The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Observer Tree > Comments

The Observer Tree : Comments

By Miranda Gibson, published 10/1/2012

A high-tech approach to forest conservation brings Tasmania's tree tops to the world.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Thank You Miranda for such a well balanced, unbiased article on logging in Tasmania. It's good to see all views being presented instead of the screeching one eyed ,irrational views that the Logging activists have been known to do in tha past !

Miranda, I notice, is also a qualified high school teacher in Studies of Society and Environment and English.

Thus our Children , also , will grow up tolerantand well balanced in their views on such subjects
Posted by Aspley, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 9:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent overview Miranda, to a situation that seems destined to remain. Only the companies change and not the archaic and draconian attitude of State Government, Tasmanian style. We fought hard to remove Gunns Timber from the forests, after years of destruction. Now, the focus has shifted to Ta Ann and one wonders why, with such low rates paid for timber by these giants, Forestry Tasmania feels justified in continuing to log places set aside for conservation. Many people have given so much to bring about solutions and yet the logging continues. Keep doing what you do Miranda and rest assured, there are many people backing you.

See more on Tasmanian forest destruction: http://www.davidleigh.com.a
Posted by David Leigh, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 11:28:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The correct link: http://www.davidleigh.com.au
Posted by David Leigh, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 11:30:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who can only think of one way to conserve forests - government ownership or control - deserve to see them destroyed.

The only reason there is a "battle for the forests" is because they are government-owned. There's no political "battle" over how to use whitegoods or lounge-rooms: privately-owned goods. Common ownership instrinsically breeds unnecessary conflict and division.

All Miranda, and those who agree with her, have to do to stop the forest from being logged is buy it! There is no need for "environment groups" to "sit down with" "unions and industry representatives" to "negotiate" what is "good for the environment, communities and workers". The costs per month, divided by all those contributing, would probably be small.

The environmental movement might want to reflect that the reasons they cannot currently buy the forests in issue, is because they have done nothing but campaign for decades for forests to be owned by government and for all decisions on them to be in the sphere of government policy. Well? How's that working out for you?

However if those who want the forests conserved, are not willing to pay for them, it means
a) that the conservationists have no right whatsoever to use force - the law - to get what they want, when they are not willing or able to pay the market price like everyone else
b) that the value society attaches to using the forests as timber is higher than the value Miranda claims they attach to using them for nature conservation.

"Who knows how long I will end up living in this tree?"

Hopefully until you are willing to advocate freedom instead of coercion, and to pay for the values you are trying to force other people to pay for.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 4:32:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm .... where to start with such an article as it really requires a couple of thousand words in response.

"This is a story of broken promises ......."

Yes, environmental activists who were supposed to desist from their activities continued on right through the so-called Tasmanian forest 'peace talks' process and continue to do so.

The process always allowed ongoing timber supply committments to be met - it is just not possible to immediately tear-up contracts except perhaps in the dream-world of 'Green' activists, so it was always expected that logging would continue while claims of 'High Conservation Value' forests were assessed and verified.

".... one woman sitting in a tree to stand up for the forests and a community locally and internationally who are standing behind her in the fight to save an irreplaceable ecosystem"

Irreplacable ecosystems? Trees and forests regrow so they are in fact replacable. Perhaps Ms Gibson can tell us why forests which were logged and regenerated 60 - 70 years are now regarded by activists as 'High Conservation Value' forests. Surely this wouldn't be so if they were irreplacable would it?

Ms Gibson bandies about the term 'forest destruction' but harvesting and regenerating forests is not destruction as is exemplified by the high quality advanced regrowth from logging in the 1940s now being put up on the HCV pedestal.

Incidentally, the 430,000 ha of forest being claimed as 'High Conservation Value' is essentially just lines on a map drawn by activists - the term 'HCV' has yet to be formally defined.

As usual, no attempt is made to explain that the 'peace deal' process is only about a 20% portion of forest being managed by Forestry Tasmania for long term timber supply.

It somewhat weakens the imperative to save Tassie's forests when realised that around 50% of Tasmania's forests are already formally reserved in national parks and other conservation reserves, while another 15% is effectively reserved by being either unsuitable or located on private land where there is no expectation of future harvesting.

That's right world - Tasmania is hardly about to lose its forests.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 4:36:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Tasmanian regional forest agreement reserves 1.4 million hectares of high conservation and almost 2 million ha or 97.5% of high quality wilderness. The observer tree is in the middle of an area of forest granted to the media barons Murdoch and Fairfax in the 1930s to develop a pulp and paper mill to provide the nations newsprint.

You can see how this forest was harvested at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW4kcuUvsJk

Despite her passion the article is wrong on the relationship between Regional Forest Agreement and the EPBC act, the final report of the Independent review of the Act states "10.10 The interaction between the EPBC Act and forestry operations is often referred to as an ‘exemption’. This term does not, however, accurately reflect the relationship. The rationale for the RFA provisions in the Act recognises ‘that in each RFA region a comprehensive assessment has been undertaken to address the environmental, economic and social impacts of forestry operations’. Rather than being an exemption from the Act, the establishment of RFAs (through comprehensive regional assessments) actually constitutes a form of assessment and approval for the purposes of the Act."

She is also wrong on Ta Ann (relies on Bob Brown's guest Clare Rewcastle)and Tasmanian forest management, just as she is wrong on the IGA requires a transition out of native forests, only the greens want this and the PM refused this requirement.

Native forests can and are sustainably managed throughout the world, almost 90% of FSC certified forest is managed native forests. This can also be seen from the public statements of Forestry Tasmania that they do not and can not, under their contract, supply old growth to Ta Ann Tasmania.

She is also wrong about endangered species that are well reserved under the forest practices code.

If anyone is interested in her high horse, the platform for her tree sit, this photo http://florentineprotection.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/observer-tree.jpg shows the amputated limbs of the tall Eucalypt tree that were chainsawed to make way for her soap box.
Posted by cinders, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 10:31:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy