What is going on in Tasmania? [Archive]

woodbe

9th April 2007, 04:37 PM

http://bellavist.com/blog/wp-content/photos/Mushroom1.jpg

Doesn't look like much, does it. Bit of a fire. It's taken from Lake Windermere on the Overland track a week or so ago. What you see is the result of a firebomb application to the bush just outside the world heritage area. It's apparently standard practice for preparing native forest for planting in Tassie, and here's how I understand it's carried out:

The site is logged of ‘useful’ timber; Helicopters fly in and ignite the area using a Napalm type of substance that creates a very intense inferno in the area to be cleared. The fire quickly consumes available local oxygen, and there is a large inrush of air from the surrounding area which drives and supports a massive column of smoke and ash. Once the burn is complete, bulldozers move in and push the remnants into windrows. The fire germinates many native plant species which are then eliminated with herbicides. New species of fast-growing pulp-able timber is planted, and Native animals are actively poisoned (carrots laced with 1080) to prevent them from damaging the newly planted trees.

If carbon trading ever gets off the ground, I can’t imagine how this practice could continue. It appalls me that magnificent timber and wildlife is trashed in this fashion. If you search the web, you’ll find that most of the timber taken lands up as woodchip.

While I was away walking the Overland Track, the Federal government announced some plan to spend money preventing de-forestation in third world countries, and the Tasmanian government pushed through a fast-track approval of a new pulp mill that will apparently double the amount of timber chipped in the state.

This all seems terribly hypocritical, and in the curent climate of global warming and general eco-awareness, it's a bit frightening to see such disregard for the land and native animals. Maybe I'm wrong, and this process is a positive, but I'm at a loss to see how...

The smoke filled the sky by dusk, and made for a colourful sunset:

http://bellavist.com/blog/wp-content/photos/BarnBluff1_small.jpg

woodbe.

dazzler

9th April 2007, 08:18 PM

Sadly tasmania is run by a corporation, not a government, so they can do what they like. :((

They even spray with helicopters near streams that feed local water supplies. :?

Grunt

9th April 2007, 10:25 PM

Conservation and capitalism are mutually exclusive. As long as there is money to be made and jobs to be had then we will continue to rape the environment.

Shedhand

9th April 2007, 11:12 PM

10 years ago Tassie was a black hole of misery. No jobs, bugger all investment, more people leaving than arriving, unemployment at record levels, the highest state taxes in the country and a so-called business-friendly Liberal government.
Today, all the above have been reversed. Tassie is now run by a progressive government that puts jobs and economic strength before a few renewable trees. You had to have been living here 10 years ago to appreciate how much better off we are today. If I have to chose between a future for my grandkids or the life of a browsing vermin such as possum or rabbits I'll chose my grandkids every time. There are far too many people calling themselves experts on Tasmania after a fleeting 2 or 3 week visit. I'm just providing a bit of balance to the tripe that the green movement insists on calling fact when it is really only hysteria generated by desperation to have their claptrap accepted as fact. :wink:
Cheers

journeyman Mick

9th April 2007, 11:56 PM

Shedhand,
I've never even been to Tasmania and profess to know nothing about its circumstances. Up here, until world heritage listing, timber was one of the major industries and there were sawmills all over the place with some towns dependant almost entirely on the local mill for their local economy. When world heritage listing came into effect it was pretty devastating, financially, for these communities. It's taken twenty-odd years but there's more employment now in eco tourism and related industries than there ever was in timber. The timber industry talks about sustainable yields but from what I've seen this means just felling the not quite so good stuff further down the track.

Again, like I said, I'm not familiar with all the circumstances but it doesn't appear to me that the practices in your neck of the woods are sustainable. If they're not, then what happens to all those people currently employed by the industry when the timber runs out? I'm not a rabid greenie, but I can see where a lot of our practices are getting us and it ain't good.:no:

Case in point: I used to spend a lot of time out on the reef. Spent a lot of time diving and the reefs were just teeming with life. A mate and I decided to go spear fishing one day so went to a reef set aside for this. It was like an underwater wasteland compared to the reef areas where spearing was not allowed.:( I've never been spearfishing again. In the end, it's important to remember that no matter how important it is for people to have jobs and for communities to have healthy economies it's this earth that sustains us and that we need to look after it. What was it that that indian chief said? Something like "it will only be after the white man has killed all the buffalo and cleared all the forest that he will realise that he cannot eat money"

Yes, I agree, your state government needs to something to build up local economies, but it needs to be something better than just cutting down/digging up/fishing out a resource and sending it overseas, that's stuff that poor, third world colonies did for their masters.

Mick (who's not all that optomistic about the future of this planet:( )

felixe

10th April 2007, 12:05 AM

:rico:

Here we go again..........another "hysterical" thread about clearfelling/logging/woodchipping in Tasmania.

1080 laced carrots - Isn't 1080 banned, I am sure it is!

Herbicides sprayed to eliminate native seedlings?, woodbe I need you to clearly explain to me how this is done without destroying the surrounding forest which would be needed for the "mother trees" to shelter the new seedlings and how the herbicides don't contaminate the ground and have an effect on the subsequent plantings of trees for your supposed fast -growing pulpable timber trees?

You may know the answers so please share them because at the moment I agree with Shedhand, it sounds like you are another greenie doing this......
:flog:

A few comments:

The photo looks like a cloud, not smoke! - Although it could be a cloud of "smug" (see tonights Southpark episode) blowing in from over the Strait.

When a controlled burnoff is used as an option, the land parcel is actually cleared before burning! - this ensures most wildlife escapes as there is no remaining habiat to shelter in.

As there are people on the ground during the controlled burn-off it is hardly the raging inferno you describe, how do I know - I worked a few when I was a youngster!!

