As I started to read this article , I thought, " far better created than the average Greenie/Socialist Rubbish that one has to tolerate when it comes to the Logging Furore in Tasmania.

At this stage , let me point out, I am apposed to Logging for Chip Mills and most certainly don't want one up here in Northern Tasmania.
However , I DO believe in Logging for Value Timbers . for Housing, Furnitute etc.

This , I realize is at odds with the Zealots who want Trees and Humans seperated forever.

To the Article, It looked good, but on Page 3 decended to the usual Standard that to which I now dispair.

On page 4, were the assumptions. WOW !

Idealistic , YES . Reality.... Far from.

The Parts that I liked most ,were the assumptions of what , we, the great unwashed, expect.. words like MOST, MORE, MORAL RIGHT and so forth.

The reasons # 5,6,and seven don't even deserve a response,except for # 6. The faster the Tasmanian Times disappears.. the sooner a solution to this Mess will occur.. ( If I was a Zealot, at this point I would say as supported by 65% etc etc.. but... Pass..),

A clue for the Zealots, RETIRE, Get a real Job...Then ,Maybe ,Sanity will prevail.. The Average Tasmanian, presently numbed and burnt out by these Zealots' actions will come back on to the Scene and force a conclusion by THEIR public opinion.

Only then, maybe ,the Pulp Mill will go Belly Up , Gunns will stick to Hardware and Farmers with Thousands of Hectares of future Woodchips ' will have to sell them to the Great Unwashed for Firewood.

More so, Those Bloody Great Trucks will disappear , As will our Greens, Labor and Lib Polies and much ( top Half )of our much beloved Public service.. AHHH....Utopia Tasmanian Style

When will onlineopinion stop publishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

To claim that the Tasmania is only 63,000 square kilometres ignores a major island or two. Surely King and Flinders Island have not sunk, and deserve to be counted as part of the State.
Of course Tasmania is a state of Australia; it is not a separate country, making the comparison with other countries to our island state irrelevant.

The author bemoans the 3,000 square kilometres of plantations but ignores 5,000 sq km of its land mass, as he does the 3.03 million hectares or 30,300 sq Km of its land mass in reserves. This is 44.3% of it land, including islands, reserved.

This level of reservation compares with the target for 2010 set by the Convention of Biological Diversity of just 10% to protect our natural environment. (Just what are the reserve levels in the countries promoted?)

These ecological reserves include 1,465,000 hectares of forests of which almost a million hectares is assessed as old growth. These wild high conservation value forests will never be harvested due the Commonwealth State contract known as the Regional Forest Agreement.
This agreement and the 2004 Federal Election see a shift from old growth to a reliance on silviculture of our regrowth native and planted forests. Many of these plantations have been established on private land as envisaged by the industry’s strongest critics, the greens.

In September 1993, Peg Putt of the Tasmanian Greens outlined the party’s vision:
“But the direction for forestry in this State is quite clearly that of forestry on a secure plantation base, and of course those plantations should be established on cleared agricultural land. Trees are a crop, just like any other crop, and they should be grown where crops are grown and the farmers should be given the opportunity to benefit from that...”

Perhaps this rant about trees and job creation should be redirected to the greens and not the forest sector willing to invest their own money to create a vibrant future for our Nation’s smallest State.

Dear Cinders... tut tut :) you didn't think this kind of debate has any connection to reality did you ? *grin*

This is pure 'ideology' and it's also a coup of nature over grace...
creeping/growing things over humans.

But.. don't let me lose you there.

Have you (and Aspley) ever asked 'where did all these 'green' stuff come from ?

Here is a hint... and it will also inform you of what lies behind these watermelons.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Hear it..from the horses mouths.. you might find this a bit of a shock. Once we 'get' this.. the rest is easy.. i.e..how to understand the watemelons.

Do you have any thoughts on Cap and TRADE also ? Please see the other discussion thread if you have.

