This article fails to acknowledge that the forests have a high economic and aesthetic value if left undisturbed. I seem to recall the PM promised to conserve forests at the Copenhagen climate conference. While Tasmanian forestry creates some jobs they are declining in number due to low wood demand, rival producers and forest certification. On the other hand tourists delight in seeing the tall trees. They are shocked by what they see eg cable logging next to the road out to Lake Pedder. Think of a vegetarian visiting an abattoir. Similarly tree-changers who have made the Huon Valley their home now find logging encroaching on their neighbourhoods. My point is that both tourists and tree changers spend real money to make those choices and logging could kill those even more lucrative industries.

On Tasmania vs Europe which has the more 'normal' attitude to forests? In Europe if they spot a 400 year old tree they put a preservation order on it. In Tassie they can't wait to chop it down, the ostensible reason being good saw logs which will store carbon. Whoops the trunks were split so they go to the chipper instead. Irreplaceable 400 year old forest giants become paper that is thrown in the trash after a day. Some fate for the natural world's senior citizens. It seems to me the forestry industry should have got its act together by the 21st century. That is plantations on already cleared land should provide all the saw logs and chip wood the industry needs. Why should the forestry industry have to keep vandalizing a magnificent natural resource?

Taswegian
Interesting thoughts, but you are really just confirming the article's message that much of the opposition to Tasmanian forestry almost mindlessly lacks perspective. A bit of logging stimulates all sorts of grandiose misconceptions and conspiracy theories that all the forests are going to disappear.

"In Tassie, if they spot an old tree they can't wait to cut it down"
As the article said, almost half of Tassie's forests are in reserves that won't be cut down, that includes most of the old growth. Another 30% is privately-owned, of which much will be effectively reserved. The areas that are harvested are regenerated as new forests.

"Irreplaceable 400 year old forest giants become paper that is thrown in the trash after a day"
Older forests may produce pulp, but also valuable Special Timbers, and appearance grade eucalypt sawn timber. This supplies the work of furniture designers, sculptors, wood turners, wooden boat builders, musical instrument makers, and those who make iconic products for retail sale through outlets serving the tourism industry. It also includes high quality fit-out in new work, restoration and renovation designed by award winning architects. This includes the work of skilled tradespeople in new or renovated kitchens and bathrooms.

"It seems to me the forestry industry should have got its act together by the 21st century .... plantations on already cleared land should provide all the saw logs and chip wood the industry needs".

Special timbers and high value appearance grade eucalypt sawlog are not available from plantations.

"On Tasmania vs Europe which has the more 'normal' attitude to forests?" Well, humans have been using forests for wood since time immemorial. So there is nothing unnatural about harvesting forests, but we have the advantage today of being able to ensure that they regenerate to grow into new forests.

The article is quite right on forestry activists, and the lessons can be applied to many other activists (with honourable exceptions). They don't know and don't care that they don't know. Or worse, think they know - having read a couple of front page headlines and spoken to someone in a pub - and then bitterly attack anyone with different views, using terms like "ignorent".
There is nothing really to be done about the supply of such opinions. Telling activists to shut up or go away just makes them more abusive, reasoning with them make them think they have you on the run (otherwise, why would you respond). The only response is even more nonsensical and abusive counter-arguements.
But you can do something about the demand - ignore them as best you can. This makes sensible policy making more difficult but that is the price we pay for the internet.

With 1,465,000 hectares (47%) of its native forests reserved, Mark is right to point out “Tasmania’s proportion of forest reservation is higher than anywhere in the world and almost five-times greater than the world standard of just 10 per cent reservation.”

This level of reservation if applied nationally would be like reserving Queensland, NSW, Victoria and part of SA. This is not the case and the overall forest within formal conservation reserves system is a nationwide 16%. So rather than being condemned for its forestry, Tasmania should be applauded by all those valuing the economic and intrinsic value of these reserves.

