The battle to save Tasmania's forests

[rsser]

If the subtitle of this sub-forum is

"This is your chance to have your say on what ever you wish. Rant and rave. Give someone a pat on the back, or a kick their bum. ONE STIPULATION: Keep it about woodwork and related woodies stuff."

then I have real difficulty in seeing why the post with the title above was closed.

Is the sustainable supply of wood not related to woodies stuff?

If end-users won't put their oar in as well and as effectively as other groups how long will we have the select timbers to use that we now take for granted?

[Sturdee]

Recently we had a thread on " What is going on in Tasmania" and " The battle to save Tasmania's forests" which were closed by the moderators as is their right.

Not satisfied with that you again raise this subject and raised some questions.

IMHO the issue of forests is not what this sub-forum is all about for it is meant to be about woodwork and related woodies stuff. Until the trees in the forest are felled and sawn ready for sale it has nothing to do with this sub-forum's purpose of woodwork.

Obviously from the discussion in the other thread and the title of this thread you wish to save the forests. Fine, but remember that once the forests are saved as a wilderness no one will ever get any timber out of it, as happened in the past in what is now wilderness areas.

So if you win, which I hope you don't, then we will not get the timbers you are campaigning for.


Peter.

[ozwinner]

Owwh please.

Ranting about it here wont save the forests. :doh:

You have to get naked and frolic amongst them leaves and branches and hippies and bulldozers to save it.

This subject has been done to death for the last 3 years, and still all you people do is complain about it.

So get naked people, frolic, and save the planet.

You wont save the planet by sitting on your fat arses in front of a computer screen using electricity to run it. Trust me. :2tsup:

And for you information, Im am a greenie at heart, always have been, always will be, but I cant see whinging about it will make any difference..

Al :)

[woodbe]

Actually, as best I can tell, the previous topics were closed, not because they were about Tasmanian Forests, but because several posters started getting personal.

This thread will stay alive too, I'd guess, for as long as people discuss the issue without it descending into a slanging match.

Peter, I'm not sure what is worse. Being deprived of timber because it's in a National Park, or watching tonnes of it get burnt or pulped.

Regardless of one's environmental stance, it's a shocking waste. Forests have edges and plantations have prunings, so even if it were locked away, some timber would still be removed...

woodbe.

[Bluegum]

Makes sense to me Al but i don't know how many of us would be keen to nude up and frolic in the forests together. But i spose there will be a first for many:o :o

[reeves]

Good on ya Rsser!

Sturdee, I didnt think anyone could really argue that timber we use doesnt come from the forests, the 70,000 hectares set aside for selective logging of speciality timbers, the many 'minor species' cleared as a result of 'primary species harvesting. Even in 'protected' areas; the biodiversity of old growth species will see them survive long into the future and I see no problem with forests growing that we cant touch, along with what humans can use.

There is enough genuine concern among woodworkers in Tasmania, represented by the TWFF (timber workers for forests http://www.twff.com.au/) and others about diminishing supplies, lockup mentality, clearfelling, pulping good hardwoods and restricted access to suggest that it is a genuine issue worthy of open discussion and one that affects anyone who has or will ever use Tassie timber.

So i'd say its impossible to seperate the wood from the trees ;-)


And for you information, Im am a greenie at heart, always have been, always will be, but I cant see whinging about it will make any difference..

I agree whining wont help, or getting naked in the forest (might be fun tho) but consistent discussion, sharing of information learning from others, debating the issue etc all help to broaden our experiences and generate a better undertsanding of the issue, the forest and each other, so please just let the thread roll and i hope people can keep personal abuse out of it..

[ozwinner]

The only way to stop the de-forestation of Tass is if we all move there and vote the government out.
It wont happen.

The other solution is to give the Taswegians some other form of sustainable income.
Wont happen.

The Tasmanian people need other way of supporting themselves as you lot have become accustomed to living other than cutting down timber.
Wont happen.

Maybe all you so called greenies could donate half your wealth to support the Taswegians so they dont have to cut down the forests?

As I said in another thread, give them a solution, stop pointing the finger of blame.

If you dont have a viable solution for the Taswegians then stop whinging about it.

