What is going on in Tasmania?

[Daddles]

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.

Seeing you've got all the research and the experience and first hand knowledge, perhaps you'd like to explain all us ignorant types how destroying old growth forests is sustainable.

Richard

[Clinton1]

one thing you can rest assured on is that 1080 is used .....

again.... check the link to the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries paper.

Come on.... its not a good argument to critiscise web based research by saying that it is not as "real" as taking a look for yourself.... Not refuting the specific details isn't a counter argument... its not much at all.

Unless the Tas DPI (which is a state based 'segment' of the national Primary Industries governmental body) is overrun by greenies and is lying to add fuel to the greens rabid anti-logging bias by spreading misinformation about poisoning practices in Tasmania....
Man.... actually.... I prefer the conspiracy theory....

... however, I'll stick to the "too many vested interests on both sides trying to affect the pendulumn swing to suit their own interests".... and both sides being far, far, far from doing what is best for all involved.... thats the more realistic level of typical human stupidity, spite and resistance to change.... all done in the best of intentions from both sides, of course.

Anyway...
The argument won't develop sensibly as there is too much emotion involved... so the losers will be all of us....
the usual state of affairs...
but thats ok, not like the environment is important or anything,
or if there could be a national support measure for forestry workers that allow them to sustainably log while being in control and "ownership" of developing alternate and more productive industries.

BTW Reeves, thought that your last post was very well constructed... great to see a very well written argument, regardless of the content... thanks.

[Grunt]

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.

The problem is that a growing economy isn't sustainable. You cannot grow indefinitely. The amount of forest product production grows each year. It therefore cannot be sustainable.

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

Because the very same arguments about sustainable practices were used by the WA forestry interests as the by the Tasmanian forestry interests. There is bugger all old growth forest left in WA.


Of course the real problem is this.

[felixe]

Daddles, I don't and have not ever stated that I endorse the logging or "destruction" of old growth forests - period, Check my posts.

I have argued and will continue to argue for the logging of timber as a resource which is vital to the economy of Tasmania, I also argue it can be done sustainably - this has been my point all along.

The problem is when I say I support forestry, you all jump down my throat because you cannot differentiate between sustainable logging and the logging of old growth areas. There are plenty of "tree farms" down in Tasmania planted in areas previously logged and on reclaimed farm land.

I do and will continue to support the forestry as a renewable resource.

Clinton, yes I was wrong on 1080, sorry I thought I had covered that point.

Finally - if you are going to quote facts, figures and websites I am asking that they are reputable. You cannot construct an argument solely on secondary research by pulling articles off the web, I just don't believe it should be the basis of a "well rounded" opinion.

I may be wrong, I don't have all the answers - but please show me the facts, rather than attacking me because I actually have 1st hand experience - which you Daddles, Clinton and Grunt do not.

[Ratbag]

There's an awful lot of emotion flying around in this debate, and a correspondingly alarming lack of evidence to back up many of the protagonist's assertions.

I resent the patriarchal and patronising nature of many of the comments regarding Tasmania's forest husbandry.

Residents of places and descendents of peoples who destroyed and eliminated their own native forests hundreds and even thousands of years ago should know better.

Tasmania's forests have been farmed (and fired) for over thirty thousand years, and for millions of years prior to that in naturally occuring fires, yet Tasmania is 70% forested: of that proportion, some 30% is permanently and irrevocably reserved from harvesting activities.

Is there anywhere else on earth that can claim similar or better figures? Not to my knowledge, but I'm open to persuasive arguments to the contrary, provided they're factual and not emotive.

There are areas of clearfelled/burnt/reseeded wet sclerophyll forests that are on their third rotation of artificial regeneration. Is this an example of inappropriate husbandry?

I will freely admit that Tasmania suffers from an inappropriately monopolistic commercial arrangement for sale and disposal of its forest resouorces.

I have (in private conversation) had a timber company executive brag that they have the power to "hold the government to ransom" in royalty negotiations for forest products.

But this is irrelevant to the question of husbandry of the forests themselves. Wet sclerophyll forests evolved a dependence on catastrophic wildfire for their existence about 150 million years ago. It's part of the natural cycle of plant succession in cool temperate forest ecosystems. It would be ecologically catastrophic to impose a drier forest harvesting technique (such as selective logging) on wet sclerophyllous plant communities.

In reply to the criticisms of all you big islanders and others I would just like to ask: what happened to your forests? Where have they gone? What have you done to them all? What measures are you implementing to make good the damage that you've done? Why are you so concerned about our forest management, and so unconcerned about the mismanagement of forests on a global scale, where irreparablel damage is being done?

[Big Shed]

Nice to see some rational comments RatBag. You don't live up to your name at all.

[reeves]

BTW Reeves, thought that your last post was very well constructed... great to see a very well written argument, regardless of the content... thanks.

Ok thanks Clint, yes I have been researching such things for a while, the move to Tassie on, house is up for sale this week, Juleen is 5 months pregnant and has decided the kid should be born in Tassmania, making him a Tasmanian so shortly I will be moving a heavily pregant SWMBO to the coldest part of town in midwinter and attempting to build a cabin on some nice land. Did you get a chance to check out the RFA and other data ?

Grunt and Daddles excellent data of sustainability you posted, I agree entirely, real sustainability is about sustaining growth not just the use of a buzzword. The 50,000+ hectares of old growth cleared every year for chipping is not sustainable under any stretch of the imagination, its replaced with Euc Nitens and Ecu Globulous plantations that will also be chipped in 20-30 years. The biodiversity lost is huge and the loss of 'minor's species such as Myrtle, Blackwood and sassfras is high, much of which is not collected under craft licenses but is burnt.

Ratbag, interetsing post mate but you seem to be ignoring th fact that there is no regeneration burning of the forests in question, they are being clearfelled via cable logging and the 'waste' is being burnt so the land is clear enough to plant plantation seedlings. They are TOTALLY denuded of the original biodiversity.

in anser to your question

what happened to your forests? Where have they gone? What have you done to them all? What measures are you implementing to make good the damage that you've done? Why are you so concerned about our forest management, and so unconcerned about the mismanagement of forests on a global scale, where irreparablel damage is being done?

For a start, Tasmania is still part of Australia last time I checked so the us and them angle doesnt really hold up ,and in answer to yr questions, land clearing legislation is active in most states, plantation timbers are now mostly used. many tree species and old growth forests are actually gone (try buying some Rose mahogany or old growth red cedar for woodworking, you can get it sometimes but its not easy) and Tasmania has the last remaining stands of temperate rainforests in the world. Its obvious to many 'big islanders' that both Tasmanians and the forests are being screwed, people dont want to see it happen because we know what happened on the mainland. Woodchipping is the problem, pulp for paper not the timber industry which is about 20% of trees cut in Tassie each year.

Felixe, i wont bother responding to your under informed diatribes, your attitude of bagging anyone who might be interested in the truth of the matter as 'greenies' or 'tree huggers' and your delusional attittude to actual facts and figures would suggest your approach to the issue lies in much the same area as a lot of Tasmanians who are only interested in the $ and jobs outcomes not the obvious rape and pillaging of the island by Gunns Ltd and the exploitation of workers needs in order to achieve this. IF you actually READ the Flannagan article and respond in kind I may address some of the misinformation you have presented.

The Tassie times, offers the opportiunity for people of all persuasions to post what they wish and if you can get pass your own predjudices for a moment and actually read the posts you will see that a person who moved to rural tasmania and started a business has been forced to move because of logging practices and a tourist who was concerned about the burnoffs tried to access a air quality reading only to find the department didnt have the machinery to measure the diminshed air quality.

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

The Tasmania Times http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/ has over 16,000 readers per month that would seem to include, workers, academics, greenies, media people and many others and offers a wide range of debate and comment, probably a much fairer and non biased media source than most others. basiclly anyone can post their views on any issues affecting Tasmania. So rather than bagging it you might get better value by reading or participating ;-)

To follow up on the actual topic of what is happening in Tasmania.. this site

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaig...orests-google/

heres a map you can load into the Google earth program http://earth.google.com/
this shows exactly what is happening to Tasmania. Worth grabbing and having a look.

The Tasmania Times http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/ has over 16,000 readers per month that would seem to include, workers, academics, greenies, media people and many others and offers a wide range of debate and comment, probably a much fairer and non biased media source than most others. basiclly anyone can post their views on any issues affecting Tasmania.

The 42% of Tasmania that is protected only includes about 20% of actual rainforest and wet eucalypt forest. The rest is primarily 'above' the tree line, alpine Tundra, and other areas that are not all solid forest. Much of the existing old growth, about 80% and diminishing, is open to clearfelling.