Most of the wood does not go to chips (such old propaganda!) it is used for a myriad of uses, here's a few:

Veneers.
Timber for wholesale and retail markets i.e. construction.
Particleboard.
Plywood.
Pulp for paper
and woodchips, there are probably more uses but they escape me at this time. For more information, google Auspine and frenchpine, or talk to a few of the Tassie members who sell wood to other members and you will see there is more to logging than "chips".

While fire is destructive, regeneration, regrowth and harvesting of the forests is a sustainable resource important to the economy of Tasmania.
You only need to check local headlines to see the importance of the Gunns mill and the threat of Frenchpine and Auspine closing and the damage that will have on the economy in Northern Tasmania, especially Scottsdale and surrounding areas, to understand the importance of logging in Tasmania.

I just hope this doesn't degenerate into another "hippie Vs redneck" slanging match. Do we need it? No and if it does then please someone
:lockd:

lock it please!

dazzler

10th April 2007, 12:30 AM

Geez felix it seems that you are the only one causing a slanging match :cool:

Woodbe seemed rather relaxed and lacking in "hippie"talk :2tsup:

Having lived in Tasmania for four years I probably have a little more experience than you so here goes.

Yes it is a fire.

Yes the area is burnt. Not burnt to regenerate but to completely destroy the native species before replanting. These forests are planted, not left to reseed.

Yes the animals are poisoned. They are poisoned to stop them eating the newly planted seedlings. Having travelled all over tassie I have seen the signs advising that poison has been laid in the area. I thought it said 1080 but cant remember exactly. Definately had a skull and cross bones anyway.

There have been complaints that areal spraying with herbicide has been occurring close to boundaries with private farmland. This has been in the print and TV media and has resulted in enquiries and testing of the drinking water around these small towns.

I had a view of the highway from the Huon Valley and watched logtrucks streaming past loaded with logs on the way to Triabunna for export as chips. Not for value adding. Lots and lots and lots of trucks.

If you ever go down for a holiday take a run down the Huon to the Tahune Airwalk. Lovely big stands of trees along the way. But then take the back way out and see the clearfelling that stretches for miles and miles. :no:

Please dont confuse this issue with a responsible sustainable timber industry. :no: It is short term, vote grabbing and money making to the detriment of the future.

I have no idea how to create jobs in Tasmania however THIS type of forest (mis)management is very short term and is at odds with Tasmanias World Heritage, Clean Green and Natural image.

Go for a holiday, youll love it. Just stick to the South West where the trees are.

cheers

dazzler

(Hey sheddie we found something to disagree about other than the footy:p )

Shedhand

10th April 2007, 12:43 AM

Nope. I rest my case. I live here because I love the place. I can afford a nice house close to the city, beaches, the mountain, all the clean air I need and best of all a 100 lifetimes supply of all the beautiful timbers only grown here.
Plenty of jobs, no big city traffic snarls, no termites :D, no stingers and no National party (just for a bit of controversy that one.
All in all we're a happy mob down here and most of the people who run around hugging the trees have plenty to hug and always will.
End of my contribution (which is much milder than my previous responses to threads like this. Gotta love those 'happy pills' man.. :2tsup: :D )
Cheers

Grunt

10th April 2007, 01:14 AM

I'm just providing a bit of balance to the tripe that the green movement insists on calling fact when it is really only hysteria generated by desperation to have their claptrap accepted as fact.

As opposed to the clap trap that is produced by the forestry industry? Those so called scientific reports that are paid for by the industry. They have as much validity as the scientific reports that the tobacco industry paid for that said that smoking wasn't bad for you.

If I have to chose between a future for my grandkids or the life of a browsing vermin such as possum or rabbits I'll chose my grandkids every time.

The future for your grandkids is so very much bleaker than the Tasmania of 10 years ago you speak of.

The most telling thing for me that says the industry is not sustainable is that it is growing at 7% per year according to the last figures I could find. An annual growth rate of 7% means the production will double every 10 years. That means that in the next 10 years they will have produced more timber products than they EVER have produced before. That is plainly not sustainable.

If you doubt my arithmetic, check out Arithmetic, Population and Energy, (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Albert+Bartlett+Arithmetic%2C+Population+%26+Energy&search=Search) this entertaining and scary lecture by Albert Bartlett on youtube. It's in 7 parts and will take about an hour of your time. I can assure you it is not a wasted hour.

dazzler

10th April 2007, 01:17 AM

Just forgot one thing.

Can you name any State Govt Department other than Forestry Tasmania that is exempt by law from responding to Freedom of Information requests :?

Ill shut up now :D

Grunt

10th April 2007, 01:21 AM

The latest figures I could find on the growth of the industry were from 2001 because they are now not available due to 'Commercial in Confidence' and the FOI not being applicable to Forestry Tasmania.

martrix

10th April 2007, 01:31 AM

The majority of timber that leaves Tassie is in the form of wood chips for Asian pulp mills, I have seen the massive cargo ships full of them.

I agree with Dazzler in that the state is run by a corporation.

woodbe

10th April 2007, 01:41 AM

Here we go again..........another "hysterical" thread about clearfelling/logging/woodchipping in Tasmania.

1080 laced carrots - Isn't 1080 banned, I am sure it is!

Herbicides sprayed to eliminate native seedlings?, woodbe I need you to clearly explain to me how this is done without destroying the surrounding forest ....

Y'know, I was just reporting what I saw and heard. I'm not offering an explanation because I don't have one. On the other hand, I didn't like what I saw, and excuse me for saying so.

Watched Lateline tonight, they were interviewing a bloke in the US. There has been a supreme court action there, and the result is that the Supreme Court has directed the EPA to regulate Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant detrimental to man.

I'm not a tree-hugging greenie, I'm not hysterical, but I'm beginning to think I should be.

You should see the massive Myrtles and King Billy Pines I saw last week. Stunning.