AUSTRALIA: September 3, 2002
Carbon Trading according to Rothschild Bank
SYDNEY - Rothschild Australia and Australia-based environmental group E3 International launched yesterday a new fund to allow highly polluting companies to offset their emissions by buying carbon credits from cleaner firms.

Billed as the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region and soon to be followed by other similar private investment vehicles, the Carbon Ring Consortium seeks to raise $2 million, with individual investors obliged to pay $100,000.
"With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge," said Richard Martin, chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia.
Rothschild said in a prospectus that the Carbon Ring Consortium would be open for investments until October 30.
It would be wrapped up in June 2003, when the carbon credits purchased will be distributed to investors pro rata.
Trading environmental credits is an emerging market designed to allow firms that fail to meet emissions standards to buy credits from other firms that undercut their targets.
The Kyoto accord signed by developing nations in the Japanese city of that name envisages some carbon credit trade between countries with so-called carbon sinks - forests - and others that produce higher levels of pollution than they are allowed to.
The same applies to companies, and a nascent market has already emerged in the United States where some states have limits on acid rain components like sulphur dioxide and others have limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are blamed by many scientists for rising world temperatures.
The investment bank said it was estimated that the global carbon trading market could be worth up to $150 billion by 2012.

The process of investing will involve workshops to allow investors to gain hands-on knowledge of the new market.
The unregistered, managed investment scheme will be the first in a series of private investment vehicles that Carbon Ring Pty Limited, a joint venture between Rothschild and E3 International, expects to launch in the coming years, the partners said

As he did not declare it I will do it for him.
Cinders is infact a logging industry gun for hire named Alan Ashbarry. A paid logging industry for Timber Communities Australia.

Here is the giveaway excerpt from Alans favourite website, the right wing pro-logging climate change skeptic Jennifer Marohasy
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001252.html

“Alan Ashbarry was a researcher for the 15 branches of Timber Communities Australia (TCA) in Tasmania... When I first asked Alan to tell readers of this blog something about himself he declined. He said he prefered to stay in the background. But he’s since decided to come out and tell us that he occasionally posts a comment at this blog under the pen name “Cinders”".

You are officially out Cinders! Welcome.

Thanks Dreem. That explains his contribution at the article "Peace in Tasmania’s forests?".

The link you provided didn't work for me but I found this...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?s=Alan+Ashbarry+

(he's also one of the contributing authors in the left hand column)

It reinforces the perception that the only people defending the blasphemy that passes for forestry these days are people with a vested interest.

This is an excellent article by Mike Bolan. The lid is well and truly off the cesspit that is the timber industry.

“Cinders, you are with TCA”, is the start of a rant by Dreem last year, against one of my posts. I explained at the time that TCA is Timber Communities Australia, a nationwide organisation of community groups that depend on the sustainable timber industry and draws its membership from people in small business, that work and care for our forests, and folk that seeks to promote the environment, economic and social benefits of the renewable resource management.

At the time I advised Dreem and other readers that details of TCA can be found at http://www.tca.org.au/index.shtml where you can also find detailed analysis of claims (myths) made against the modern value adding pulp mill and tasmanian forestry.

TCA people are proud of the fact that a balance was achieved a decade ago in Australia’s forest management that has seen reserve levels, such as 1 million hectares of old growth in Tasmania, exceed targets set by international groups such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the IUCN and WWF target of 10% managed for protection.

Whilst no longer an employee, I am still a proud volunteer for this organisation of real timber communities and still passionate on the real conservation achievements of my State, yet my affiliations are irrelevant to the error riddled and flawed article being discussed. My criticism are mine, and do not reflect any of the organisations that I am associated with, which is the main reason for using a screen name, to encourage a variety of opinion!

But it is not TCA that I quoted to discredit the claims made in this article but official government figures that have been published time and again and are readily available but studiously ignored by the green movement.

Perhaps Dreem and fellow critics that try to play the man rather than argument can also out themselves. Or perhaps provide a dossier on the cabal in charge of the much divided green movement as it squabbles for the control of the $80 million donated to the big four “conservation” charities each year?

