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 > Conveniently ignoring the facts > Comments

Conveniently ignoring the facts : Comments

By Alan Ashbarry, published 17/3/2006

Environmentalists campaign besmirches Tasmania's world leading logging practices.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Taz
I'm sure you will be impressed with the following facts and hope you don't mind other viewers getting a chance to learn the truth about what Tasmania has achived in the name of conservation.

Fact 1 Tasmania has a land mass of 6,840,000ha

Fact 2 Tasmania's total land mass in conservation reserves is 2,935,000ha (42%)

Fact 3 Included in Tasmania's total land mass is a total forest cover of 3,207,250ha

Fact 4 Tasmania's total forest cover in reserve is 1,442,440ha (45%) (This is part of the total land mass in reserve)

Fact 5 Tasmania's existing old growth forest cover is 1,246,000ha (this is part of the total forest cover)

Fact 6 Tasmania's existing old growth forest reserved is 977,480ha (this is part of the total forest reserved) There is an additional private land 25,000ha of old growth to be considered for voluntary reservation.

Fact 7 Tasmania's assessed high quality wilderness is 1,943,570ha

Fact 8 Tasmania's assessed high quality wilderness reserved is 1,885,300ha (97%)

Taz I'm also sure you know about the forest conservation target set by the International Convention on Biological Diversity is just 10%.
Tassies not doing to bad after all. (isn't 10% also the target set by your own WWF.

Also pretty sure that you know that the largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest, The Beech Creek Valley of the Giants is in the World Heritage.

Do I need to list all the other old growth forests reserved? happy to if you wish or perhapes you may wish to list them, the TWS has the list on their web site but you know that don't you.
Posted by Bas, Friday, 17 March 2006 7:58:02 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 Australian Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Eric Abetz and the Federal Liberal Party is also concerned over the impact of these protests both internationally and within Australia. The Minister has issued a media release at http://www.mffc.gov.au/releases/2006/06011a.htm strongly condemning these type of protests.

The Prime Minister also sees continued sustainable forestry as essential to Tasmania’s future. (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech1540.html )

Readers should also be aware that the Federal ALP fully endorses the Tasmanian Community Forestry Agreement, with Kim Beazley visiting the State just days after it was signed. He inspected the magnificent Tahune Airwalk http://www.tasforestrytourism.com.au/pages/site_s_tahune.html and the Warra long term research site http://www.warra.com/warra/ .

Martin Ferguson Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism in a major speech outlined the ALP’s views on Australia’s Role In The Global Sustainability of Forestry and Forest Industries.

Many of the issues raised by this article including certification were addressed in this speech and may be accessed at http://www.nafi.com.au/workshop2005/ferguson.pdf

This demonstrates that the both the ALP and the Liberal Party have a sound understanding of the issue and have developed very good policies that should be supported
Posted by cinders, Friday, 17 March 2006 8:43:03 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
Well said Alan! It is so uncommonly refreshing to see some factual information available to the public, particularly in southern Tasmania!

In my opinion there is no doubt that the local newspaper the Muckury or is it the Daily Liar or The Wilderness Society Newsletter alias The Mercury, is and has been running a deliberate anti Forestry campaign and clearly promotes the Greens at the expense of everyone else.

I sent a letter to the "Mercury" on 25th January this year, in which I criticise the demonstrably incorrect reporting in relation to the Vernon familys’ proposed forest management plan for their property at Recherche Bay, which Gary Baily (Mercury Editor), refuses to print.

In yesterdays northern Tasmania paper the Examiner, a story of almost two pages extent was provided detailing the Vernons' reasons for selling their property at Recherche Bay. In order for the the Vernons' to get their message to the public in the south via the Mercury, they had to pay $1,500.00 to place an advertisement in that despicable rag.

The Greens and extreme so called environmentalists waffle on about freedom of speech. Well all they are interested in is their freedom of speech and no-one elses. How much longer can Gary Baily and the Mercury continue to deny that they are deliberately assisting to deny freedom of speech in relation to forestry in Tasmania through their sensorship and misrepresentation of facts?

I could complain to the Press Council but should they find in my favour there is no redress. Unlike infringements to the Forest Practices Code, which will attract substantial fines, and rightly so, there is no such recourse when dealing with the press. Should the Muckury decide to print an apology, which is highly unlikely given their history, it would no doubt be so small and well hidden, that it is unlikely to be read by anyone.

We must therefore work hard to get the truth out to the public and reverse the brainwashing that the extremists have been perpetuating. Forums like this may well be a good start?
Posted by Wilky, Friday, 17 March 2006 8:51:52 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
Looking at Alan Ashbarry’s first reference, on page 4 of the 32 page Forestry document down past Evan Rolley’s fine introduction is a three coloured block map of Tasmania. We need go no further to see why the fuss continues.

Most of the yellow area is former agricultural land and is farmed out or logged out after many decades of private ownership. The huge pink reserve area on the western side is either mined out, burnt out, dammed out or never had any timber in the first place.

Lets get this lot in perspective my way by using some very reliable data but beware; even this data depends on values made up by each state for the purpose of a commonwealth agreement. However it reflects a more international framework than we had before any RFA process. A quick glance at the first BRS map gives some insight to the differences between states.

http://data.brs.gov.au/asdd/overviews/nfi03r9abfi001/nfi03r9abfi00111a00b.gif

Now zoom in on each of the 3 Tasmanian RFA regions to see the detail of all reserves. Please note some of this country beyond the early private carve ups has very poor soils and is often extremely steep in terms of modern forest management.

Be assured too, the pioneers burnt down what they could not cut down as they searched for mineral outcrops everywhere. This could explain many blanks in BRS data for Tasmania below more recent icecaps and glaciers.

http://adl.brs.gov.au/mapserv/intveg/nht_state.php?state=tas

Happy hunting!
Posted by Taz, Friday, 17 March 2006 9:59:59 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
Taz, whatever was done in the past was clearly a great deal less destructive than just about anywhere else in the world. And as for the old photos, you know damned well that they are only a partial representation of the truth if the viewer is not given the courtesy of viewing the same spot today.

Which part of "75 to 80% contributive habitat" do you not understand?
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 17 March 2006 10:06:10 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
Wilky

Yes the right to freedom of speech is a odd thing at times it appears the greens view it as a right that is only for them, why I say this, is only this week there was a political green protest held in a public place were a lone voice tried to stand up for his family by exercising his right to free speech by asking legitimate questions of the greens speaker.

Yet he was silenced by bully boy and thuggish tactics by green protesters. Clearly the speaker could not answer his questions so the ‘peaceful’ green crowd turned on this lone voice by intimidating and man handling him.

I say if its good enough for the greens to demand freedom of speech, it should be good enough for them to allow ordinary Tasmanians the same Freedom of Speech.

It was reported so have a look at the story:

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18496196%255E3462,00.htm
Posted by Timberjack, Saturday, 18 March 2006 2:29:01 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. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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