What is going on in Tasmania?

[silentC]

you Aussies can't have it both ways

I'm a bit confused, are you speaking for all Tasmanians, or just the indigenous ones?

[Clinton1]

Hey Ratbag... here are some of my answers to your questions:

what happened to your forests? Where have they gone?

They got cut down and, to an enourmous extent, they are not there any more... turned into farm land, cities, whatever... a lot of it is 'mongrel waste' that lies unproductive a lot of the time due to what are now known to be really poor assumptions as to what that land could be used for.
Also.... and I can't be bothered dragging out the scientific research, sorry but its there if you google hard and its published and peer reviewed and assessed as 'credible'... and which happens to come from WA.... the forests have been turned into cleared land which is having a very bad effect on the local factors that lead to rainfall generation.

What have you done to them all?

Specifically? thats difficult... everything from just tordon and burn to export to building materials to chip.
Suffice to say that they were used as an easy way to get a profit from what was seen as "more valuable in another form" land.
Basically ... if you did a by the Hectare assessment, most of them just got cleared and turned into grassland, horticulture land and plantation land.

What measures are you implementing to make good the damage that you've done?

Well, measures include very severe restrictions on existing remmnants... trying to desperately conserve what is left and to lock up a lot of it, in particular the resumption of leasehold and forestry and putting that to Nat Parks.
Trouble is that a lot of the 'make good' activities that need to be done cannot get the funding needed to really make a differance, an example of 'out of reach' measures would be the purchase of freehold land to join the isolated pockets of remnant forests to allow the natural environment to actually support species instead of so many species extinctions.

Why are you so concerned about our forest management

Well... does the "our" word include those of us that consider ourselves part of a nation, or residents of the planet... or is "our" being used to mean Tasmanians and Tasmanians only?
So, why the concern... because of the hard lessons learnt from cutting down too much of the forest in other parts of the country and world.

and so unconcerned about the mismanagement of forests on a global scale, where irreparablel damage is being done?

I would not agree that I am unconcerned about the global scale, and I can only speak for myself. I am concerned about the global destruction... but I tend to look in my backyard ... although you may argue that its not my backyard at all.
One of the reasons for acting locally... and perhaps you don't agree with my definition of 'locally'... is that you can have the most impact there.


So, there are some of your questions answered... and can I summarise?

Hard lessons have been learnt from the experience of other areas.
The lessons learnt are costing a large amount of money to try to claw back to a sensible level and type of forest use.

I think that "sustainability" of forest use does not mean that you clear it and plant it with a few select target species... thats very close to what was done elsewhere... and it is not economically or environmentally viable... and it generates a cost burden at a local, state and national level... it is not the best economic use of the land or forest, let alone from a environmental viewpoint.

Also, pulling the "20,000 years" card is a really poor way to get your point across...
I can pull an "ownership" card as well... but it doesn't really achieve much... so, sorry for your loss and hope you get better.... but you'll get no respect for playing that card.

Again... too much emotion in the issue to get to anywhere... so lets all pull out our "ownership" cards and see if we can end up just going nowhere.

The use of the "poor little me" card (your "we poor inbred isolated people" comment) is confusing.
Was that in relationship to "inbred Tasmanians" or "inbred indigenious people"... just interested in which way you want to go... either way is fine, your comment, your call... whatever floats your boat.

Reeves:
I haven't read your links... I'll get to it when I have the time, should be an interesting ride, and I'll think what I think after I read it. I intend to read it... time is the issue is all.

Just liked the way you put your thoughts....
and "Congratulations" to you and Jules... good on you both, although she has the harder job of course...

[Gra]

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?

I believe that is the issue. attempting to stop tasmainia doing to its forests, what the mainland has done. PLEASE learn from our mistakes....

This from a 1st generation mainlander, and desendant of a tasmainian timber mill owner and operator...

[reeves]

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.

Hahha when 'most' of the forestry husbandry is operated by big companies like Gunns or others who manage the MIS plantations and the funds go to the shareholder which dont live in Tasmania. Sure some Tassie workers get some wages but the profits leave the state.Jeez even the trees leave the state as chips or boards or veneer, seems you are reliant on the rest of the world so you cant have it both ways.

basially seeing as you are so happy to sell large chunks of Tasmania to the rest of world, accept $$ from those who visit then yr just gonna have to put up with the rest of world having views on Tasmania. You cant have it both ways as you said ;-)

Especially since Australia can boast history and the world's worst and most rapid example of species extinction and environmental degradation to date.

mm thylacine ? hunted to extinction mmmmm full blood aboriginals hunted to extinction.mm tassie Devil under threat from disease, now on endangered species list....mmm tassie as part of autralia has the same history...