Mr Bolan
With all due respect, the central tenet of your article - that “the stories of communities and ordinary individuals have been swamped by paid (forestry) spinmeisters” - is almost laughable.

Just who’s swamping who? I note that you normally write for the Tasmanian Times which has already posted around 600 purpose-written anti-forestry articles on its website this year. Where is the equivalent outlet for the views of these 'paid forestry spinmeisters'?

I have written about forestry matters on a voluntary basis for the Institute of Foresters on Online Opinion for several years - so far this year I have written about 4 articles - it seems that the last of these (last week) has stimulated your article. I probably should be flattered as it only confirms my view that those opposing forestry simply can't handle being challenged, largely because they are rarely faced with it, but also because it is difficult to deal with inconvenient truths.

Despite your attempt to distinguish the concerns of “communities and ordinary individuals” from those of activist groups like The Wilderness Society and Environment Tasmania, they are essentially the same. These groups have substantial resources. Indeed, TWS has a $15 million budget and 140 paid staff employed solely to maintain conflicts such as that in Tasmania’s forests. Sadly, this is far greater than the resources devoted to challenging their misinformation which unfortunately, the forestry sector has never regarded as core business.

Indeed, much of this is done voluntarily by Timber Communities Australia which has a couple of paid people, but is mostly comprised of people living and working in the same communities whose anti-forestry concerns you are purporting to highlight. The difference of course, is that these people largely work in the forestry sector (or are friends or relatives of those who do).

They should be respected as people who actually know what's going on - but you've only got to look at some earlier responses to your article to see how they and their views are routinely disrespected by the demographic you are representing - another tactic to dodge inconvenient truths.

Mr Bolan .... continued

You also neglect to mention that those opposing Tasmanian forestry virtually have a media network at their disposal – our ABC.

Whether its a double episode of Australian Story devoted to proving that plantations are toxic, or a cosy one-on-one fireside chat between the host of Lateline and anti-Gunns crusader, Geoffrey Cousins, the ABC continues to demonstrate its bias in favour of disaffected communities and individuals over government and industry viewpoints which could actually clear-up much of the conflict, but are either just ignored or are given little airtime and so effectively dismissed as industry ‘spin'.

For example, for a recent 7:30 Report piece on Tasmanian forestry, the National President of the Institute of Foresters was extensively interviewed, but none of this was shown on the program which drew heavily on the views of disaffected communities and individuals. Consequently, the program gave further credence to misleading views that effectively maintain or attract new outraged recruits to the cause. Again, where were the 'paid forestry spinmeisters'?

Undoubtedly, there are some legitimate concerns about forestry, but the reality is that many of those being publicly promoted are either hugely exaggerated, simply not real, or stem primarily from an ideological opposition to the cutting down of trees. Meanwhile formal attempts to address anti-forestry claims are too often simply dismissed by those who are pushing them – one only has to read the many irrational rants of many of those opposing forestry on the Tasmanian Times to see this.

Because those opposing forestry simply reject the official facts and information put forward to explain and rationalise their concerns, they maintain the conflict by coming up with their own 'facts' based on a wide range spurious assumptions. This article seems to fit this profile, although quite frankly I have neither the time nor inclination to read it in detail. Indeed, it is articles such as this which comprise the real forestry assault.

@ "Mark Poynter’s article goes a long way to showing how that conflict is inspired and maintained. Instead of recognising the damage that forestry is doing, he takes the simple-minded approach of attacking critics as being “deep greens”. In doing so, he extends the problems for forestry and for communities"

So, if an article merely pointing out the lack of perspective amongst those opposing forestry in Tasmania is enough to extend the conflict, what can be said about Bob Brown's announcemant last week that a central plank of the Greens Federal election campaign is the closure of Australia's hardwood timber industry?