Maybe you should all stop using paper, as this seems to be the crux of the problem.

Al :doh:

[Andy Mac]

Keep the open discussion going! Maybe it has been done to death for 3 yrs, but so have tablesaws, scarey sharp and many other topics. Its a serious issue for all of us and we can and should share info, opinions etc, as reeves rightly points out. Actually sounds a bit Victorian...go about your business but don't mention the "L" word.:rolleyes:
Oi Ozwinner, I would mind less if it was us using or reading the paper...doesn't most of it go to Japan? Sell the farm mentality.
I say use the resource sensibly: selectively log, use high value stuff, but don't go around wiping out forest just for woodchips. It might even last.

Cheers,

[dazzler]

Ohhhh Ozwinner.......they finally gotya :p :wink: :D

[ozwinner]

Ohhhh Ozwinner.......they finally gotya :p :wink: :D

No not really, Im just sick of the perennial Tassie timber thread.
All the whinging wont stop it.

And I think I read somewhere that a lot the paper comes back here as bog roll.

Im done..whing away.. see if you can save the forests.


Al

[rsser]

I actually started this thread as being about the space afforded by the forum owners to 'have a rant' about stuff related to wood, as promised in the forum title description.

If they don't want to deliver on that offer, fine. Let them announce that rants or strong expressions of opinion won't be tolerated and shut down the option to 'have a say'.

[woodbe]

Something we can all do that will help Tasmania, and educate ourselves about what is really going on rather than what we read in the paper:

Go and visit Tasmania in your holidays!

It's a great place, very beautiful (well, the bits that aren't charred, anyway) and there is lots of things to see and do for adults and kids alike. The tourism dollars will help the local economy too. If you take the wagon, you might be able to buy some nice timber while you are over. I hear that there are 'salvage' operators who are allowed to collect timber that would otherwise be burnt, and might sell you a stick or two if you ask nicely :)

woodbe.

[Gra]

I did enjoy the previous threads, until they got nasty, but I also agree with Oz here, the previous threads did the subject to death, and didn't get us anywhere.

From my impressions of what is happening down there, These come from relatives still living down there and from another relative who is working down there in a related industry, as well as the usual biased media in the country, is that the relationship between the govt and certain organizations seems a little too close for the good of the state as a whole.

Where I disagree with Oz is I think that Tasmania has the industry's to take over the income generation from the timber industry, the govt just seems strangely reluctant to pursue those industries as vigorously.

So I will keep an eye on the thread, just to see if any new information comes out

:ninja:

[Ikkyu]

Sounds like a job for Captain planet!!!!!

[Sturdee]

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

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

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

Already we Victorians and N.S.Welshmen are subsidising all the other states with our taxes and GST payments and it annoys me that people in states that for years have been living on our share of taxes are so vehement in causing us to pay even more.

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


Peter.

[reeves]

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

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

A legal battle between the federal government and Tasmanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania) state government followed, resulting in a landmark High Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia) ruling in the Federal government's favour.The Fed Gov may have exercised there powers to oppose the dam, a preference deal between the 2 Bobs at the time but hawke could see it had populist support from many people.


If that happened not a stick of timber would come out of those forests for woodworkers to use, it would be totally locked up and tree or branches falling to the ground would be left to rot where it fell.Untrue, currently 70,000 hectares is set aside in the RFA (regional forest agreement) for selective logging of old growth forest for speciality timbers, this was reduced in 2006 from 140,000 hectares, mainly because so much old growth is being clearfelled (20,000 hectares per year) a 'compromise was reached that protected more of the ST allocation. Timber workers are concerned about the restrictions but access to ST's is part of the RFA.

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




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

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

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

Mr Eslake said that rather than one or two "mega-projects", Tasmania's prosperity depended on its ability to produce and market premium goods and services, such as top-quality food and wine. http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/truth/

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showpost.php?p=446310&postcount=23
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=43204&highlight=tasmania

[Ashore]

hawke could see it had populist support from many people.
and was after votes , he didn't ask me or anyone I know, did he ask you personally or for that matter anyone on this forum I would be interested to know


Highly unlikley, forestry is about 10% of Tassies GDP, it is quite possible to have a feasible forestry industry based on selective logging of old growth and use of plantation timbers not clearfelling or woodchipping..
pure supposition your thoughts without positive backup, to use terms "Highly unlikely" or "it is quite possible" without giving any facts is supposition

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

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

Rgds

[Clinton1]

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

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

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

Anyway....