By the way, There's a Tassie Design Centre in Launceston displaying some fabulous furniture work by local woodworkers.

woodbe.

felixe

10th April 2007, 09:56 AM

Sorry if it came across that way guys, I am not out for a slanging match, just want to have my say based on "experience" - please don't take it as a slanging match and I will be upfront and apologise to dazzler and woodbe if I came across as offensive.

But.... (here goes!)

Geez felix it seems that you are the only one causing a slanging match :cool:

Woodbe seemed rather relaxed and lacking in "hippie"talk :2tsup:
Having lived in Tasmania for four years I probably have a little more experience than you so here goes.

No you haven't I lived there from when I was born until I was 25, and during that time lived in the Huon valley where they log frequently and timber is a resource which keeps the area alive.

Yes the area is burnt. Not burnt to regenerate but to completely destroy the native species before replanting. These forests are planted, not left to reseed.

When I worked for the forestry commission in Tasmania (Then it was still called the forestry commission) I worked on a few burnoffs - It is and was my understanding from working there that fire is used to assist in regenerate the ground / area and to eliminate the waste left over from logging - I know they replant, I did not imply (or mean to ) that it was left to re-seed naturally.

Yes the animals are poisoned. They are poisoned to stop them eating the newly planted seedlings. Having travelled all over tassie I have seen the signs advising that poison has been laid in the area. I thought it said 1080 but cant remember exactly. Definately had a skull and cross bones anyway.

I didn't question the laying of baits, but anyone from Tassie knows that 1080 was and still is a sensitive issue, due to the fact that it remains in the food chain long after the animal which consumed the bait has died. In the past this has led to a drop in the native population of scavengers such as devils. The 1080 issue is frequently dragged out by greenies as a scare tactic and this is why I asked for clarification - I would still like to know am I correct that it is banned?

Also baits are laid for other reasons such as foxes! It is a long bow to draw saying that because you saw signs across Tasmania about baits they were laid for forestry purposes, I assume some would be because of farming.

There have been complaints that areal spraying with herbicide has been occurring close to boundaries with private farmland. This has been in the print and TV media and has resulted in enquiries and testing of the drinking water around these small towns.

And a big problem is that these acres of trees have been planted on farmland, not necessarily reclaimed native forests.
At the moment in Tasmania it is a fact that due to federal tax laws it is advantageous to buy up huge lots of land from farmers and plant trees. Farmers find it more profitable to sell up and move on, the result is a drop in the production of primary industries (agriculture). I still think that de-regulation of the dairy industry in the 90's was a stupid idea, but i digress.

I had a view of the highway from the Huon Valley and watched logtrucks streaming past loaded with logs on the way to Triabunna for export as chips. Not for value adding. Lots and lots and lots of trucks.

Uh huh, and I lived at Glen huon for 8 years on Glen huon road and saw them go by, saw them go by when I lived at Franklin for 2 years and 2 years at Longley (plus the rest of the time in Hobart - gee I hope it gives me some credibility!)
My point is - and it cannot be denied, not all timber goes to Triabunna, there are plenty of mills on the way including in the Huon.
Yes timber does get chipped, but it is a renewable resource and still an integral part of the economy - I agree with Shedhand!

If you ever go down for a holiday take a run down the Huon to the Tahune Airwalk. Lovely big stands of trees along the way. But then take the back way out and see the clearfelling that stretches for miles and miles. :no:

Don't need to - please see above I spent plenty of time living down there, and if I revisit the sites I worked at with the forestry department I would see they have re-grown.
Yes it is ugly, but so is the East Coast from Bicheno to St Mary's/Germantown (I know my way around - see!:D ) at the moment, go back in 5 years after the fire and see what has re-grown, even without the assistance of re-seeding by man.

Please dont confuse this issue with a responsible sustainable timber industry. :no: It is short term, vote grabbing and money making to the detriment of the future.

At no time did I set out to confuse the issue, but it is irresponsible to take a picture of a cloud in the sky and based on "word of mouth" (unless woodbe would like to clarify he went to the source of the cloud) and start making rash statements about clearfelling and burnoffs!!
I still argue, based on experience of being Tasmanian by birth and having worked for the forestry department, that the timber industry can be sustainable.

I have no idea how to create jobs in Tasmania however THIS type of forest (mis)management is very short term and is at odds with Tasmanias World Heritage, Clean Green and Natural image.

Tasmania is isolated geographically which at the present time hinders it economically, this is unfortunate. I am one of the people Shedhand talks of who left in the 90's due to high unemployment, recession and limited future, one day I will return, at the moment the opportunities in Qld are still better.
Forestry will always be part of the economy. I will agree with you on this point, yes it is currently mismanaged, but that;s just because I am biased and believe Lennon is a crook!

Go for a holiday, youll love it. Just stick to the South West where the trees are.

Don't need to thanks Dazzler, I was back there at christmas like I do every year, I go all over the state, including down past Geeveston and into the Tahune.

cheers

dazzler

(Hey sheddie we found something to disagree about other than the footy:p )

In summary, Dazzler I am Tasmanian, and also now a canetoad, I don't need to be patronised and spoken to as if I live in an Ivory tower in Qld.:oo:

dazzler

10th April 2007, 10:04 AM

Apologies all round :D

felixe

10th April 2007, 10:10 AM

Bloody hell there I go again, sorry everyone. :- :-

Again, Woodbe I apologise, at no time was I insinuating or do I believe you are a tree hugging hippy. Sorry for jumping down your throat.:-

But I have to ask this, everyone gets upset about the clearfelling of trees in Tasmania's forests, but no-one complains about the massive land clearing (for example between Brisbane and the GoldCoast) and urban sprawl which is much more prevelant in NSW, Vic and Qld than in Tasmania.

Why?

I don't want to take on the world, but I agree with Sheddie!!