Could it be that the real reason fot the continuing conflict is the uncompromising efforts of one side (those opposed to forestry) to end the very existence of the other side? Simple, but true.

Mark and others.

I have tried to describe why around 65% of Tasmanians oppose the pulp mill and wood chipping by using reported impacts and published information regarding the cost pressures that exist, and that will worsen, from 'industrial forestry'.

I have done that by presenting evidence.

Your objections and your article, (as with 'cinders' and others) offers no evidence whatsoever. You simply repeat the idea of forestry as some hard done by industry that's misunderstood by most people. I view Industrial forestry as a cosseted industry that has failed to work in the free market.

I support those aspects of forestry that provide real value to the community - shipping fibre to distant countries and relying on public subsidies doesn't do that.

Your explanations seem to revolve around 'irrational' extremists misunderstanding your industry.

Modern marketing explains forestry's situation in simple terms - your products are not worth much, your activities are making people hostile, and your future is looking dim unless you start to change.

Ignore that at your peril.

As to the various conservation groups, many in the community (including me) have nothing to do with them, their budgets or their messages. The fact that you don't seem able to distinguish between the community and the more extreme greens within it, says more about your than anything else.

Mikester
With respect, it is pretty difficult in 350-words to respond in any detailed way to a 4-page article, and quite frankly, some of your early thoughts display your biases, despite your purported desire "to go beyond the name calling, accusations and assumptions of entitlement that are usually contained in forestry’s self-interested narrative"

@ "The ongoing efforts to shoehorn the idea of turning trees into their lowest common denominator of fibre, has corrupted our political system and threatens a massive community revolt"

Some major assumptions here - but what are you talking about - plantations, native forests, or both. It is this confusion that is so common amongst forestry critics which makes it difficult to answer because it is so time consuming to have to go back to first principals.

@ "The forest industry … which dominates Tasmania’s landscape, resources, infrastructures and governments and enjoys multiple exemptions from the laws that apply to, and protect, the rest of us; that judges public grievances against it and finds itself blameless; that depletes the landscape and our water catchments at our expense; and that constantly expects more money and more resources from us in order to feed global fibre markets and line the pockets of a few"

How can anyone quickly respond to such a diatribe. You say you have presented evidence, but this is just repeating as a 'given' a whole litany of the usual unsubstantiated claims made by those opposed to Tasmanian forestry.

@ "Modern marketing explains forestry's situation in simple terms ..."
Yes it does, if things are repeated often enough they assume a factual status that they may not deserve.

OK, so change occurs as you hope, my point is that closing down major parts of the forestry sector will do little for the environment, will substantially weaken Tasmania's socio-economic base, and will not remove the hostility simply because the complainants will shift the goalposts as they always do.

Mark, you may not like what I'm saying but you'd really be wise to recognise that when:

* 65% of people polled oppose your industry
* big plantation companies go bankrupt
* banks and others start to disinvest in large forestry operations
* $ billions are lost to small investors in forestry MIS
* plantations have a real prospect of being toxic to water
* too many people are cheering at your misfortune

...you have a problem, and it's a big one.

Refusing to listen to others isn't going to serve you well.

I travelled round N. Tasmania over the course of a year with farmers, fishermen, tourism operators, small business people, truck drivers and others all educating me about the impacts of wood chipping on their lives. Until those experiences I knew almost nothing of the plantation situation. I saw what they were telling me first hand.

You don't have to be a genius to work it all out.

But in the ensuing mess, thousands are likely to suffer unless the 'leaders' of forestry extract their digits and start finding ways to earn more than a couple of hundred dollars per hectare per year from their land. That return should be in the thousands or tens of thousands, there's enough opportunities out there. But forestry seems to be only capable of thinking about wood chips, the least valuable use for timber. The opportunities are boundless but not with the kind of managers that forestry has.

No wonder you forestry people are worried. Viewed with hostility by a majority of the population, watching their businesses go bankrupt, watching their own managers fighting for position while passing the pain down the line to contractors who cannot afford it.