[rsser]

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

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

[reeves]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[reeves]

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

http://www.daffa.gov.au/forestry/national/cfa
http://www.twff.com.au/twfftcfa1.pdf
http://tas.greens.org.au/publications/reports/Forest_Transition_Strategy_Sept_04.pdf

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

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

happy days are here again ! ;-)

[Waldo]

Reeves,

Give it a rest.

[reeves]

Reeves,

Give it a rest.

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

[Daddles]

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

Richard

[reeves]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rsser]

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

But ignore away folks.

[Lignum]

Yaaaaawn

[rsser]

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

[dazzler]

:D
Yaaaaawn

you too huh :D

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

[Lignum]

:D

you too huh :D

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

Not to mention a whole trees worth of Domino mortices:wink:

[Toymaker Len]

I don't find this boring at all. In fact I have a vested interest in the debate as I go to tas every year or two and bring back a trailer load of huon pine and myrtle and whatever else I can find. In the course of these trips I meet (and have a beer with) loggers, millers, retailers and state forestry workers. They are almost universally opposed to the clear felling followed by burning regime but often feel that they can't do anything about it. It is an ongoing tragedy that whole complex ecosystems which nurture the more rare and special timbers (not to mention the animals and birds and plants etc.) are obliterated and replaced with what is effectively eucalypt monoculture. This is simply dumb, it doesn't even employ many people and to add insult to injury uncounted thousands of tonnes of craft woods are heaped up and burned. This is glorified slash and burn imposed undemocratically from on high for the benefit of a very small number of people and a multi national.
We are at the beginning of a new way of looking at the natural world. It is no longer good enough to just wade in with a bulldozer and take what you can take with no reference to sustainability, emmissions, ecology etc.

[Wild Dingo]

I dont know... the whole issue of so called "sustainable logging" is bullshyte in my view... when you see whole swathes of Tuart forest (the ONLY Tuart forest in the world by the way) being bulldozed down into huge piles then burnt to cinders or trucked to the pulp mills... along with massive chunks of Jarrah forest being hacked away on the whim of some dumbass polititian with a name to prove... you begin to wonder

No much of the West Aussie cut slash and burn methods DONT discriminate on specie... just rightio lads were making a friggin development here so in with the bulldozers... I mean thats bad enough but then they arc up the damned scrapers and tear the heart out of the soil.

I guess Im a sorta greenie in that I once voted green until I found out the canditate gave their preferences at the time went to Labor... and havent since... I have however enjoyed many a fine summers day frolicing around in the bush on the beach starkers and a great ol time was had I must say :;

It would help I guess if there was some effort at least to offer up the specie that they knock down and so calmly burn or mulch to those of us who want the timber... but usually that goes to good ol Colli and sons or Guns or whoever the favored big name mob are at the time...

I have no shame nor hessitation in heading into the scrub with my ute trailer and chainsaw and take the trees I need... at least what I take will be utilized and made into something of use for someone... I doubt there will be any Tuart forest left within 15 years and very little of the old growth Jarrah forests if what Ive been seeing over the last 20 years is anything to go by... there will be little of either left

But the thing that really irks me about the manner in which its done is that the same thing is being done to the "sub" specie of the forest the sheoak the gravillia and all the others that are under the forest canopy or near to it... they also are done the same...

Some of the logs that pass through here on the back of the logging trucks are friggin HUGE!! massive great one length total truck span and height seriously OLD Jarrah... yet when the local forest commission has its almost monthly auctions there are none of them offered up... why? cause bloody Guns and Colli get the damned things... I mean whats wrong with just turning down the road to my place and driving around the back and dropping of just one of these logs eh?? EH??? I mean any length semi can get in and out without turning around any length log can be dropped here... dont worry about the milling I will deal with that... somehow!!!!