Not another word I promise!

dazzler

10th April 2007, 10:59 AM

come on, just one more :D:D:D:p

I think people are biased about tassie cause it is such a lovely place :D

no more, I promis :wink::p

Clinton1

10th April 2007, 11:59 AM

1080 laced carrots - Isn't 1080 banned, I am sure it is!
No, still in use and is the poison of choice as it does not build up in the environment, just kills what eats it.
See this DPI Tas paper (http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZM7CX?open).

Ahhh, glad to see someone raised the issus of Forestry and land clearing, and land clearing for urban sprawl.

Solution? Implement a vermin control program for humans, bloody population is in plague proportions wrt land degradation impacts. :wink:

Edit: and I do believe that the intense burns carried out for planting a 'selected species' or monoculture 'forestry' regeneration is designed to rid the ground of competing 'weed' species... ie get rid of the seed bank in the soil. sad.

dazzler

10th April 2007, 03:07 PM

You still alive...........no darts or rocks in the head :p :wink:

woodbe

10th April 2007, 08:24 PM

Felixe,

At no time did I set out to confuse the issue, but it is irresponsible to take a picture of a cloud in the sky and based on "word of mouth" (unless woodbe would like to clarify he went to the source of the cloud) and start making rash statements about clearfelling and burnoffs!!

Enough shooting the messenger. It's NOT a cloud. If it concerns you that I claim to have seen this stuff so much, all I can ask of you is that you ask yourself one simple question:

What if woodbe is telling the truth and this really is happening?

I'm not a scumbag mate. We had perfectly clear skies that day, made camp early at about 3PM. One of our group pointed out a large mushroom cloud in the east above the forest line, and we all sat there watching it. Later on we found someone to explain what it was, and that's when I took the photo. By then the mushroom had collapsed. I'm not exaggerating, it was massive. Awe-inspiring in speed of generation and size.

It was also clearly not cloud. By dusk, the smoke had covered the whole sky, and you can see that it was rolling past Barn Bluff as you can see in the second photo. The smell of woodsmoke in the air in the morning was also pronounced.

I can tell you about 12 people who saw it, and none of them made the slightest suggestion it was cloud. And no, I didn't go to the source, it was probably 20+ kms away. Others here have explained what is apparently going on independant of my description.

For what it's worth, it sounds like the game has changed significantly since you were there. For starters, it's not Forestry Tasmania, it's private enterprise...

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Mark Twain

woodbe.

ernknot

10th April 2007, 08:45 PM

ozwinner

10th April 2007, 08:48 PM

Rightho kiddies, settle down..

Al :)

Grunt

10th April 2007, 08:54 PM

Solution? Implement a vermin control program for humans, bloody population is in plague proportions wrt land degradation impacts.

Absobloodylootly.

ozwinner

10th April 2007, 08:59 PM

Grunt and the Princess Grunt!!

Step forward, you have been chosen for termination, congratulations. :2tsup:

Al :doh:

woodbe

10th April 2007, 10:12 PM

Are you a woody or a tree hugger? if you are a tree hugger - bugger of if you are a woody - get real.

I can't imagine why those options are mutually exclusive.

This is not about me, seems that I have raised a prickly subject though.

I was appalled with what I saw and heard in Tasmania, still am.

The discussion against what I have shown seems to revolve around 2 premises:

Either

1) It isn't happening, woodbe is lying or horribly misinformed.

2) It might be happening, but it doesn't matter because it's good for Tasmania.

Happy to continue discussing it if people can lay off personalising it.

woodbe.

scooter

10th April 2007, 10:18 PM

Happy to continue discussing it if people can lay off personalising it.

Agree, play the ball not the man.

Grunt

10th April 2007, 10:48 PM

Yes, it's amazing how many people on these forums have posted that they hate 'Greenies' and 'Tree Huggers' and other derogatory terms for those who actually care something about the world we live in.

I'm with Kermit, it isn't easy being green.

Grunt

10th April 2007, 11:06 PM

Grunt and the Princess Grunt!!

Step forward, you have been chosen for termination, congratulations. :2tsup:

Al :doh:

I've always thought I'd be the first with my back to the wall when the revolution comes.

:D

Iain

11th April 2007, 08:01 AM

I spent two years with Constipation Forest and Lands in Vic and we used to have burn offs prior to re seeding, aircraft used to drop ping pong balls load with potassium permanganate injected with antifreeze into the regen area and hopefully start either a regen or fuel reduction burn (which we all know grow into massive uncontrollable bushfires).
Before this trees are felled and the 'gumnuts' seed pods were removed and placed on racks in a drying room, looked like single bed frames without the mattress, the rooms were heated to about 80c for memory for a few days to open the seed pods then the frames were shaked violently, the seeds would fall to the floor.
When all the rascks were done they were removed and a special machine was used to pick up the seeds (a broom, shovel and rubbish bin) and the seeds were then coated with an anti fungul goo.
After the burn these seeds were handed out to workers who would stuble through the rough terrain tossings seeds all around and then wait for a new forest to appear, don't forget a cut lunch as it takes a while.
There were also what was known as reference areas, a dfark secret and never shown on maps, but these areas had to remain untouched so species could be observed by scientists.
In the national parks were some examples of government filth, some of the vilest tips I have seen including a large rock crevice with a stream flowing below into which all sorts of the workers camp waste was dumped, but God help you if you tossed a can out of your car window.

felixe

11th April 2007, 03:41 PM

:wavetowel2: 'scuse me Sir- Mr Ozwinner, may I say something.................:D

ozwinner

11th April 2007, 06:17 PM

:wavetowel2: 'scuse me Sir- Mr Ozwinner, may I say something.................:D

Go for it.

