What is going on in Tasmania?

[ozwinner]

'scuse me Sir- Mr Ozwinner, may I say something.................

Go for it.

Al

[felixe]

1. Forestry Tasmania is a corporation which is still controlled by the Government of Tasmania - so things haven't changed that much "since I was last down there" Which Woodbe was actually Christmas 2006-January 2007
2. No-one, not even me directly referred to you as a "scumbag" so get over it!
3. Your entire argument is based on secondary research (dubious - The internet!!) and word of mouth - this is why I find there is no credibility in your points of discussion. Yes I say you are misinformed!!
4. The logging of timber in Tasmania which you argue is destroying the environment/which I say is sustainable has been going on for decades.

As a point of interest the "Greenie Body" (Not meant in a derogatory manner, I just can't give a better label) The Wilderness Society of Tasmania has been around since 1976, and has always been opposed to the clearfelling of old growth forests in Tasmania.

My point is that Forestry has been a valuable economic resource to the state for many decades and yet there are still many, many forests around, this is due to the fact that most are national parks or heritage listed.
If the logging was not sustainable you would be looking at vast ( and I mean VAST) tracts of wasteland through the Huon and Derwent Valley.
Sustainable logging practices have proven this not to be the point.

You can get upset all you want, you can be pious and stake the high morale ground in your statements of "save the Earth" but the bottom line is we need timber - what is your alternative, cut down the rest of Indonesia or Brazil??

[woodbe]

Felixe,

As others have reported here, it is not Forestry Tasmania doing the clearing/herbicide/poisoning/planting. It's a private enterprise company. Maybe Forestry Tasmania also does plantation forest projects but from what you have said from your first hand knowledge and disbelief of the information presented, they don't work like that.

No one directly called me a scumbag, but you called my posting a picture of a cloud and calling it smoke "Irresponsible" That photo shows only smoke.

Like I said a few times before, I am reporting here what I saw. Others have confirmed what was reported to me, in this thread, but I continue to be attacked because I am the messenger. That doesn't annoy or anger me at all, but allow me to point out 'shooting the messenger' for what it is.

My credibility is not at stake here. I have only shown you some photos and reported what they mean as explained to me by local people who live in Tasmania now. If you look at the title of the thread you will see that I posted it as a question, not as a way of starting an argument.

I have asked questions, and raised issues. Personally, I remain appalled at the methods reported for creating new plantations from old growth forests. Appalled because of the waste of good timber, release of massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, destruction of native animals with poison, and the destruction of large amounts of genetic material by the application of herbicide to new growth.

Happy for you to discuss these issues with all of us interested from either point of view.

Especially interested in hearing how forestry plantation interests are planning to cope with the challenge of creating new plantations in existing forest areas without releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

woodbe.

[felixe]

• Maybe you are talking about Gunns, they have a "reputation"

• In regards to the cloud. I must confess I was being a bit of a "smartarse" it is a cloud, I just wanted to see if it was a "cloud" cloud or smoke "cloud" - no reddies please.

• At no time have I set out to attack you, I don't want to shoot the messenger, I just feel obliged to stick up for the "Motherland" as I feel Tassie always gets a "ripping" over timber yet I look around and see many other instances of environmental vandalism which goes unquestioned - trees just seem to bring out the worst in people!

• At the moment one method for disposal of waste is still burning, I can't quote figures on how much of an impact it has on the air quality or the ozone - as opposed to coal fired power or other major contributors. I previously mentioned that most of the wildlife in the area has long gone, this is because they actually bulldoze the site.If it does impact greatly, I assume it will be only a matter of time until there is enough pressure bought to bear on Company's such as Gunns etc to find alternate means.

• My concern with forestry practices are the continued acquisition of farmland which is then used for the Tree farms/Forestry plantations. What I don't like is the fact that there are less primary producers as they are being squeezed off the land as they fight for resources and face financial pressure. I just hope 20 years from now we can still buy the same quality meat, fruit, vegetables and dairy products we have come to enjoy from my home state.

[Clinton1]

Well, I for one feel much better knowing that the poor little animals didn't get burnt, and that the more humane bulldozer cleaned em up.

It seems that there is a fine line between one persons irresponsibility and anothers.
It would be irresponsible to hold back Tasmania's economic growth, and irresponsible to clear any more old growth forests.

