Why do the greenies always bang on about tourism? Could it be related to $1.6 million donation to the Greens federal election campaign by tourism millionaire and Wotif travel businessman Graeme Wood http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/saint-bob-brown-steps-into-spotlight/story-e6frgd0x-1226086702210 . A donation based on his self opinionated claim that Tasmanians would find jobs in tourism not forestry. Yet the Legislative Council after hearing from the Tourism Council and a leading entrepreneur found:

“There is a lack of evidence supporting claims that tourism related industries will provide significant future employment opportunities for affected communities as an alternative to forest industries.”

In fact the evidence in response to a question of how many private tourist operators have started up and started using the 1.4 million hectares of high-conservation value forests already in reserve was “Virtually none within the last 10 years”.

This 1.4 million ha includes almost one million hectares of old growth that is off limits to forestry of any description. It is part of 3 million ha of Tasmania that is already reserved including virtually all high quality wilderness.

We now find demands for another half a million hectares to be locked up, including forest that has already been harvested. The greenies who used to claim industrial forestry destroyed now claim that it creates HCV forests as this video of harvesting in the now targeted Styx valley shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW4kcuUvsJk

It about time these demands to destroy jobs in Tasmania's forest sector are rejected and the Government support its own National Forest policy and the balance created by its Regional Forest Agreement

Another key point about tourism as an alternative to forestry was also unearthed during the Legislative Council Committee's hearing of the two representatives of Tasmania's tourism industry.

These tourism representatives made the point that there is a history of ENGOs and their supporters touting tourism jobs as a replacement for forest industry jobs during their anti-logging campaigns, but then, once the industry has been evicted and the forests have been declared as National Parks, the same people oppose development proposals put forward by tourism operators.

Given this, there is little likelihood of Tasmanian tourism significantly expanding because more forests have been reserved, particularly given the seasonal nature of tourism in such a cold winter climate when not too many people want to be in a forest.

Sarnian,
It's not about nit-picking sematics. There is a world of difference between what you have said in your reply to me and what you said/implied earlier. Your first post suggests, to anyone not familiar with the issue, that the last of Tasmania's old-growth forest is about to disappear. Your reply says that there is indeed a lot of Tasmania's old-growth forest protected in reserves and it is only a small amount that is left out of reserves. I am tempted to think this "slip" was not unintential. This sort of use of half-truths i.e. not saying the whole thing but saying it in a way that suggests something quite different, has long been a ploy adopted by certain elements of the enviromental movement. There is an old Yiddish proverb that says a half-truth is a whole lie. I'm sorry if you just want to dismiss this as semantics but I happen to think that full and accurate reporting is the best way to avoid conflict - in anything, not just disputes over forests.

Sarnian,
Another misconception that you point to is the old growth is a great carbon sink. It is true that the vegetation in an old growth forests holds significant amount of carbon. However, old growth forests are by their nature net carbon emitters. This is due to the stage in the lifecycle that the forests are at. It is typical to see the large overstory eucalypts dying back during this stage and releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Accordingly, an old growth forest may hold less carbon than a younger forest.
Clearfelling of forests does not result in a 100% emission of carbon as many of the products that are produced (inlcuding paper) are durable and survive for extended periods of time. Even if all the wood products were burnt for fuel it would be more beneficial than burning fossil fuels. It is time the protectionist movement stopped misusing arguements to support their causes.

I have to agree with Sarnian. The majority of Australians are over this primitive management of native forests. If you want to clearfell and log old growth forests, grow your own. You've had more than a fair share of native forests and the rest is ours to preserve in a pristine state. If it hasn't been logged (or it's regrowth from selective logging under the pre-industrial regime) it should not be logged let alone clearfelled. Simple.

Maaate, can't you get into your head that old growth forests ultimately die. They don't remain pristine forever. In places like Victoria, the ultimate result is generally a wild fire which destroys everything in its path including the native animals. Such a conflagration occurred in Victoria recently.

If these forests are logged, the size of the coops is quite restricted and the animals have a chance to migrate into adjoining forest. At the same time, the old hollow stags are left as habitat. After the loggers have been, the young regrowth provides an excellent food supply.

David