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

hahah doenst look like you need much help ????ing it up, chipping it and selling to the Chinese for 7-15 bucks a tonne, real smart, pulping Myrtle logs for 200 bucks a log, close to the best cabinet timber u can get, real smart.clearfelling forests that are some of the oldest and tallest on earth, that people travel to from all over the world to see and take pictures of ...maybe if Tasmanians were sensible enough to learn the lessons learnt elsewhere the same story of blind exploitation, corporate greed and environmental degradation would not be being played out again in the last place that any semblemce of what was there before Euros came remains...

[Big Shed]

I have been following this (rather heated) debate with interest.

Reeves, just for my edification, when did Gunns become a multi-national?

I was under the impression, obviously incorrectly, that they were an Australian company, listed on the ASX?

[reeves]

I have been following this (rather heated) debate with interest.

Reeves, just for my edification, when did Gunns become a multi-national?

I was under the impression, obviously incorrectly, that they were an Australian company, listed on the ASX?

Big Shed, yes you are correct, they are listed on the ASX and structured as a Tasmania owned company. I use the term techncially incorrectly so I apologise for that.As they ship 'most' of their timber products (chips etc) overseas, hold over seas contracts , sell internationally on many levels informally they could be seen as having multinational interests. For the proposed pulpmill they have contracted international companies to design, build and supply the project. Last time i checked foreign investors can buy shares on the ASX under certain conditions or via investment companies so whilst they are techncially Australian they recieve income from international sources.

Informally they seem to behave a lot like a multinational company, seeking a monopoly, influencing government and basically trying to dominate the playing field and investing in many secondry industries.

Gunns purchased some of their assests from a multinational so they took over the role of a multinational in Tasmania.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...4/s1134211.htm

secondly Gunns has grown recently by purchasing assets that were previously owned by foreign owned multi-nationals, the most recent purchase was from Rio Tinto, a company that has its headquarters in London and most of Gunns current woodchipping operations were in fact purchased from Rio Tinto. Part of that purchase, Gunns purchased the wood supply contract that Rio Tinto had in place with Forestry Tasmania. None of those contracts have changed since Gunns purchased the assets so the question I pose is, why didn't the Greens complain about these contracts when the foreign owned multi-national Rio Tinto had them and the complaints have only arisen since an Australian owned company purchased the assets, assets that were purchased through a properly organised tender process by Rio Tinto.

slightly off topic but relevant in understanding Gunns role in Tassie, in the Lennon interview linked above he states that Gunns employs 4000 people locally.

On Gunns site they claim the figure to be 1600

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...4/s1134211.htm

Gunns Limited was founded in 1875 and employs more than 1600 people across
its diversified business units of forestry, construction, cool climate wine production,
Managed Investment Schemes and hardware retail.

So it isnt easy to see exactly how much Gunn's employs or whether their Growth in the last 10 years, consuming other forestry business along the way has really made the amount of jobs often claimed in support of Gunn's.

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

cheeeeeers
john

[woodbe]

Well, I started this thread, and I have learned a lot from it. I actually thought it had died, but it took off again recently! I'm sure it's not finished yet...

* What I saw and heard while I was in Tassie is probably (sadly) true.

* Many people who live/have lived in Tassie are very defensive about the forestry practices in their state. Some of them are in outright denial.

* Some defenders of the Tassie Forestry industry are just bullies who attack the messenger and/or inflame the discussion.

* Woodworkers don't agree on this subject. Some of us are seemingly happy for native forest to be destroyed or pulped, even though we all appreciate and love to use the fine timber when we get a chance at it.

* It's far easier to attack another person or viewpoint than explain our own.

* We've got a huge job to do to earn a place in the future on this planet.

To those people who have offered a reasonable viewpoint on either side without personal attacks or flamethrowers, I say thank you. Your input has been welcome, and it has been strengthened by your courteous delivery.

To those of you who have accepted criticism and correction openly, I say good on you!

To those who seek to derail the discussion with personal attacks and emotional vitriol, you damage your position by stooping to such depths.

Me, I'll be back in Tasmania before too long, (I've got more photos to take) and I'll pay more than casual attention to these issues next time (I honestly did not go looking for the stuff I did see, it just happened on me)

woodbe.

[felixe]

Reeves just because I don't swing towards the left wing and embrace the "Tasmanian Times" you cannot accuse me of attacking you personally, this was never my intention.

I found your original post very humorous and sensationalist, if you can't take criticisms towards your postings then don't post at all.

I am happy to hear your point of view and I am interested in your visits to Tasmania.