Al :?

felixe

11th April 2007, 06:58 PM

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
No-one, not even me directly referred to you as a "scumbag" so get over it!
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!!
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

11th April 2007, 08:12 PM

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

11th April 2007, 08:33 PM

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

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.:p

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

12th April 2007, 06:41 PM

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. :rolleyes:

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

9th May 2007, 09:06 AM

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/flanagan_forestsarticle.pdf

http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/image/294/homepage/m-tas_landsat_home-m.jpg

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/ (http://tasmaniantimes.com/)

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/
http://www.news-tasmania.com/touring-tasmania/images/1e.jpg
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/weblog/comments/we-are-moving-out/
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/three-days-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/
(http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/policy/rfa/rfa-indicators.pdf)

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.tasforests.green.net.au/new%20logging%20NW.htm)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...639671045.html (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/21/1058639671045.html)

he plan to log a new virgin forest in the Apple Isle is set to become the new wilderness flashpoint. Andrew Darby reports. <bod> </bod>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/weblog/comments/we-are-moving-out/
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/P18/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timber_Communities_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/viewtopic.php?pid=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

http://www.seven.com.au/catalogueFiles/sundaysunrise/images/03_styx_300x240.jpg

into this

http://www.seven.com.au/catalogueFiles/sundaysunrise/images/11_woodmills_300x240.jpg

by doing this
http://www.seven.com.au/catalogueFiles/sundaysunrise/images/09_aftermath_300x240.jpg
http://www.seven.com.au/catalogueFiles/sundaysunrise/images/07_helifire_300x240.jpg

for this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Toiletpapier_%28Gobran111%29.jpg/800px-Toiletpapier_%28Gobran111%29.jpg

http://www.seven.com.au/sundaysunrise/features_040606_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

9th May 2007, 09:28 AM

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

9th May 2007, 09:36 AM

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!!:D ) 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:2tsup:

felixe

9th May 2007, 09:43 AM

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".:rolleyes:

Grunt

9th May 2007, 09:57 AM

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

9th May 2007, 10:04 AM

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".:rolleyes:

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

felixe

9th May 2007, 10:07 AM

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

felixe

9th May 2007, 10:09 AM

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!:rolleyes:

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 :clap:

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!:p

Grunt

9th May 2007, 10:18 AM

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

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

9th May 2007, 10:28 AM

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,:p 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?:p

Daddles

9th May 2007, 11:09 AM

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

9th May 2007, 11:23 AM

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

again.... check the link to the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries paper (http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZM7CX?open).

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

9th May 2007, 12:09 PM

I don't need to quote a paper - my research would count as primary research,:p 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?:p

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.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2101/populationbb0.jpg

felixe

9th May 2007, 01:10 PM

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

9th May 2007, 01:45 PM

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

9th May 2007, 02:04 PM

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

reeves

9th May 2007, 02:31 PM

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/weblog/comments/we-are-moving-out/
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/three-days-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/campaigns/forests/tasmania/tas-forests-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

9th May 2007, 02:32 PM

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

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

9th May 2007, 02:59 PM

I stand corrected!:2tsup:

silentC

9th May 2007, 03:20 PM

Ratbags of the world unite! Stand up & be counted.
I'm a ratbag and proud of it!

reeves

9th May 2007, 04:03 PM

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

9th May 2007, 04:24 PM

silentC

9th May 2007, 04:35 PM

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

9th May 2007, 05:05 PM

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

9th May 2007, 05:14 PM

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?

silentC

9th May 2007, 05:31 PM

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

9th May 2007, 05:34 PM

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...:2tsup:

Gra

9th May 2007, 05:40 PM

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

9th May 2007, 06:01 PM

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

9th May 2007, 06:35 PM

reeves

9th May 2007, 07:40 PM

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/content/2004/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/content/2004/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

9th May 2007, 11:32 PM

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

9th May 2007, 11:59 PM

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

10th May 2007, 11:27 AM

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

11th May 2007, 03:13 PM

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

11th May 2007, 05:30 PM

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

11th May 2007, 06:43 PM

dazzler

11th May 2007, 06:55 PM

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. :wink:

felixe

11th May 2007, 09:06 PM

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/0,22884,21710931-5007221,00.html 11th of May 2007.

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

dazzler

11th May 2007, 09:17 PM

Hey Felix

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

woodbe

11th May 2007, 09:42 PM

Source: The Mercury Newspaper (News Ltd), http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21710931-5007221,00.html 11th of May 2007.

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.

Ok, Felixe, you're guilty under your own standards. :no:

woodbe.

felixe

11th May 2007, 09:50 PM

Why because I quoted from a reputable source, which reported directly from a "reliable" Government department ( and probably backed up by ABS statistics)??:D

Oh no - naughty me!:q :D

felixe

11th May 2007, 09:54 PM

Sorry Woodbe, I should also add that while I was down in Tasmania in January it appeared to me that the economy was strong and proserous and this was indicated by the number of gainfully employed people I saw striding around as I was having my holiday.:D

The News Ltd article is a reliable source of secondary information to support my own primary research I undertook while on holidays.:wink:

Am I off the hook?:q

woodbe

11th May 2007, 11:22 PM

Felixe,

No. :D

woodbe.

reeves

12th May 2007, 08:26 AM

Well Felixe, the job figures are so good it doesnt look like they need a 2 billion$ Pulp Mill does it?

As for your comments on 'reputable' sites. Any source government, media or private can be biased or provide misinformation, the only way you can suss it out is to check various sites and cross compare info.
I have no prob with those stats, standard ABS stuff and pretty much common knowledge. I do have a problem with the ridiculous attitude you promote that somehow you know ALL about the Tassie issues and are right about it all anything anyone else says or what different sites say has 'no credibility' in your eyes. As for seeing people gainfully employed (that you laughingly call research) thats because of two reasons,one the Howie government has been hardling people off welfare since they got in and two because Tasmania now has growth in a variety of business areas more closley linked to to Tourism than resource exploitation.