Wake up Mark. This happens to many industries...I've seen it all before. Start looking at alternatives and listening carefully to those who are describing what's happening in a different way so that you can create some more options...or alternatively keep denying the facts and keep blaming others as you go down. The choice is yours.

Mikester
I have read you whole article now and as expected you one-sidedly express the usual range of highly contentious points arraigned against forestry as though they are fact. I have made some points against each one as follows:

"free water to feed their 3,000 sq km plantation estate" - no plantations are irrigated and farmers don't pay for rainwater falling on their land, so why should plantation owners?

"free roads and bridges plus their maintenance" - timber production was originally regarded as a public service because we all use wood products, and the roads and bridges also serve the public for recreation and tourism and provide access for fire control and management. When used for timber production, the industry pays a road levee for their use and royalties for the timber feeds back into managing forest infrstructure - how is this free use?

"paid forestry research and publicity" - forestry is a scientific discipline like any other which is constantly engaging in reserach and development often in a government/industry funding partnership. If you are advocating that this shouldn't happen, you would also be advocating it not happen in other scientific disciplines such as agriculture - would this be good for Australia?

"legal exemptions from planning, .... and other laws that apply to everyone else"
It has been explained infinitum that forestry is not exempt from the EPBC Act, a view that was reiterated by an Independent Review last year - so why is it stll being said?

“In exchange they cut down our forests to sell as wood chips to overseas markets"
They also produce a range of high value solid wood products. We needn't have sold our woodchips overseas if the first proposal to build a pulp mill had succeeded in the late 1980s. I wonder why it didn't it get off the ground?

"dominate our roads with overloaded log trucks" Overloaded? Where is the evidence?

"put poisons in our water supplies" There is no evidence for this.

I could go on, but will continue later.

Mark,

On water, trees have root systems that are 15m long and penetrate deep into groundwater supplies which is totally different to the situation with wheat or peas for farmers. Either you know this and are deliberately trying to dissemble, or you don't. Food farmers have to pay for irrigation water from rivers and creeks which are constantly being drained by trees up catchment. They know the impacts of large area plantations on their water supplies - forestry does not.

Roads and bridges are put in by Forestry Tasmania, maintenance is carried out by Councils who pay the expense from general revenues. The public pays for both.

I didn't mention the EPBC Act, you did. Forestry is exempt from Tasmania's LUP Act (along with many others) which is the most relevant planning Act here.

These factors and the others that I raise are entirely real, simply denying them or trying to divert me onto irrelevant tracks (e.g. EPBC) isn't going to work.

It seems that all you are doing is restating internal forestry industry propaganda, telling the world what you tell yourselves. You are making the mistake (as did Kevin Rudd) of believing your own marketing.

How do you explain all the forestry failures recently? Most common 'explanation' is that the 'Greens' did it. I believe that to be total nonsense. A few greens with that kind of power? Doesn't make sense.

My message is simple really, the world is changing fast and forestry is trying to act in the same old ways - the result is bankruptcy.

The things I am telling you here, about water, roads, exemptions and so on are pretty well researched and well understood in the community. They aren't a 'green' conspiracy at all.

Too many forestry people cannot hear the community because they are convinced that all arguments against forestry must somehow be false, that there's a conspiracy against forestry and that forestry is right to be chipping our forests and using our food production land for pulp mill feedstock.

To hear, you first of all have to make room for new information.

Mikester .... continued
I won't comment specifically on your last post but will continue with my overall assessment of your article, which in part addresses new points you have just raised.

Re pulpwood plantations @ "With a production rate per hectare of land of around 150 tonnes per hectare taking around 15 years to grow ... "

This equates to a growth rate of 10 tonnes/ha/yr which substantially understates the reality as has been noted by others on the Tasmanian Times thread to your article.