Regarding the dominance of Gunns and others such as Auspine, I have also voiced my displeasure in previous posts, so in my opinion I agree with your post that this domination of the timber industry is not good for the state of Tasmania.


BTW I wish I was delusional it would make the day more interesting, but my attitude to facts and figures are not delusional, I just want real facts that are clearly stated and referenced, if I am going to believe you I should be able to check your facts - surely?

[reeves]

Woodbe, yes thanks for posting the thread, it has been informative, entertaining and I pretty much agree with your summing up...yes these issue are always contentious, both jobs and conservation are vital issues tot he community from whichever side anyones views come from. Lots of people have serious concerns about the management in Tasmania and how environmental exploitation conflicts with tourism and sustainability.

Reeves just because I don't swing towards the left wing and embrace the "Tasmanian Times" you cannot accuse me of attacking you personally, this was never my intention.

hahha who cares Felixe, i dont buy the left/right thing if you look a cross society you will find many people with differing shades of those views, often used to cut and divide any issue and ignore the 'others' sides views, i find it more worthwhile to establish common ground between the various factions, anyways its not about your views or mine but about Tasmania, if you wanna deny yourself the opportunity to read what various Tasmanians have to say about recent events, thats left right, green, workers, academics and all sorts thats fine with me. However I cant see that makes you informed about what various peoples views are, in fact its clear you dont really want to know, fair enough thats up 2 u.

Regarding the dominance of Gunns and others such as Auspine, I have also voiced my displeasure in previous posts, so in my opinion I agree with your post that this domination of the timber industry is not good for the state of Tasmania.

cool, once again you might wanna check the TT for informative discussion on these issues, because its a people post what they want site it probably has the widest range of informative posts on those topics and you would find many in agreement with you.My question would be, so lots of people agree, what can be done to improve the situation ?

if I am going to believe you I should be able to check your facts - surely?

check away Felixe, i am happy to discuss facts and figures any time, the web makes it easy to digest and disseminate diverse sources of information and also see the potential bias behind any site.

On the 'sustainability' issue, it all comes down to what you are trying to sustain, the natural environment, jobs, income, profits, biodiveristy, speciality timber supplies all have different levels of 'self interest' and its notoriously difficult to get a stable balance that can sustain ALL these elements. Thats why Tasmania is so important on a world scale, there probably 'should' be places left on earth where the footprint of humanity can work with nature, sadly the current situation doesnt look like its working out too well for the old growth forests, which supply many woodworkers.

[mark_dugong]

Hi Folks,
My two bob's worth.
Economics-Eco-root word -ekos-Home, nomic-root word-Management
Ecology-Eco-root word -ekos-home, logy-root word-Knowledge.
You just cannot manage your home (Economics) without knowledge and guidance (Ecology)
The two are inextricably linked and to try and separate them is ignorance.
I do hope this has some relevance.
Mark

[dazzler]

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?

Well you've lost me mate. Can you redo this in simple english for me.

[Grunt]

Dazzler, a quick translation. He doesn't think that Tasmania is part of Australia and that us Australians should butt out of Tasmanians business. They're allowed to stuff up their environment because we did.

[dazzler]

Dazzler, a quick translation. He doesn't think that Tasmania is part of Australia and that us Australians should butt out of Tasmanians business. They're allowed to stuff up their environment because we did.

Ohhh. Must be forgetting that the major industry in tas is welfare. Wonder where that money comes from.

Pot at the end of the rainbow perhaps.

[felixe]

Dazzler, with a 5.4% unemployment rate and a workforce participation rate of 60%, how is welfare the major industry?

"Treasurer Michael Aird said in April the number of people employed grew by 400 people to 225,000.
At the same time the jobless rate dropped to 5.4 per cent, the lowest on record.
"The figures show that the number of jobs in Tasmania has risen by 900 in the past year," Mr Aird said.
"Since January, 1999, employment in Tasmania has now risen by 31,300 people or more than 16 per cent.
"Since April, 2002, only Queensland and Western Australia have experienced a faster rate of employment growth than Tasmania."
Mr Aird said the two results leave no room for doubt about the strength of the state economy.
Opposition Leader Will Hodgman welcomed the unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent.
But he pointed out that the participation rate had also fallen 1 per cent for the year and at 60.2 per cent compared very poorly with the national rate of 64.9 per cent." - Source: The Mercury Newspaper (News Ltd), http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story...007221,00.html 11th of May 2007.

Are you smoking that "pot" at the end of the rainbow?

[dazzler]

Hey Felix

"industry" was a bit flippant. The money spent on welfare outranks, or it did a few years ago, all other spending.