Tasmania has always been a leader in the creation of National Parks, with the Mt Field National Park, proclaimed in 1916. It includes the famous Russell Falls and stunning walks through enormous fern forests and some of the tallest trees in the world. A much newer national park, at Savage River, in the heart of the Tarkine, created by the Regional Forest Agreement contains the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia.

Yet this comprehensive reserve system that protects habitat of threatened species and contains 98% of high quality wilderness is ignored by many seeking to oppose timber harvesting or plantation establishment. Instead the forests on either side of the sealed road to Lake Pedder, Tasmania’s largest manmade lake are described as pristine old-growth and subject to protest. Or the forests of the Huon Valley that have been managed for timber production for over 150 years are now seen as residential vista that must be preserved.

It is for this ‘selective vision’ the round table is doomed to failure and it is no surprise that the Mercury is reporting that the Premier has abandoned his attempt to bring together environmentalists and industry. http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/06/17/152851_tasmania-news.html With the Premier advising that Greens leader Nick McKim and he came to a conclusion “jointly that it was not helpful."

Perhaps no coincidence that this declaration was made within days of the Greens announcing that its Federal election campaign would demand ending all native forest harvesting in Australia.

This paid forestry spin merchant deliberately misses the reality of what's happening in Tasmania today.

The unfortunate fact is that forestry's activities have been, and are, producing numerous severe detrimental impacts on Tasmanian communities, resources, businesses and environment.

The environmental impacts get all of the attention because there are organisations that are paid to protest such as the Wilderness Society. Forestry gets lots of air time because there are paid spruikers for forestry's interests.

What doesn't get any air time are the disastrous effects on communities and businesses because they have no paid spokespersons, and because governments don't want the effects of their harmful decisions made public.

Communities don't need to be forestry experts to understand the detrimental impacts of wood chipping, or to understand the impacts of having 3,000 sq km of their island devoted to plantations.

Let's look at the recent track record of this self proclaimed sustainable industry.

* $250 million per year in mixed public subsidies (cheap trees, free plantation water, roads and bridges built and maintained at public expense and so on. (e.g. see http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/mill-doing-the-sums/)
* MIS collapse with tens of thousands of investors losing their savings & taxpayers losing around $1 billion
* TimberCorp/Great Southern go bankrupt
* FEA goes bankrupt
* Gunns posts almost no profit in 1st half, shares drop significantly
* Local asthma sufferers repeatedly threatened by forestry 'burns'
* Council rate deficiencies due to plantations paying a fraction of usual land rates
* Community anger at forestry manipulations of government and political parties

...and that's just for starters.

Until forestry starts to add value to local communities, instead asking for handouts while oshipping public forest resources overseas as chips, they're going to have problems.

In fact there are so many fallacies and mistakes in Mark's article that I think it merits a separate response.

Sayonara

The Mikester
Firstly, I am not a 'paid forestry spin merchant'. I write about forestry matters on behalf of the Institute of Foresters of Australia on a voluntary basis.

Secondly, you have listed a range of things but failed to acknowledge the role of the global financial crisis. The forestry sector is not perfect, but what industry sector is? I imagine that whichever industry you looked at in recent times would have had financial problems which adversely affected the community, but is that a reason to simply close them down?

Thidly, I probably should thank you for providing a link to a Tasmanian Times article which perfectly illustrates what my article is on about - that the conflict over Tassie's forests is driven largely by ill-informed opinions from unqualified people who are passionate about 'saving' trees but unwilling to accept facts (and are inclined to make-up their own 'facts') and lack a wider perspective.

Your linked Tas Times article was written by a 'Tasmanian writer' using a non-de-plume, with the assistance of an 'analyst' who wishes to remain anonymous. Need I say more?

Nevertheless their article is presented as though fact and includes things such as the 'cost of toxins in the water' without ever considering that there may be none. Their article could be demolished point-by-point by those involved in the forestry sector, but it would be a huge task and generally work requirements preclude this from occurring. Sadly then, it goes unchallenged into the historic archive of 'evidence' to be wheeled out to demonise forestry - even though it has little veracity.