In my experience, there are clearly some plantations that have been inappropriately established on poor quality land that may grow that poorly, but I would suggest that the overall Tasmanian average is in the high teens. Evidence? Well, in 2006, the average plantation harvesting yield in the Green Triangle area which straddles the Vic/SA border equated to an average growth rate of 17 tonnes/ha/yr. I would contend that Tasmania, with more reliable rainfall may average a bit better than this.

This mistake discredits the veracity of your economic analysis as well as other things such as your ball-park estimate of plantation water use.

Moving on though, you are intent on distancing what you term as community views from the campaign views of the major environmental groups. The key question that needs to be asked is how many in the community actually have any personal experience of forestry, and how many are simply swept up in an outrage manufactured by repetitive exposure to the sort of self-righteous conveyance of supposed 'facts' that you are espousing?

Eg. how does the community come to a view that plantations are toxic? Again, you present this as a virtual given, when it remains unproven. Certainly, it was featured on ABC TV at the behest of a local medical doctor who has been associated with three activist groups that have campaigned for years against plantations. Community view or activist view? Your efforts to seperate the two seems to be an attempt to escape the wacky perception that many others in the community have of these groups and their essentially similar views.

Mikester ... continued
I guess though that the crux of your article and your earlier responses to my posts is that forestry must just accept that it is wrong (or disliked) and must change.

However, given that the so-called community opposition you are espousing is largely a house of cards with limited substance, there is the real risk that change made to something that is not actually that bad will result in outcomes that are worse both environmentally and economically.

It is notable that forestry's critics, such as yourself, rarely suggest how such change should occur. Instead you just outline a grab bag of opposition to virtually every aspect of forestry in both plantations and native forests and say just deal with it, otherwise you will go down.

You also never to stop to think that potential options may have already been considered and rejected in the evolution of the current industry systems and structure, and that those 'forestry leaders' who are not cheerleading for change are aware of this.

So, here's a few questions for you:
How do we get more out of hardwood pulpwood plantations? If we grow them longer, we may produce some higher value products, but the costs are higher and the wait for a return far longer. Will the economics be any better?

Even if they produce higher value products, these plantations will still produce a lot of waste - without a woodchip industry, what would we do with this? Burn it perhaps, or use it for biomass energy production? But hang-on, the community doesn't want a woodchip indistry, hates burning, and opposes biomass energy from wood. What do you suggest?

If we don't fully utilise all the wood coming form plantations don't we further reduce their economic viability? Who will pay to retain this viability?

If the community is opposed to export woodchipping, why don't we value-add in Tasmania by building a pulp mill?

Mark, I've got plenty of ideas about change that have forests selectively logged for timbers and plantation land returning thousands of dollars per hectare per year but this is not the place.

"You also never to stop to think..." Oh really, are you just trying to win me over?

I think OLO lost my last post but I'll say it again. Forestry is a part of a wider community. Communities don't need to understand foresty to understand its impacts upon them any more than a pedestrian injured by a car needs to understand the car's workings to understand their injury.

Who needs a woodchip/fibre industry in a high cost and remote economy? If you want to get rid of forest 'waste', why not mulch it in Bartlett's food bowl. It's forestry that's hit the wall, not the community. Wake up.

The public, that's us, has already paid for the pulp wood plantations, either in tax money of $3,200 ha or from 'investors' who put up to $6,000 ha. Now you want us to pay more?

If the community is opposed to export woodchipping, why don't we value-add in Tasmania by building a pulp mill?

Didn't you read my article? Don't you understand the problems with trying to work a global commodities market with declining mean prices whether as pulp or chips

Mikester … a few thoughts on some of your recent comments

@ “On water, trees have root systems that are 15m long and penetrate deep into groundwater … which is totally different to … wheat or peas for farmers”.

Plantation trees rarely root that deeply nor often access groundwater aquifers. Site characteristics, such as the depth to rock or impermeable clays determines root depth - often not much deeper than a couple of metres.

Charging plantations for rainwater: Many ag crops also have high water usage - would they be charged as well? What about farmers growing trees or fruit growing enterprises based on trees or shrubs? What about private native forests managed for timber? You need to think this through.