But do they? no they dont... sodding friggin mongrels :~ Im thinking of making up some "Detour" signs and wandering down the corner to the highway and have Joshy or someone up the road a bit and as they see one heading toward me give me a hoi and I stick the thing down so they HAVE to come down this way another out the bottom driveway... and then have the top two drives blocked off so they cant turn around and a small toll booth with a turn around charge of $5000 per trailer... well then they may as well drop the thing eh? :2tsup:

[reeves]

I don't find this boring at all. In fact I have a vested interest in the debate as I go to tas every year or two and bring back a trailer load of huon pine and myrtle and whatever else I can find.

Yes i agree Les, its not a boring issue but one that probably 'should' concern most people who are passionate about supplies of quality woods. Good comments of what Tassie workers feel, I found much the same but no one has any good ideas on what to do about it.

When I read about the 3,000 tonnes of Huon pine getting 'accidently' burnt (see other post)

http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showpost.php?p=511010&postcount=1

my balls dropped! even lower, thats a hell of a lot of some of the worlds rarest and most beautiful timber up in smoke cos Forestry Tasmania (who had care of it) didnt store it properly or notice it had caught fire, probably would have been over 1000 logs...which would have kept many woodworkers happy for years. Now the good stuff gets even harder to come by and costs more. And the clearing of red myrtle for pulp, uggg!

I dont undertstand the apathists or woodworkers that cant see that theres a genuine limit to the avilabability of our treasured resource and the the Gov and BIG business are doing no one a favour by clearfelling old growth forests.

Wild Dingo, good story mate, maybe try out the detour thing, never know your luck. When i was about 18 i was camping out at Calcup Ford, south of Pemberton on the Warren river and i used to go and 'watch' Bunnings clearing the forests, huge trees big mess. Sounds like things are much the same.

WA has the same issues still and while lots of people bitch about it on both sides of the debates, save jobs no! save trees, the sad truth is that much good timber is being munched, sub species cleared and there will be little or none left in years to come if sensible amounts are not retained. Woodworkers dont need much, big business gets bigger on the back of the workers and the forests.

If anyone doubts this just look at whats happened to Red cedar in NSW and Qld, none left in mainstream wood supply yards and what is available is usually salvage or from private lands, same for Rose Mahogany used to be plentiful and cheap 30 years ago, now its hard to buy good boards. Everywhere I go I here stories from timberworkers about 'ah dont get much of that anymore'. Plantation timbers just dont have the same 'joy' factor as old growth for woodworkers and timber like myrtle sassafras and their forest friends take several hundred years to mature and so make crappy plantation timbers, and Huon pine, well no one is plantationing a tree thats takes 3000 years to grow...!

Sad thing is lessons are not learnt and the same pattern continues, sure there may still be 'heaps' to be had in Tassie but the writing is on the wall and industrial logging practices do result in less supply of quality timbers for woodworkers, it might not have happened just yet but the worm is turning sad but true.

For those who wanna jibe others who actually 'like' the forests as greeneies , treehuggers or ratabgs etccheck this pic, i am actually measuring the arm lenghts around an old sydney bluegum, any resemeblance to tree hugging is purley coincidental..;-)

http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/img/avatars/1744.jpg


now i aint religious at all by I love this quote from the old testament

“And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. "
Leviticus 18:28

[reeves]

latest news from the Tassie forest issue

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1939552.htm


New forestry practice follows public concern

Forestry Tasmania says its decision to end the broad-scale clearing of native forests to establish plantations is a direct response to community concerns.
Under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement, broad-scale conversion was due to be phased out by 2010.
But this morning Forestry Tasmania announced it would end the practice today.
The Executive General Manager, Hans Drielsma, says conversion has been an on-going issue and the subject of intense debate among environmental groups.
"It's probably been the most significant point of criticism that we've had, and we're always looking to respond to those things and to improve," Mr Drielsma said.
The timber company Gunns has also announced it will not convert broad scale native forest areas to plantation.
In a statement, the company says the management shift won't impact on the company's planned pulp mill.

