Well said Maaate, on all counts. I think Mark and Cinders should stay in their offices and do their research a bit more, or better still, go into areas such as the Tarkine. Mark, you are right on one thing, the Tarkine official boundaries are, to say the least, sketchy. That is because it was removed from all government maps, at the request of the logging industry. I suggest you take a trip to the Arthur River region and count the eucalypt species that have not been introduced by logging operations, before the area becomes a war zone. And Yuyutsu, I do not work for the government, either federally or at state level. They would be the last people to employ me. In Tasmania, the government is pro logging and pro woodchipping. Most of that material, which constitutes our forests, ends up as toilet paper in Japan. Is it any wonder we get angry at seeing our beautiful landscape transformed for such a worthless cause. Mark and Cinders, on the other hand, do work as spin doctors for Forestry Tasmania (government) their whole existance is about finding facts from government texts, to try and baffle everyone and convince them that clear-fell loggin is carbon neutral. Tasmanian forestry, as it continues to live in the past, is part of the reason we are suffering such dramatic weather events. Tasmanian forests store around 5-times the carbon of any other forest on Earth. For that reason they punch well above their weight as carbon sinks. No amount of rhetoric will convince me or people like Maaate that logging Tasmanian style is good for the planet. The Tarkine Myrtles are also chipped at Burnie and sent to Japan, along with Blackwoods, to be burnt for power generation.

Fact or fiction seems to be the choices when arguing about Tasmanian forests.

Both the Blue Tier and the ‘Tarkine’ in the North West have been extensively reserved. The Tarkine was listed to the National estate after the Regional Forest Agreement that created the Savage river national Park and regional reserve that includes the largest contiguous temperate rainforest in Australia, the community forest agreement added even more reserves. The rainforest is predominantly open, tall, cathedral like myrtle (Nothofagus cunninghamii) forest. Over 87% of the Tarkine is reserved, as explained at http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/49238/tcfa_fsheet_04_tarkine.pdf yet this publication is ignored.

So too the Tarkine boundaries, another 100,000 ha has been added in recent years including the forest concession granted to the Burnie Pulp mill in the 1930s.

How can people be so passionate about the forest issue but not check the facts? This can be seen in the latest claims for ‘high conservation forest’ these areas include previous clear felled coupes now regenerating, such as Picton 39A, pictures of which can be found at page 4 of an United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/ae542e/ae542e21.pdf

This report that details the management of our forests can be ignored just as the National Carbon Accounting reports that show Tasmania reduced its Greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2005 by 25% by slowing deforestation and planting trees. Instead official reports are replaced by personal comments and calculations funded by the Wilderness Society.

The Blue tier coupe is near private property and adjacent harvested forests, it is identified as GC164A and so far has produced about 10,000 tonnes which is running at about 20 to 25% product including high quality sliced veneer and rotary peel logs and various categories of saw logs including Special timber, the remainder has been pulpwood, but no export peeler logs. A map of the coupe can be downloaded at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/3yp/bass/gc164a.pdf A map that also show extensive for reservation.

But of course this would only be of interest to someone that is passionate enough about forestry to first find out the facts.

Regeneration...taking many years.

Common sense and not greed should have been the number one priority 60 years ago relating to most Forests.

Take into account the timeframes of regeneration, particularly after fires and drought over the past 30 years.

There is an abundance of timber, furniture and products available without destroying large pristine Australian Forests.

Any person [caring for our environment or not]should at least think of our future generation.

Balance is the key.

Leave our precious Forests to provide homes to flora and fauna while soaking up the carbon.

Thank you for your detailed account Cinders. You state that the Tarkine is reserved and yet I have footage and stills of it having just been logged a few months ago... Curious.

I accept that much of the Blue Tier is privately owned (with caveats) and that there are areas which have previously been logged but why chip the bulk of a coupe such as gc164a? Why not leave the the trees not suitable for timber harvest in the ground as a carbon sink? In fact, why not leave all of the trees alone and harvest instead from the oversupply of plantions in the region? Is it because you have a window of oportunity or are you going to ignore the Federal Government initiative?

maaate

I will respond to your latest missive for the benefit of the public record:

Re your home spun calculations:
You have ignored the fact that much carbon remains on site after logging and slash burning in the soil, in tree and plant roots, in retained trees, and in charred forest debris. You also grossly understate the log productivity of the highest carbon content forests, and just ignore paper products (or assume instant emission) which is just not on when recycling, use in long service life products, and land fill disposal are considered. You also assume I think that all logging involves clearfalling and burning, when even in Tas, selective harvesting with no burning is the dominant technique.

Re carbon neutrality of logging:
While it suits your argument to judge forestry on a coupe-basis, it is in fact a landscape-scale activity and needs to be judged as such when considering its carbon implications.

To explain this simply: Consider a hypothetical 100 hectare uniform forest being sustainably managed for timber on a 100-year rotation. Each year, one hectare is logged and regenerated. The wood removed from the forest by the harvest is equal to the total wood growth across the forest each year. Similarly, associated losses from soils, or the destruction of understorey are recouped in the replenshment of soil carbon and understorey growth over the rest of the forest. In this way, logging and regenerating forests on a sustainable basis is carbon neutral.

The alternative promulgated by the ENGOs, that leaving all forests unlogged will mean increasing carbon storage in perpetuity is simply not true because of the propensity of our forests to periodically burn.

David Leigh
I wouldn't know where to start to dissect your home-spun misconceptions about Tasmanian forests and forestry - suffice to say that some of your beliefs are deeply troubling and bear little resemblence to reality.

I do though take issue with your statement that: "Mark and Cinders, on the other hand, do work as spin doctors for Forestry Tasmania (government) their whole existance is about finding facts from government texts, to try and baffle everyone ....."

In fact, I do not and never have worked for Forestry Tasmania. I am though, a forester with 30+ years of experience who sees it as a duty to try to correct crazy misconceptions about my profession. It says much about you that you see facts as being put forward to baffle people rather than inform them. This is the sort of attitude that makes the notion of forestry 'peace deals' seem just pointless.