@ “Roads and bridges are put in by Forestry Tasmania, maintenance is carried out by Councils who pay the expense from general revenues. The public pays for both.”

You are confused between Shire roads and forest roads on public land. As I said earlier, forest roads are used for a range of public purposes such as fire management. When used for timber production the industry pays a road levee, while timber royalties paid to the government help fund the maintenance of roads and bridges. Wake up.

@ “It seems that all you are doing is restating internal forestry industry propaganda, telling the world what you tell yourselves”

Well that’s a pretty weak response isn’t it.

@ “How do you explain all the forestry failures recently?”

Global financial crisis, rising Green political influence, and the poisoning of Tasmania’s traditional Japanese woodchip market. Why does the Victorian industry have no trouble selling native forest woodchips into the same markets?

“Too many forestry people ….. are convinced that all arguments against forestry must somehow be false, …”

Most of them are either false or hugely exaggerated eg. your article’s claim of overloaded log trucks or poisons in our water. Why can’t you accept that forestry people might actually know what’s going on in their own field of expertise? Wake up.

Continued .....

@ “Communities don't need to understand forestry to understand its impacts upon them any more than a pedestrian injured by a car needs to understand the car's workings to understand their injury”

That’s OK if they only outline their concerns. But once they actively campaign to force change that can affect the livelihoods of thousands of people, they assume a responsibility to act with integrity in arguing their case. This requires an understanding of forestry.

Pushing for change by repetitively regurgitating arguments despite their flaws being frequently pointed out by forestry authorities is deceitful, and anyone involved will have blood on their hands if Tasmania’s economic and environmental situation worsens as a result.

@ “If you want to get rid of forest 'waste', why not mulch it in Bartlett's food bowl. It's forestry that's hit the wall, not the community. Wake up”

This is the sort of response I was hoping for as it emphasises the importance of actually knowing something about what you are trying to change. Doing away with a woodchip industry that generates revenue from waste timber, and replacing it with a process such as mulching which, even if logistically possible, would cost a fortune, is hardly good economic management.

Yet economic viability is central to your arguments against the current forestry sector. To agitate for major change that would put people on welfare as well as introduce a massively expensive replacement process is about as economically irresponsible as it could get. Wake up.

I’m not naive enough to believe that the current situation won’t force some sort of change, but that it occurs won’t necessarily equate to it being right or even sensible.

Also, no change short of virtually dismantling the forestry sector will appease those disaffected by forestry simply because they have been fed such a grab-back of irrational and imagined ills - frequently and unquestioningly repeated by the likes of yourself - that they will only ever be satisfied by the complete cessation of native forestry and the bulldozing of plantations. How good would that be for Tasmania?

Well Mark, you have convinced me that it is wrong to express community concerns.

Confused about roads - there's me thinking that log trucks damaged Council roads just because the Council people say so, and just because we can see the damage. Stupid of me.

Fact is, the community is lucky to have you taking our money and our trees.

No matter the communities' concerns, forestry has the right to do pretty much what it likes while we pay whenever they need money.

We should just shut up and accept what you tell us. Why think for ourselves when we can just believe you?

Bankruptcy of so many 'sustainable' companies is clearly just a blip.

When it comes right down to it there can be no better use for trees than as fibre. You're not really clearfelling for chips, it's just a bit of waste used after processing real timbers. We've never been into the forests to see it happening, nor watched log trucks dump valuable myrtle, sassafras etc into the chipper - and even if we had we'd be wrong.

And of course you are totally right that mulching would be impossible. I mean, why try to use a resource when you can just burn it? As you say, that's more economic. What was I thinking?

Of course communities shouldn't have the right to campaign against the damage they imagine is being done to them by forestry. What should happen? Horsewhipping perhaps? Or just wipe out anyone who objects to forestry? Why wait?