A few questions:
a) what % of Tasmania's land area is devoted to National Parks?
b) what % of old growth forest is being opened up to logging for the first time?
c) what % of old growth has never been logged?
d) what is the enonomic return of one hectare of prime plantation forestry over a plantation life cycle, as opposed to the same land being used for agricultural production?
e) what is the % of Tasmanias National Parks compared to the Total Urban Sprawl of Sydney, and NSW % of land area devoted to Nat Parks?

Lets see some facts to support any argument.

The pendulum swung in Qld toward environmental protection, and land clearing permits were halted.
The majority of the land clearing permits were for maintenance clearing of regrowth on previously cleared land.
Now there has been unmanaged regrowth on this land, and the fuel loads are generally at a level that have the landowners scared.
The landowners are not whinging about loss of economic return, they stopped whinging about that a while ago.... now a lot of them are just plain scared about the consequences of any fires due to the fuel load.

There is no incentive to do reduction burns on land that is so full of understory growth that it cannot be used productively.... therefor the problem is exascerbated in Leasehold land that is forested.

Our old cattle station of 5000 Acres of freehold and 93,000 Acres of Leasehold is now running cattle on the freehold land only, which is turning into a choked out scrub.
The current owners don't want to risk putting the cattle into the Leashold (@80 years to run on the lease) as the fire that will get into that area will be to fast to get cattle out, and its too wild to muster. They are not allowed to control regrowth or do controlled burns.

I'm going a little off topic...
the intent is to show that while the pendulum can swing in the other groups favour, humans tend to always sieze the opportunity to stuff things up... particularly when positions are defended over facts and logic.

[reeves]

If anyone is in doubt about the situation in Tasmania read this article, it also has much info and stats that answer some questions noted above.

http://www.johnreeves.com.au/images/...stsarticle.pdf



Shedhand, while i certainly support jobs and community employment security, the situation in Tasmania seems focused on short term solutions via largescale industrial practices whereby the bulk of profits (Gunns $1.2 billion) leaves Tasmania and is not reinvested, apparently 15% of Gunns income remains in Tasmania. As Jmick pointed out, Queensland went through the same thing 20 years ago and whiles it was difficult on some some timber reliant communities now there is greater prosperity from eco tourism and other non destructive means of income generation.Selective logging of craft timbers and value adding via veneering is much more cost effective than woodchipping old growth. Basically you get a better economy in the long run from not being dependent on clearfelling and value adding yr environment to your economy. The forest destruction in Tasmania is hampering tourism.

check the Tassie Times for much discussion and news on these issues

http://tasmaniantimes.com/
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/here-come-the-bulldozers/

Felixe, all I can say is that you are obviously in denial of the realities and possibly quite delusional.
for examples of 1080 poisoning see this image or follow these links
http://www.discover-tasmania.com/

so you can plainly see that 1080 release is still being used despite funding from the Gov to stop it.

check these links for recent comment that supports the view that these forestry practices are disaffecting landowners and tourism

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/...re-moving-out/
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/...on-the-island/

On the following Tuesday I received a phone call from a German-born friend who had been showing some visitors from his former country around the Huon Valley.
He was distressed by the disruption of the trip caused by seven huge forestry burns of ‘waste timber’ on clearfells. (It has been well documented by the group Timberworkers for Forests that large quantities of commercially highly valuable timber have been wilfully destroyed in the misleadingly named ‘regeneration burns’).
The air was thick with smoke throughout the valley and scenic photography was not possible.
A request to the Environment Department to send a mobile air quality testing unit to the area was met with the surprising response that the Department did not have the equipment. The local tourist office stated that complaints about these burns were common; they suggested talking to Forestry Tasmania.

Clinton, you may find the answers to some of your questions in the RFA and other links

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/policy/rfa/rfa-indicators.pdf
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/

Tasmania’s State of the Environment Report, 2003
“* While the State has [theoretically] about 40% of its land area in reserves, the distribution is concentrated in a few bioregions: the West and Central Highlands have 83% and 56% respectively within formal reserves. The Southern Ranges also has high levels of formal reservation with 44% of its area reserved. However, six of the nine terrestrial bioregions in Tasmania have more than 80% of their area outside any type of reserve.
The situation is particularly critical in the Northern Midlands where 97.4% of the bioregion is outside any type of public or private reserve. “
And this excludes any revelations on what actually is a reserve. Obviously the term excludes any form of temperate rainforest that provides good ground for a logging track.

If anyone is concerned about Tasmanian forestry practices impact on specialty timbers see these sites

http://www.twff.com.au/
http://www.tasforests.green.net.au/n...gging%20NW.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...639671045.html

he plan to log a new virgin forest in the Apple Isle is set to become the new wilderness flashpoint. Andrew Darby reports. THE eyes of Kevin Perkins are blue, piercing and furious - the eyes that guide the hands that make art out of wood. At his eagle's eyrie of a workshop high above the Huon river in Tasmania, Perkins crafts some of Australia's finest cabinet work.
The eyes are blazing at what he sees as the waste of precious timber: rainforest logging may have been consigned to history elsewhere in Australia, but the Tasmanian Government has announced a move into new virgin forest. The target is deep red myrtle.

for more info and updates see these links

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/...re-moving-out/
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/P18/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ties_Australia

and after reading those sites if anyone has any doubts about what is happening in Tasmania then this should expliain it...

Tasmania's old growth forests. Whilst a great deal of Tasmania, about 40% is protected, the rest, some of the world last remaining pristine wilderness is being systematically clearfelled and turned into tree plantations. This is primarily to provide chipwood for the paper/pulp needs of Japan and other other countries. The main justification for this is that Tasmanians need jobs and the state needs income, basic capitalist rationale.

Now the environmental effect is that large tracts of old growth forest containing the world largest trees (eucalyptus regnans) are completely cleared, burnt and replanted with plantation species. This has the effects of reducing biodiversity, destroying animal habitat and such things as bugs, bees, insects of all kinds. The plantations they replant with have about 25%% of the original biodiversity, so environmentally, that wilderness is gone, chipped up, burnt, kapoot. etc etc etc

So whilst suppling Asia with toilet paper and newsprint is the basic supply and demand of the situation, the Tassie government and Gunns the timber company state quite clearly that its an income generating exercise, which is needed in a capitalist society.

Now i have no problem with people having jobs or needing income, or with the responsability of governments and companies to ensure these things happen. However it is TOTALLY OBVIOUS that the environmental impact is devastating.

if you want to see the actual REALITYl environmental laws then check the post about the Weilangata forest win.

http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/...d=40715#p40715

Last year the greens took Forestry Tasmania to court for destroying habitat in state forests and won the case. The court ruled in favor of the FACT that current environmental laws were either totally vague indeed being breached by government sanctioned practices. The Gov is appealing the courts decisions and has sought to change the RFA to omitt those protected species.

In visual terms

they turn this



into this



by doing this



for this


http://www.seven.com.au/sundaysunris...606_styxphotos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper

why do they do it ? - for money
why do they need money ? - cos capitalist function makes it necessary
where do the trees end up? - in the sewage system
whats gained ? - Tasmanians earn income and Japs and other consumers have clean bums
whats lost? - the environment that has been evolving for millions of years

Tasmania is the last frontier, some of the last great forests left, thats why the issue is contentious. Yes people needs jobs and money but the earth needs trees and life needs to live. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I hope than anyone who responds can take the time to check and read those links, it may help generate more informed discussion about what is happening in Tasmania.

And please note that before the frenzy of abuse starts, I am not a Greenie, I just support sensible environmental practices that preserve vital forests and supply woodworkers with valueable timber. I think basic self sufficiency, not import/export dependancy is the answer to having viable jobs for Tasmanians, many industries from the Apples to Wool Mills to Rossi boots have been reduced because of dependance on import/export mentality.

[nic]

There is something wrong in this country with puling stuff out of the ground.
It seems most of the population and gvt thinks that the only way to make the economy work is dig up the ground and export or cut trees and export .
It seems we are all too DUMB to value add to the raw material and so we then buy back our own goods after they has been processed overseas.
Even the middle east realises that pumping oil won't last for ever and they are heavily investing in the future (tourism, business ...)

I find it absolutely appalling that any non plantation forest is cut down.
If a tree is 200 years old the only sustainable foresting practice is to wait another 200 years before cutting another one down.

my 2 cents

Nic

[felixe]

Hi Reeves,

Let me start by saying - good on you for having an opinion (no I am not patronising you) but next time, how about some credible research, the research that you do yourself and not by just surfing the internet!