Check this post from an entirley legitimate site run by Tasmanians for Tasmanians that advertises Tasmanian businesses and allows open comment.. often has links to mainstream media or government sources.(the same ones you link to).The article is written by a bloke with a long working history in Tassie inlcuding tourism developments.

TWENTY years ago a small island endured a heated debate around a plan for a controversial world-scale chlorine pulpmill. The Premier warned the economy would be ruined without it. Opponents were slammed as anti-development.
The pulpmill didn’t proceed. Yet, ironically, over time unemployment halved and the economy boomed. New vibrant industries created jobs and tourism flourished. The island’s lifestyle became the envy of the nation, community conflict began to heal and the islanders discovered a positive attitude and love of their land.
That island is, of course, Tasmania.
In 1989, when the Wesley Vale pulpmill was stopped, Tasmania’s unemployment was the highest in Australia at almost 10%. Now, 20 years later, unemployment is down to only 5.4%, no longer lagging behind the other states. Participation is strong at over 60%. 35,000 new jobs have been created. Economic growth over 3% is ahead of the national average of 2.8% and in front of NSW, Victoria and South Australia. Our youth no longer leave the state in droves to find jobs and for the first time we have recorded positive net interstate migration figures.
If the pulpmill proponents had been correct, Tasmania’s economy should be in tatters rather than the nation’s success story.
The full economic picture is even more startling. Numerous other resource-intensive industries shed hundreds of jobs as they struggled with global competition. In round numbers, employment fell at Comalco by about 700; at EZ by 2000; at ANM 600; Renison 400; Savage River 600; Temco 500; EZ Roseberry 1000; Tioxide 600; King Island Shelite 400; and Mt Llyell 1500. The forest industries cut 5,000 jobs as the focus turned to pulpwood.
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.
What led to this clean, green and clever economic resurgence? The answer lies in the seismic events of Tasmania’s last 20 years centered on environmental protection and social progress.
No issue has featured more prominently in Tasmania than forestry. The debate has been ferocious. Time and time again the forest industry has claimed protecting wild areas will turn Tasmania into a basket case, but the evidence is very different. Every time a National Park has been created or an old growth forest protected, unemployment has fallen as new economic activity is generated.
With twenty five percent of Tasmania now protected as National Parks and World Heritage Areas, unemployment keeps falling. The forestry industry has been wrong. Protecting our wild country creates jobs. Hard working Tasmanians previously employed in the resource industries are finding secure work in the new industries. The few ideological extremists who still claim protecting the environment costs jobs, are now little more than a well funded vocal minority.
Tourism has become Tasmania’s economic powerhouse. The turning point was saving the Franklin River. Since then the number of tourism visitors have tripled to over 800,000 and the amount they are spending has doubled to nearly $1.2 billion every year (coincidentally roughly the same as the total cost of the pulpmill). Even Forestry Tasmania has had to move into this growth sector to offset their losses. Employment has risen by over twenty five percent. Tourism is now our number one employer and twice the size of any other industry.
Many of Tasmania’s emerging industries rely on our new ‘clean green’ brand. The image of a verdant, wild island where innovation flourishes, underpins our fine food, wine, agricultural, marine farming, organic and fishing industries.
The clean green brand could not have been created when resource businesses dominated Tasmania. In fact it was the collapse of the old industries which allowed the new sectors to take root.
The revolution in Tasmania’s social policy has also been instrumental in our new economic revival. Our parliament has passed some of the nation’s must progressive laws. Gays and lesbians are no longer criminals and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is outlawed; we have the toughest gun control; we’re the first state to apologise to and compensate the stolen generation; we have handed land back to the traditional owners, stopped using 1080 in state forests and banned industrial dumping at sea.
Each time Tasmania has acted to protect the environment and create a more caring, progressive and inclusive community, unemployment has fallen and economic activity has increased.
Together, the social and environmental reforms have created fertile ground for our new economy based on creativity and a wild pristine environment. The variety of innovative industries is staggering - from computer technology, organic cosmetics, software to map the oceans, intricate fine furniture and elaborately transformed manufactures.
The new ‘Tasmania’ has become a magnet for what Saul Eastlake calls the ‘creative classes’. The success or failure of regional economies is now dependent on attracting and keeping these innovators and some are already saying they will leave Tasmania if the pulp mill proceeds.
This economic transformation didn’t come about by accident. At first the Greens promoted the new economic strategy. Later Liberal Premier Rundle embarked on a brave industrial plan to support and foster emerging clean green industries. Labor Premier Bacon continued the work. Until Paul Lennon, Tasmania’s successful industrial strategy was backed by all political parties.
Leading industry strategists like Professor Porter support the strategy, “The conflict between environmental protection and economic competitiveness is a false dichotomy.” Kenichi Ohmae agrees, “We have to accept the fact that natural resources are no longer the key to wealth.”
In truth, the pulpmill is a dangerous distraction monopolizing Tasmania’s economic horizon. Industry debate is dominated by it. The government bureaucracy is focused almost exclusively on it. Our Minister for Economic Development, Paul Lennon, is totally mesmerized by it. This myopic vision has distracted our public resources and political attention so fully Tasmania is ignoring industries at the heart of our economic revival.
Equally worrying Tasmania is failing to explore emerging opportunities. The world’s economies are about to undergo an industrial revolution the likes of which we have never seen before. The climate change challenge will create more business opportunities than the agricultural, information and biotechnology revolutions combined. What is our government doing? We don’t have a single officer in Economic Development dedicated to it and Paul Lennon was the only Premier who didn’t attend Kevin Rudd’s summit.
The pulpmill would employ about 250 but it will undermine the basis of our new economy. Already the controversy is doing damage to our brand as mainlanders learn Tasmania may soon be home to one of the world’s biggest industrial polluters. A decision to go ahead with a resource development of this immense scale will signal a ‘U turn’. It would take Tasmania back to our failed resource-intensive development strategy.
Paul Lennon says building the pulpmill will hang an ‘open-for-business’ sign on Tasmania. Open to fast-tracked, polluting, resource-extractive industries maybe, but firmly ‘closed’ to the new clean green and clever industries responsible for Tasmania’s economic renewal.
Turning back to focusing on the industries of the past will cast a heavy shadow over Tasmania’s future and our island’s new-found economic sunshine.
Rod West is currently undertaking a $12 million tourism development on the Tasman Peninsula. He has established Tasmanian businesses focused on gourmet food, fine furniture, organics and learning and discovery. He was Chief of Staff for the Tasmanian Greens during the Liberal Minority Government and previously a branch Vice-President of the ALP in the ACT. http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/Environment_Vs_Jobs.pdf
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/truth/