I find that arugements that support the recent Tasmanian economic regeneration via Gunns dominance as ridiculous in the extreme. the majority of the jobs, about 70% are truckdriving, Gunns 'let' go sever hundred contractors after the last election and there has only been job losses in other industries.

ON our last trip down there, the wife and i were happily motoring off to the midwest in the trusty hire car to see some big forests and lo and behold, several log trucks carrying HUGE logs, like one log section to a truck came thundering past, woops there goes the forest we thought. There have been angry complaints from tourists and tourism workers that the excessive logging is hampering tourism and making the island look bad and even hypocritical, as in hey come see our forests and spend your money here but you will have to watch us cutting them down for more money.

Everywhere we went we spoke to 'concerned' people on all sides of any fence, many of which were timber workers and even FT workers. Everyone is 'worried' about the impact of excessive clearfelling and I confirmed in several conversations that there is not significant job increases that are permanent and sustainable, in fact a lot of people are worried by Gunns dominance of the industry and the mechanisation of the industry meaning less people are employed and it's obvious that much of the profits are NOT being reinvested in Tasmania.

When I first went to Tassie 25 years ago it was to pick apples for a season. I had a great time. Since then export apple industry has dissappeared because the buyers such as China have either grown their own apples or get them from cheaper sources. Any export dependance is dangerous in the long term as it fluctuates with demand as does the prices of chips and woodpulp. Self sufficiency is the ONLY means of sustainability and the only way of securing sustainable long term employment for Tasmanians. Check out what is happening at Auspine in Scottsdale as an example of this, over 300 jobs lost because of price dominance wrangling over access to the plantations for pulp amid government interference.

I am happy to discuss these issues within the intent of the original postee Woodbe but please keep the defamation and abuse out of it, it does nothing to generate discussion and sharing of information and it is obvious there are many concerns over this issue.

Interpret this as, if you verbally attack the person posting, it's obvious thats your intent and not discussing the issue and such attacks only make you look stupid and make other readers troll through the abuse rather than reading dialogue and discussing the issue.Its a common tactic used by Gunns and the Lennon government, bullying the opposers because they know their lies and corruption need covering up, stifle debate and crank up the cash registers, make hay while the sun shines because soon it will be gone.

[Ratbag]

Nice to see some rational comments RatBag. You don't live up to your name at all.

Oh, but I do!

Ratbag n. colloq. 1. a rascal;rogue
2. a person of eccentric or nonconforming ideas or behaviour
3. a person whose preoccupation with a particular theory or belief is seen as obsessive or discreditable.

I think it describes me to a Tee! I think the world needs a few more ratbags, actually. Ratbags of the world unite! Stand up & be counted. The alternative is just too dreadful to contemplate: a world populated by slightly coffee coloured, politically correct, asexual, suburban dwelling, beige suited, opinionless yes-(wo)men.

No thanks.

[Big Shed]

I stand corrected!

[silentC]

Ratbags of the world unite! Stand up & be counted.

I'm a ratbag and proud of it!

[reeves]

Oh, but I do!

Ratbag n. colloq. 1. a rascal;rogue
2. a person of eccentric or nonconforming ideas or behaviour
3. a person whose preoccupation with a particular theory or belief is seen as obsessive or discreditable.

I think the world needs a few more ratbags, actually. Ratbags of the world unite! Stand up & be counted.

Yes SWMBO would say thats describes me well so I stand included in the ratgaggery, or just to be rebellious i will sit, or observe from a distance whilst throwing jibes or just leen against a tree picking the banjo whilst other bagrats promote themselves....;-)

dyslexic, woodturning, banjo picking, ukuelele strumming, tree hugging, bagrats of the uncivilised world....rejoice!

mmm

[Ratbag]

Gosh! How stupid of me. Here I was thinking that 20,000 years of geographical, cultural and linguistic isolation meant that I could call myself and my forebears Tasmanian. Does that mean that a Kalahari Bushman, or a Nunavut Inuit or indigenous Tierra del Fuegan is also Australian? Or does it just mean that a mere 106 years of Federalism automatically negates all racial & cultural considerations. Yet I still FEEL like a Tasmanian. Must be the inbreeding...