[Lignum]

Who gives a f*$^ :rolleyes:

[reeves]

Who gives a f*$^ :rolleyes:

lots of people Lignum ;-)
thousands in fact

which now inlcudes the management of forestry Tasmania, along with many 'greenies', woodworkers and others...

of course it could just be a political ploy and they will crank things back up after the election but it would seem that the 'community concern' noted in the news report, which inlcudes many woodworkers and forestry workers, has grown to the point where the guv has now acknowledged it and on the surface at least, is seen to be ending clearfelling of old growth forest.

Now they may ramp up selective logging in those areas for specialty timbers and sawlog prodcution but the levelling of forest is what they are saying they will end, which paralells land clearing laws in other states.

Could be a good day for the trees ;-)

Tho I am wondering where it leaves those who collect leftovers from the coupes under craft licenses..?

[glock40sw]

Right. That's it.
I'm out of here.
When somebody starts quoting Scripture, My bullschit threshold dies.

Time to go sharpen the chainsaw and fill it with fuel.
Jeese I love the smell of freshly felled timber :D .

[KevM]

........but it would seem that the 'community concern' noted in the news report, which inlcudes many woodworkers and forestry workers, has grown to the point where the guv has now acknowledged it and on the surface at least, is seen to be ending clearfelling of old growth forest.

Now they may ramp up selective logging in those areas for specialty timbers and sawlog prodcution but the levelling of forest is what they are saying they will end, which paralells land clearing laws in other states.


Psst Reeves,
Have a read of the press release (http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/media_releases/enew_conversion_010607.htm). What does it really say?

[ozwinner]

Going by the press release they have seen the light so to say and stopped clear felling and the planting of monotrees.

Lets hope they havent also locked up the forests for the craft industry too. :(

Al :)

[reeves]

Psst Reeves,
Have a read of the press release (http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/media_releases/enew_conversion_010607.htm). What does it really say?

not a lot Kev, fairly brief but it states a new agreement has been reached bewteen various parties..


Executive General Manager Hans Drielsma said that the major policy, effective from today, followed a long period of discussions between Forestry Tasmania, the forest industry and conservation interests.


]that FT page seems to state they will continue clearing in some form mianly regrowth, it seems to acknowledge loss of vegatation trends worldwide as the reason for the policy change. In fact its fairly vague and ambiguous. its does mention that its more economically efficient to harvest plantations.


“This is a very significant policy decision. In economic terms it is more efficient to grow plantations, as they grow four to five times faster than regrowth native forests and provide an attractive and sustainable basis for wood production.that post gives no real indication or differnce between chipbased, log based or special timbers harvesting..

I have seen other recent reports that suggest special species collection continue and general sawlog and veneer production will continue.They seem to say they will maintain activity in regenerated forests. I also saw one report that said they were not logging in those areas at present and the 'hiatus' will be rethought after the election this year.

The RFA, the last time it was updated, had reduced special timbers area down to 70,000 hectares. The latest RFA changes dont seem to have been fully established in terms of exactly what access craft licence holders will have.

cheeeers
john

[Honorary Bloke]

What Lignum said. :)

[kiwigeo]

Who gives a f*$^ :rolleyes:

I do and so do alot of other people. Why is it that anyone in this country who disagrees with someone else on something and just happens to be passionate about same gets labeled as a "whinger" or a "greenie". Even if I don't agree with someone's opinion I respect their right to voice their opinions and if I "dont give a f*$^" about the issue then I don't get involved in the debate. It's amusing to note that people who use the latter expression actually DO "give a f*$^".....certainly enough to take the effort to read the posts in this discussion and reply with inane explitives.

Unlike some others in this debate, Reeve's manages to voice his opinions without resorting to personal insults and inane posts and he makes an effort to put forward some facts and figures to support his arguments

I don't agree with locking up all the forests as National Parks but at the same time I find the current practises of clear felling of furniture grade wood for turning into chopsticks and loo paper disgustingly wasteful and bordering on criminal.

As far as the Tasmanian economy dying if they kill the timber industry (not what I'm in favour of).....look at the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand. Logging died in the ar*e there some years ago but the last time I was over there (2006) the economy of the area certainly hadn't died and was actually more vibrant and diversified if anything.

Just my ten cents worth.