.’
As a user of Tasmania’s specialty timbers I feel moved to respond to the misleading
campaign being conducted by the beneficiaries of Tasmania’s woodchipping frenzy.
Rod Scott’s perspective on Tasmanian forestry is coloured by his allegiances to
Tasmania’s entrenched power structure. He does not represent the interests of specialty timber users. Scott is former editor of northern Tasmania’s newspaper which is based in Launceston, the heartland of Australia’s biggest woodchipping company - Gunns, and is now senior staffer to Tasmania’s logging hard-man Premier Paul Lennon. The current Labor Government receives donations from Gunns and has overseen a period in which the area of State forest logged annually has tripled. The explosion in woodchip production since the signing of the RFA has created unprecedented wealth for those associated with Gunns in the form of record annual profits and a soaring share price.

Most of Tasmania’s specialty timber workers are gravely concerned for the future as
unprecedented rates of forest clearing and conversion to plantations is decimating their
resource and future prospects. In Tasmania, old, slow growing, high quality, durable
timbers are being systematically replaced with fast growing, poor quality, pulpwood
species. There are significant concerns amongst specialty timber users that their sector
will be completely decimated within 10 years if clearfelling in old growth forests
continues.

Following clearfelling, forests that held specialty timbers are re-sown with either native
eucalypts or plantation timbers on short logging rotations of 20-90 years. The intense
burning following clearfelling, while favouring regeneration of eucalypts, ultimately
eliminates specialty timbers which thrive in cool, wet shaded conditions. Tasmania’s icon specialty timbers such as myrtle, sassafrass and celery-top pine do not reach commercial maturity until they are 300-500 years old. Once clearfelled these timbers will never regenerate to maturity again unless the forest is left undisturbed for many hundreds of years.

In an old growth clearfelling operation, as much as 75% of the timber logged never
leaves the coupe and is left to be burned. Of the timber that is used about 85% is directly woodchipped (referred to as ‘residue’ by Rod Scott), about 15% goes to sawlog of which less than 20% is recovered as sawn timber. Typically, less than 1% of the harvest ends up as veneer and a miniscule amount is used by specialty timber artisans. This kind of logging, based upon rapid extraction and cost minimisation, now predominates in Tasmania’s wet forests. Although woodchip production has tripled to over 5 million tonnes per annum since the signing of the State’s Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) in 1997 it has come at a huge cost - at least 40,000 hectares of forests containing specialty timbers has been lost.

Clearfelling is not required to supply timber for specialty bowls and fine furniture – in
fact one old growth tree selectively harvested or salvaged has the potential to keep a
Tasmanian craftsman employed for many years and has the capacity to produce many
thousands of dollars worth of product. In reality, clearfelling is required to sustain high
volumes of wood cheaply into low value export commodity markets in which the
Tasmanian timber industry is a major player.
It is the height of cynicism that Tasmania’s woodchipping interests hide behind the soft
emotive imagery of specialty timber bowls and fine furniture to generate support for their
ongoing access to the State’s virgin forests which are systematically being converted into high rotation fibre production farms to maintain woodchipping profits for the benefit of a few companies and their shareholders.

Families of timber workers are also used as pawns in the game of deception. Many
workers work long hours in tough conditions, and despite having fears about the
sustainability of their industry, they are scared to speak out against the might of the
industrial logging interests for fear of vilification and losing their job.

What must be recognised is that the timber industry itself has been responsible for
significant job shedding. Tasmania’s largest timber companies operate on the basis of
maximising economic efficiency - the need to produce the greatest volume, hence the
greatest profit, in the shortest time. Jobs and labour costs are minimised through rapid
harvest, bigger machinery, larger log trucks and automation of mills.

The component of total timber industry jobs reliant on the logging of old growth forests
is relatively small. There are just 330 jobs in processing old growth timber into sawn
timber, veneer, craft and furniture, an estimated 215 jobs in harvesting and management, and 35 in transporting old growth logs. In all, there are currently around 580 jobs related to the logging of old growth forests in Tasmania in an industry that employs a total of 7,900 (ABS, May 2004).

Groups representing the woodchipping interests have been notorious for over-inflating
the jobs associated with old growth logging and the numbers quoted have been rising
steadily as the 2004 Federal election draws closer. The Forest Industries Association of
Tasmania has quoted the number as 1,8001 and 4,0002 whilst recent newspaper
1 Glenn Britton, spokesman for FIAT, multiple media outlets, 8/9/2004.
2 Terry Edwards, CEO of FIAT, The Mercury, 13/9/2004.
advertisements placed by Gunns Ltd intimated that ending old growth logging would cost 8,000 jobs.

The logging of old growth forests is not about specialist bowls or oak floors as Rod Scott would have us believe, although these are a nice side benefit - it is really about
Tasmania’s powerful elite maintaining control over the State’s natural resources to
maintain the windfall financial returns they have become accustomed to since the signing of Tasmania’s Regional Forest Agreement.

If logging old growth forests really was about creating specialty products, then the State Government would embrace a move to selective harvest based upon ecologically
sustainable yield. Such a model was recently put forward by Timber Workers for Forests (TWFF) in a plan to ensure the future of the specialty sector, which is a significant employer and generates $100 million in turnover every year. The TWFF plan is the product of extensive consultation over an eight month period and is designed to ensure that future generations of Tasmanians can have access to quality timber to maintain their crafts and traditions.

The TWFF plan was labeled as ‘selfish’ by Labor’s Forestry Minister Bryan Green because it accommodates conservation needs. The State Labor Government and Forestry Tasmania were unwilling to engage in the process driven by timber workers to develop the plan which, if embraced, will ensure there is a future for specialty timbers. This confirms to us that supporters of industrial logging are only interested in using the positive imagery of the specialty timber sector to further their own ends – which in reality is big money, ego and power. To the State’s power brokers there
is more at stake than bowls and flooring if access to the State’s forests is reduced

[rsser]

Comment in the last AWR that there'd be no N. Cunninghamii left for Oz buyers within a couple of years.

But ignore away folks.

[Lignum]

Yaaaaawn

[rsser]

So lignum you logged in just to get your dose of sleepy dust ;-} Glad to have served as faery.

[dazzler]

Yaaaaawn

you too huh

I heard most of the tassie timber went on impossible dovetails.

[Lignum]

you too huh

I heard most of the tassie timber went on impossible dovetails.

Not to mention a whole trees worth of Domino mortices