The key that I'd missed but that is clear from your post is that forestry experts like you define what activities forestry should engage in, not communities. Like the Forest Practices Tribunal who judge public grievances against forestry and always find in favour of forestry (the illusion that this violates the age old principles of natural justice is another example of community unreasonableness), you are the appropriate judge of the validity of community arguments and complaints.

You tell us when we're wrong, when we 'repetitively regurgitate arguments' that are 'flawed'. Your word is enough.

OK

Mikester

You forgot to add that Mark regales us of these forestry factoids out of a sense of duty and altruism, never because he has vested interests.

;P

Mikester
Roads: You still don't acknowledge that Council roads were originally constructed to service agricultural areas, which they still do, as well as providing access to rural communities. If they are also used for timber production, as I've already earlier, the industry pays a levee to assist their routine upkeep.

Granted, there are times when log cartage does obvious damage which requires a level of repair exceeding routine maintenance. In my experience in such cases the industry is required to bring the road back to its pre-existing condition.

Community concerns: I have never denied that there are community concerns, but for every person that is disaffected due to some personal involvement with forestry (eg. live near a forest where some operation has occurred which they disagree with), there are probably 1,000 people who have no personal experience of forestry, but have been convinced to be disaffected by misinformation which grossly exaggerates threats or simply raises imagined threats - your article includes several of these. Is this a valid basis for major change in forestry or any industry for that matter?

@ "We should just shut up and accept what you tell us"

I am just providing an alternate view - but one informed by a 30-years of experience in forestry. Shouldn't this carry some credence?

Using the health system as an analogy, would you respect the views of disaffected patients more than the knowledge and experience of doctors and nurses who work in the system? I doubt it, yet somehow you regard forestry in a different light.

You assume that every grievance against forestry is valid and right. Some are, but clearly many arise because of unreal expectations of threat associated with the spread of misinformation, or are just ideological objections regardless of how activities are conducted.

In such cases, how can the industry mitigate concerns short of just walking away. If they reacted that way to every grievance they wouldn't survive - and this is clearly what many of its critics are striving for

Severin
Yes, I have a vested interest though being academically trained in forestry and then working in the forestry sector for around 30-years in government agencies, the private sector, and as a self-emplyed consultant. My informed contribution to the debate should be respected rather than dismissed just because I work in this field.

Perhaps you could show a bit of ticker and step out from behind your anonymity so we can assess your level of expertise and your pecuniary interest. Perhaps you are a paid environmental activist? Come-on, stop being a coward.

Mark, I am advocating for communities in Tasmania that have asked me to support them. In missing the core points that I'm trying to get across, you keep proving that 'industrial forestry' has real and serious problems that are affecting the whole industry.

1) 'Industrial forestry' isn't working in Tasmania, requiring major subsidies to keep it in operation. the result has been corporate bankruptcies and severe disruption of forestry operations.

2) The supply chain for 'industrial forestry' (plantation or forest) requires operation at very low margins because of the characteristics of the global fibre markets (prices non-negotiable and trending down)> The effect is disenchanted contractors, investors and taxpayers. You'll be able to add banks and financiers to that list too I'd say.

3) Resistance to 'Industrial forestry' has strengthened opponents (e.g the greens) and contributed to financial support for TWS and others. That resistance is creating more pain for forestry, even the parts valued by communities such as timber production.

4) Community antipathy to 'industrial forestry' is starting to affect other political systems and accelerate resistance for 'industrial forestry' plans.

5) 'Industrial forestry' projects cannot get funding in Tasmania, probably due to some combination of the foregoing factors.

Your approach to this is to deny there are problems and rubbish the objections to 'industrial forestry' that are causing you so many problems. Whether you like it or not, many people reject 'industrial forestry' on both socio-economic and environmental grounds. That is the right of the community of taxpayers - to make up its own mind.

Solution - reduce the 'industrial forestry' efforts (because they're not working and don't promise serious or reliable profits) and start using forestry land and resources to provide solutions to Australians.

There's lots of ways to do this, the only constraint is your imagination.