Your credibility went downhill when you quoted the "Tasmanian Times".
It is nothing more than green propaganda - it would be the same as posting Premier Lennons "myspace" site as a form of reputable research, and posting a link to the "john Butler Treo" forum - why would I want to follow a link to listen to some radical greenies bleat on and on and on.

Lets see - oh yes, cutting and pasting 1080 signs and pictures of woodchips, toilet paper (nice!! ) and clearfelled forests does not constitute an argument.

And also - get out of QLD, go to Tasmania and see what is actually going on, why not even talk to the "locals", get off the beaten track and see it with your own eyes.

I love the last quote - "Yes people needs jobs and money but the earth needs trees and life needs to live. The two are not mutually exclusive"
It seems that we can only cut down trees - but on your terms.

Thanks Reeves - I needed a good giggle

[felixe]

Hi nic, did you know that in Tasmania there are actually pulp and paper mills which turn the raw woodchips into "value added products". There are paper mills in areas such as Boyer on the Derwent River, I remember when I was a kid watching the Barges go up and down between Boyer and Sullivans Cove with huge rolls of paper.

Currently in Tasmania they are trying to build a mill near Georgetown which will process timber into bleached craft pulp for export.

It is just a shame that Gunns and the current Tasmanian Govt have made such a "ham fisted" attempt at getting it built.

Contrary to popular belief - not all timber in Tasmania is chipped and sent out of Triabunna to Asia, just those who rely on the sensationalist media stories to fit their "beliefs".

[Grunt]

how about some credible research,

Show me some credible research that is peer reviewed that wasn't paid for by Gunns/Tasmanian Government.

It seems that we can only cut down trees - but on your terms.

Turning old growth forests into woodchips, shipping it overseas, turning it into toilet paper and shipping it back is complete and utter stupidity. We could grow hemp in marginal soils, use much less water, energy to achieve the same thing.

Your credibility went downhill when you quoted the "Tasmanian Times".
It is nothing more than green propaganda -

As opposed to the right wing bile from the Murdoch stables?

[Grunt]

Contrary to popular belief - not all timber in Tasmania is chipped and sent out of Triabunna to Asia, just those who rely on the sensationalist media stories to fit their "beliefs".

No, some of it actually gets used to make furniture and build houses. A large percentage does get chipped and shipped.

[felixe]

Sorry, that didn't quite post how I wanted it too, you get my ideas. I have tried again and posted below - content is still the same.

[felixe]

Show me some credible research that is peer reviewed that wasn't paid for by Gunns/Tasmanian Government.

As I have always said - stop sitting around reading off the "net" and actually have a look for yourself!

Turning old growth forests into woodchips, shipping it overseas, turning it into toilet paper and shipping it back is complete and utter stupidity. We could grow hemp in marginal soils, use much less water, energy to achieve the same thing.

- Who says our woodchips all end up as toilet paper - That is sensationalist (to say the least) and is worthy of a place on Today Tonight/ACA



As opposed to the right wing bile from the Murdoch stables?

I agree Grunt - but unless you have actually seen what is going on in Tasmania (not just driven around in your rent-a-car) you cannot give a "qualified" opinion on the issue, why not take your next holiday in Tasmania, there are still plenty of trees for all of you, thanks to sustainable logging!

[Grunt]

As I have always said - stop sitting around reading off the "net" and actually have a look for yourself!

You must have some credible research. Tell me the paper that you are basing your opinion on? Or is it that you just worked for an organisation that has an invested interest in wood chipping. I have had a look at the damage that has been done to the forests in the south west of WA.

That is sensationalist (to say the least) and is worthy of a place on Today Tonight/ACA

Sorry, it is a bit sensationalist to say toilet paper. It gets turned into packaging, copy paper, news print, books, magazines etc. As well as toilet paper.

[felixe]

Yes Grunt, I have lived in Tasmania for 25 years, in the City and regionally, i have seen how timber is managed sustainably as a resource and what this contributes to the economy locally and for the State.

I don't need to quote a paper - my research would count as primary research, anyone who lived in Tasmania in the 1990's would remember what the Green/Labor coalition did to the economy when they tried to lock up the forests, it was only once those ratbags were kicked out that the economy got going again.

Yes I did work the Forestry Department, and yes of course they have a vested interest, but by working for them I got to see what really goes on and not from some sensationalist web sites that you get your information from.

Also, when was WA considered part of Tasmania? How can you tell what is happening down in Tasmania by looking at WA?