RETIRED

12th May 2007, 08:54 AM

Keep it nice now people.

reeves

12th May 2007, 08:55 AM

sorry for the double post guys but in the spirit of the original question..what is going on in Tasmania, this post represents the views of professionals regarding the economic 'directions' the Lennon government is 'leading' Tasmania into

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21716550-601,00.html

Premier 'misleading' on mill benefits

<cite>Matthew Denholm</cite>
May 12, 2007
SENIOR economists have accused the Tasmanian Government of failing to adequately assess the economic impact of the $2billion pulp mill that timber company Gunns wants to build in the state's north.

In defending his decision to fast-track the controversial project, Premier Paul Lennon has repeatedly warned that, if it falls over, the state will return to the economic "dark days" of the mid-1990s. Mr Lennon has warned of a repeat of the collapse in jobs and investment that followed the failure of the Wesley Vale pulp mill proposal after a community backlash in 1989.
Several senior economists - including Saul Eslake, chief economist with ANZ, Gunns's banker - have told The Weekend Australian they disagree with the Premier's claim.
"It is not sound, economic logic," Mr Eslake said. "The dark days into which Tasmania sank in the 1990s were not primarily a response to Wesley Vale (pulp mill proposal) falling over, but were instead a consequence of the fiscal ineptitude of the Gray government."
Mr Lennon has also claimed that by adding $6.7billion to economic output over 25 years, the mill would mean "each household is likely to have $870 extra every year to spend".
University of Tasmania associate professor of economic policy Graeme Wells said this was "palpable nonsense" and "misleading at best".
The Lennon Government's fast-tracking was a response to Gunns's decision to withdraw the project from the state's independent planning body. The new process allows government-appointed consultants to recommend that parliament approve the mill even if it fails to meet pulp mill emission guidelines.
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. Many such producers in the Tamar Valley fear the mill will destroy their businesses by undermining their "clean, green" image. They are seeking government guarantees for compensation.

felixe

12th May 2007, 09:59 AM

I do have a problem with the ridiculous attitude you promote that somehow you know ALL about the Tassie issues and are right about it all anything anyone else says or what different sites say has 'no credibility' in your eyes.

Oh Reeves, you make me smile! I love your posts, I always get a giggle:D

I have never said or promoted that I know about all Tassie issues, this is your attempt to discredit me by insinuating that I am a "know it all" with an opinion on everything.
Sorry but this is not so, I am humble enough to acknowledge I don't know all the facts. But this will not stop me from giving my opinion, and I certainly welcome the opinion of yours and others, it is what makes discussions on this forum so rewarding.
You need to lighten up, I thought this was a discussion on "whats going on in Tasmania" and the Timber industry in Tasmania. :p

This is actually relating to Dazzlers post - I disagreed with his statement, I argued a case, he clarified his position.
I actually believe Dazzlers last post, that money on welfare outranked all other spending (again I could be wrong).

I read your posts and the related articles, it is good to see you are posting articles from "reliable" media, not just that ratbag newspaper the Tasmanian Times (The number of times you use the Tasmanian Times, I have to ask - Do you have an "interest" in this Business? I can't think of any other reason why you would promote the website so often.):?

Anyway, I agree with the Australian article, if the pulp mill does not go ahead it shouldn't be the end of the world, however it is definitely a bonus to the economy if it is established. The fast-tracking of the mill has raised plenty of media concern and does not reflect favourably on Paul Lennon or his Government.

Tasmania has a "diversified" economy, in your post where you ridiculed my observations (A personal attack on my opinions! - and hypocritical if you refer back to your post on page 4) you failed to give credit to the Labor Government of Jim Bacon who played a role in reviving the economy after Gray and the Greens stuffed it up in the early to mid 90's. But why can't a diversified economy have sustainable logging and forestry as a part of the economy?

dazzler

12th May 2007, 12:48 PM

Keep it nice now people.

They need to (insert dr evil voice) " get a Freeeeking room" :)

dazzler

12th May 2007, 12:49 PM

And I still dont know what ratbag was talking about:D

reeves

12th May 2007, 01:04 PM

I am humble enough to acknowledge I don't know all the facts. But this will not stop me from giving my opinion, and I certainly welcome the opinion of yours and others, it is what makes discussions on this forum so rewarding.

mmm some pretty heavy self referencing there Felixe, I am sure that other members including myself can draw their own conclusions from your posts about whether you are indeed humble or agree with you about not knowing all the facts (pretty obvious really and who does, we all have much to learn which i guess is why Mr Woodbe posted this thread in the first place). As for welcoming the opinion of others well your recent posts indicate that you 'could' go a little further in welcoming the views of other members, but thats just my opinion ;-)

http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/icedance_thumb.JPG

I read your posts and the related articles, it is good to see you are posting articles from "reliable" media, not just that ratbag newspaper the Tasmanian Times (The number of times you use the Tasmanian Times, I have to ask - Do you have an "interest" in this Business? I can't think of any other reason why you would promote the website so often.):?

