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 > Tall stories about Tasmanian forestry > Comments

Tall stories about Tasmanian forestry : Comments

By Ken Jeffreys, published 11/7/2007

People should understand the other side of the forestry debate: often only one side gets presented.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
As one of the reading/viewing public who may just be interested to know what's really going on, I would like to know why the industry goes right on doing whatever it likes.

Is it a pulp mill that's about to be built, regardless of failing to meet basic environmental standards and safeguards? Or did I misunderstand and Gunns is actually building a series of free health clinics?
Posted by chainsmoker, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 2:17:13 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
As the posts on this trail clearly demonstrate, there is no limit to the ignorance of those who oppose forestry. Get this through your moronic brains folks, the Styx valley is mostly regrowth. The "harm" that people think they are observing in selected photographs is transitory. Most wildlife achieve a higher stocking rate in healthy, well managed regrowth rather than old growth.

The real experts in forest ecology are the wildlife themselves and they consistently vote with their feet and favour regrowth forest.

And as for climate change, the only way a forest can adjust to drier and warmer climate is to reduce the amount of growing wood. The only way an untouched old growth forest can do that is by strangling each other in a fight to the death that makes the entire stand vulnerable to disease. In managed regrowth, on the other hand, the foresters selectively remove a portion of the trees so the rest of the stand can maintain their vigour.

Brown's politics of forest exclusion will destroy more forest thasn anyone has to date.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 3:56:57 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
Perseus, what rubbish are you spouting today? On what basis can you claim that wildlife "prefers" artificially regenerated forest? That flies in the face of ALL scientific studies, unless by 'prefer' you meant to say 'forced into', in which case get yourself a dictionary. And to suggest that conservation leads to more destruction than clear felled logging and 1080 poisoning shows you to be a complete parody of your trolling self.
Posted by julatron, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 4:42:15 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
According to the DPIW current population trends clearly show that Bennetts wallaby numbers are well above what they were in the 1980’s.

This confirms Perseus observation on animals enjoying the regrowth forest

Bennetts wallaby and Tasmanian pademelons (rufous wallaby) have a combined population estimate between 7 and 10 million. ( http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/internnsf/WebPages/JCOK-68R49R?open )

Browsing damage caused by these species to both the agricultural and forestry sectors in Tasmanian is considerable. Yet Forestry Tasmania has ceased the use of 1080 to protect crops due to a public campaign led by the media. However who will be prepared to compensate farmers for lost food production?

This explosion in population that has occurred in the last 30 years parallels the outrageous claims that Tasmania is destroying these animals and their habitat
Posted by cinders, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 5:06:39 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
That's great news cinders. Bennetts wallabies now outnumber Tasmanian humans with respiratory problems.

I'm sure that's the best news Tasmanians have had all day.
Posted by chainsmoker, Wednesday, 11 July 2007 5:19:07 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
It's interesting that Tasmanian forestry presents itself as the "do-gooder" in this instance. TF presents itself as being under government supervision, however a closer perusal of this so called government sanctioned clearfelling of Tasmania's old growth forests, finds that a number of the relevant people in power have a very deep economical interest in the forestry industry - they are involved in companies who are involved in the logging industry. It is also well known that the logging industry is channeling a significant amount of money into government coffers. This is as per a number of well renowned media presentations.

TF says that they are replanting areas that have been clearfelled, yes they are, with sterile green deserts of pine trees or blue gum. That is not biodiversity.

The only question I ask, is when all the forests are destroyed, the beauty that Tassie was once known for is gone, when the micro climate of Tassie is altered forever - will someone then say "Oh dear, maybe we should have kept a bit more of the forests?" A bit late then!
Posted by zahira, Thursday, 12 July 2007 12:13:09 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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