I'm frightfully ignorant. I didn't know that Tasmania had the ONLY temperate rainforest in the world, or that the temperate rainforests of Chile, Argentina, New Caledonia, Kamchatka, Sakhalin, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, or the cloud forests of sub equatorial South American Nations, and of New Guinea/Irian Jaya had disappeared in a puff of logic overnight. I blame my Botany Professor!

I must be blind, too. I was sure that virtually all old growth logging in Tasmania was conducted by conventional means. I certainly can't recall a lot of cable logging going on, at least not more than about 5-10% of harvesting activity. Isnt Tasmania located a few degrees south of the island of Australia, Lat. 42S, and not on the Pacific North West coast of continental North America, where the majority of clear cut forest harvesting is accomplished by cable suspension?

I must be brain-dead. Fancy thinking that the regeneration burns in cutover coupes that appear in their dozens statewide at this time of year really exist! It must be all smoke and mirrors. Fancy me thinking that regeneration coupes are actually reseeded with endemic spp. I am amazed at my own ignorance! I was sure that such spp. as E. sieberi, amygdalena, delegatensis, regnans, obliqua and others were actually resown on the coupes from which they were collected. I suppose Forestry Tas. just collects the seed for propaganda purposes! Silly old me for thinking that they'd actually use it in a sylviculturally appropriate manner!

Luckily we still have forum full of ill informed, opinionated second hand Europeans who can put us poor old South Islanders to rights, God bless 'em. As we live in such a horrible place, filled with nothing but smoking stumps, rotting poisoned wildlife carcasses and degraded soils, waterways and air, its really amazing that we poor inbred isolated people can actually manage to scratch out any form of existence at all in our degradation and misery. I really think we need to learn the invaluable lessons of how to do it properly just like the way you folks have treated your own forests, and your forebears treated theirs. Please! We desperately need your help.

But personally, I think that would be disturbingly like putting the paedophiles in charge of the boarding school.

[silentC]

Here I was thinking that 20,000 years of geographical, cultural and linguistic isolation meant that I could call myself and my forebears Tasmanian.

Hmm, if that's the case, wouldn't you be Trouwunnians or something? I mean Tasmania is a second hand European term isn't it?

[reeves]

Gosh! How stupid of me. Here I was thinking that 20,000 years of geographical, cultural and linguistic isolation meant that I could call myself and my forebears Tasmanian. Does that mean that a Kalahari Bushman, or a Nunavut Inuit or indigenous Tierra del Fuegan is also Australian? Or does it just mean that a mere 106 years of Federalism automatically negates all racial & cultural considerations. Yet I still FEEL like a Tasmanian. Must be the inbreeding...

must be mate. Personally i think it would a great idea if tasmnaia became independant from Australia , in fact i have been working on such a plan for 20 years, but i wouldnt hold my breath... In fact Tasmania has only been called Tasmania for the last coupla hundred years, van Diemans land for a little while before that and (Aboriginal name: lutrawita or trouwunna) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines when the native peoples had wandered across before the last ice age flooded bass strait. Unfortunaley RatBag, in purely beaucratic terms Tasmania is a state of Australia, i understand it might be difficult for some to accept this but upon examination it probably holds water, at least until the name gets changed in time tho of course if you dont wanna accept it thats fine with me ;-)

As for the Kalihari, Inuit or Patagonian native peoples, generically they would be africans or eskimos or south Americans. If you are referring to th fact you are of indigenous descent but reject any such labelling then i suspect, as the last full blood was wiped out in the 1880's you would be of 'mixed' heritage, part black part white or whatever.

I'm frightfully ignorant. I didn't know that Tasmania had the ONLY temperate rainforest in the world, or that the temperate rainforests of Chile, Argentina, New Caledonia, Kamchatka, Sakhalin, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, or the cloud forests of sub equatorial South American Nations, and of New Guinea/Irian Jaya had disappeared in a puff of logic overnight. I blame my Botany Professor!

you should be, NG , Irian jaya are tropical not temperate, Tassie has one the few remaining temperate cold weather rainforests in the world, the rest being logged, cleared or diminished in some way. Basically theres not much of the stuff left, humans having cleared over 51% of all the world forests so in the interests of survival and global warming, its probably better if less is now fully cleared.

I must be blind, too. I was sure that virtually all old growth logging in Tasmania was conducted by conventional means. I certainly can't recall a lot of cable logging going on, at least not more than about 5-10% of harvesting activity. Isnt Tasmania located a few degrees south of the island of Australia, Lat. 42S, and not on the Pacific North West coast of continental North America, where the majority of clear cut forest harvesting is accomplished by cable suspension?

well maybe you are er in Tassie they use cables for the slopes

Logging steep slopes

Demand for big, straight trees for sawlogs and veneer is also driving logging operations on to steep slopes, especially in the Styx Valley and North-East Highlands. This is carried out using ‘cable logging’ – a means of clearing slopes that would otherwise be too steep to log.

I must be brain-dead. Fancy thinking that the regeneration burns in cutover coupes that appear in their dozens statewide at this time of year really exist! It must be all smoke and mirrors. Fancy me thinking that regeneration coupes are actually reseeded with endemic spp. I am amazed at my own ignorance! I was sure that such spp. as E. sieberi, amygdalena, delegatensis, regnans, obliqua and others were actually resown on the coupes from which they were collected. I suppose Forestry Tas. just collects the seed for propaganda purposes! Silly old me for thinking that they'd actually use it in a sylviculturally appropriate manner!

apparantly the majority of the burns are waste from clearfelling, that is they clear it, piled up the waste and burn it in autumn, FT calls it 'regeneration' for political purposes but the land is cleared of all vegeation and plantations planted, thats what the FT documentation says anyways...i wont link to it as you probably know where it is..;-) thats also what everyone else has told me, like those with craft licences who collect from the coupes..

and yes i am sure they replant the collected seeds but the majority of plantations are single species or low cluster mixed species that suit the MIS plantation schemes are are geared for fast rotation of pulp or hardwood supplies. They also sell the seeds I believe.

Luckily we still have forum full of ill informed, opinionated second hand Europeans who can put us poor old South Islanders to rights, God bless 'em. As we live in such a horrible place, filled with nothing but smoking stumps, rotting poisoned wildlife carcasses and degraded soils, waterways and air, its really amazing that we poor inbred isolated people can actually manage to scratch out any form of existence at all in our degradation and misery. I really think we need to learn the invaluable lessons of how to do it properly just like the way you folks have treated your own forests, and your forebears treated theirs. Please! We desperately need your help.

haha i think you are misundertsandiing the situation ratbag mate its not really a yours or ours situtaion is it? The decisions of forest practices on the mainland were not made by you or I but by governments, companies and administrations as they are in Tasmania. Its not personal. Often in retrospect (luv that word) they cleared too much, caused much damage and are now in a position of trying to regenerate, save whats left, deal with erosion, infestations, animal exitnctions etc etc and continue to exploit timber via plantations. In many places its not working that well.

Tasmania has the opportunity not to have too much to think about in retrospect but i doubt it will sink in. Forest clearing, old growth forest, rainforest is illegal in most parts of Australia and much of the world, mainly cos theres not much left, Tasmania has yet to follow suit. Doesnt mean you cant have a good solid timber industry or forestry practices just means the rape and pillaging stops and biodiversity is retained.

Maybe its time to realise thats Tasmania also in the 21st century ( i can feel the pain from here), that people the world over visit the place and the many mainlanders consider the island part of Australia and are more than entitled to have view son the matter and concerns for the future of the forests.

The web allows anyone to access information about Tasmania from many sources and one of the interesting things about trying to discuss these issues is that Tasmanian seem inordinarliy defensive about it...primarlily unaware of much of the political history and manouverings and blind to the lessons of the past and other places...no wonder old growth forest is diminishing at the rate of thousands of hectares every year for woodchips, they think its theirs....

remember, we r in the soup together...
;-)

[Ratbag]

Hmm, if that's the case, wouldn't you be Trouwunnians or something? I mean Tasmania is a second hand European term isn't it?

Trowwunnan? Strike me pink! Most folks can't even cope with "Tasmanian".

They usually think it's an artificial construct located somewhere between the Hanna Barbera Cartoon Studio backlot (if there is such a place) and the Belgian Congo!

But realistically, you Aussies can't have it both ways. I've been told all my life, as has my family all theirs in living memory, that we're a race apart. Consequently, we must be.

We're physically different, our linguistic differences, albeit subtle, are still recognisable, and we would regard it as exceedingly bad manners to paternalistically lecture our neighbors on such delicate matters as forest husbandry. Especially since Australia can boast history and the world's worst and most rapid example of species extinction and environmental degradation to date.

Why not clean up your own back yard before trying to 'eff up ours?