Well let me explain a little, in your first response to my initial post you stated

Your credibility went downhill when you quoted the "Tasmanian Times".So not only do you choose to attack my credibility because i referenced a successful Tasmanina community website but you are suggesting that the site has 'no credibility' because as you later outlined it as run by 'ratbag greens'. Now really Felixe those comments would suggest that not only are you willing to bag forum members for exercising our rights to post freely but also thousands of Tasmanians who enjoy the same rights, not a good way to be seen as 'open' or knowledgeable on such issues.

To make my view clear on this, I am refuting your claims about credibility and 'suggesting' that if you can get past your own limited and predjudical views, you may consider reading some of the articles there and looking into the responses of Tasmanian citizens represented by the articles and comment, rather that your incorrectly percieved motivations on who runs the site, which in my view (and the 16000 or so people who visit it every month) is a lot more detailed and indepth in terms of gaining information about what is going on in Tasmania. I have no vested interest in TT as you claim , other that seeing it as a great site that offers articles and comment free from the restrictions of mainstream media which is always limited to the views of editors and journalists on the payrole. I am saying why not read the articles and posts by Tasmanian people and forget about who may be 'running' it.

An example of the more detailed information available is Mr Saul Eslake, the ANZ economist ( an entirley credible proffesional) quoted above by the Australian newspaper. Now if you want to read a lot more of his information, read comments on his information and even contact him yourself, you will find the opportunity to do so on TT. This article by Mr Eslake has a lot more up to date detail on the Tasmanian economy than will ever be published by mainstream newspapers.It is published by Mr Eslake himself on TT.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/saul2.pdf

In fact if you are interested in some serious proffessional research on the issue of current Tasmanian economics it is contained in that PDF.

You will find many other posts by him (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/search/results/6128021ef4e72097a74c0577ad902785/) as well as other Tasmanian and mainland professionals innvolved in Tasmanian issues. These include Dr Raverty the CSRIO scientist who resigned from the RDPC citing interference form the Lennon Government and many others from all professions and walks of life.

more examples citing recent landowner concerns on councils implementing PAL policy without public consultation, a serious erosion of Tasmanians rights and potentially disastrous issue for farms, small business and rural landowners.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/not-your-pal/

Barnaby Drake
Meander Valley Council, Wynyard Council, Central Coast Council, Break-O-Day Council and many others in all rural areas have already taken action at the behest of the Premier to impose these new laws on a largely unsuspecting public. Minimal information has been disseminated and the public is largely ignorant of what is about to happen. This has not been helped by a virtual news blackout. It was left to the public-minded initiative of the Deputy Mayor of Meander Valley Council, Bob Loone, to let the public know about these actions in a private, but strongly worded advert, paid for at his own expense. The response was tremendous, and within a few days, the council received over 1200 objections. This has obviously caused them some embarrassment, for they have since hinted at ‘extending the timeframe’. It has become a wait-and-see game for the first council to make the moves that will set the precedent for all the others. This was to be the Meander Valley.

Anyway, I agree with the Australian article, if the pulp mill does not go ahead it shouldn't be the end of the world, however it is definitely a bonus to the economy if it is established. The fast-tracking of the mill has raised plenty of media concern and does not reflect favourably on Paul Lennon or his Government.

Well the 'media' concern over this reflects the concerns of the Tasmanian people on all sides, not just the newpaper editors. As for not reflecting favourably, it actually paints the Gov as corrupt, willing to change laws to suit big business, willing to breach due process, willing to breach the RFA and EPBC, and in general erode 'any' public trust they may have had. This does not bode well for Tasmania and Lennon will most likely be looking for a new job come next election time, possibly on the board of Gunns Ltd.

Flannagns article published in a London Newspaper (entirley 'credible') magazine is probably a good example of 'what is happening' in Tasmania and in the least a good point for discussions on that issue.
You have yet to acknowledge reading it or responding to points made in it.

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

But why can't a diversified economy have sustainable logging and forestry as a part of the economy?

No reason at all, in fact responsible and TRULY sustainable forestry practices would be a vital part of any diverse economy.The questions that have been raised both in this thread and on a wider scope are not condeming of the entire forestry industry but directly related to

1)extensive clearfelling of old growth forests
2)extensive profit dependance on woodchipping not value adding of other forestry products
3) The effect that largescale clearing of forest, plantation developments and big 'regeneration' burns has on tourism, rural economies, farming lands and landowners.
4) the monopoly dominance of the forestry industry by one company, Gunns.
5) The concerns of timberworkers regarding the growth and supply of speciality timbers used for woodwork, cabinet work, furnitures etc when much of these timber species are affected by the above mentioned clearfelling and biodiversity loss.
6) Innaccurate use of the term sustainable when loss of old growth forests means they are not to intended to be 'sustained' but cleared. Selective logging of old growth 'would' be seen as sustainable as would 100% reliance on plantation timbers for pulp and other sources.

Unfortunlatley Felixe you are talking with someone who has over 25 years working in various media related industries with extensive research experience in film documentries work, corporate IT/web, University course building, teaching and multimedia production. I dont buy your attidtude to 'research' or your claims of having researched anything in an objective and beneficial manner.

So if you r unwise enough to state that your 'primary research' innvolves going on holiday and watching Tasmanians work or reading the brief and limited articles from mainstream newspapers that everyone can easily read then you are leaving yourself wide open to many questions, refutation and potential ridicule, , your concept of research and 'reliable' media is pretty laughable mate and if you are genuinely interested in what is going on in Tasmania you might wanna broaden your references a little more and rely less on your own opinions.

So in the interest of research into what IS happening in Tasmania I suggest you read the Flannagan article in PDF and the Saul Eslake paper in PDF (you can save them both to your machine) I consider both documents to contain serious research into what is happening in tasmania, and get back to us with your comments, which I look forward to.

The truth is out there, can you see the wood from the trees ?

http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/ev3_thumb.JPG

;-)