Col Rouge

"As for a couple of greens buying a Tassie business… That is life.
I may disagree with the new owners ..... but I will always support their right to deploy their resources in the manner they see fit and if that means payng a lot for assets which they intend to waste, then so be it"

I agree with you, but the point is that this particular episode has a bit more to it than Greens just buying a business and wasting it.

Their purchase was facilitated specifically to foster the signing of a wavering and mis-named 'peace deal' between ENGOs and timber industry reps. The industry is only considering it under a pragnmatic premise that they can either go broke and get nothing if they don't sign, or go broke and recieve some financial compensation if they do sign. Taking away another key industry facility only further cements this perception.

But the key point is that in return for compensation for the industry, the 'deal' gives the ENGO reps the right to select forests for reservation in new National Parks. They have identified over 0.5 million hectares which they want immediately protected. This then takes a decision about the tenure, use and management of a public resource out of the state government's hands without any consideration of the scientific and practical merits, and without any regard for what the majority of Tasmanians want.

Given that National Parks are generally restrictive of recreational pursuits such as horse-riding, hunting, dog-walking, and uses such as firewood collection, bee-keeping etc compared to State Forests, I would contend that little more than the 20% who vote Green would want this, but effectively have no say. This seems undemocratic

Rumpelstiltskin :
I did say in a previous post that selective logging was OK.
Yes I do use wood for heating & water heating & cooking. My "shelter" is made of timber. So what is your point?
As long as the old growth is not clear felled for chips I have no axe to grind.
As usual with trolls, you are cherry picking comments and taking them out of context.
The axe I have to grind is the total trashing of old growth to be sold at a pittance by the so called managers FT and then on sold for a big profit by a private company, with no thought of the future environment for flora and fauna but only profit as the motive, that is what I am against.

hugoagogo:

I have no idea of the hectares involved, just that Gunns exported 5 million tons of chips in one year from the state of Tasmania. This was from typical old growth forest but they do tend to put some of the more exotic species such as myrtle on one side to burn because it is harder to chip.

No idea eh?

this is a well written article and makes some really valid points. It is good and healthy to hear the other side of the argument, especially when put forward in such an intelligent and eloquent manner.

As for Jan Cameron, she cares nothing for people. Let's not forget when she bought Chickenfeed she immediately made 60 Tasmanians redundant by moving the warehouse to Sydney. She owns countless properties in Tas the majority of which lay idle, including the Silver Sands resort in Bicheno which she has owned for the past 7 years. If this place is any indication of what she'll do for Tasmania then we're in big trouble. The place is in a state of total disrepair and represents more of an eye-sore than tourist attraction. She imports and employs kiwis during the summer because she can get away with paying them less - no jobs for the locals even if you wanted to work there. She closed down the once-thriving pub and restaurant where many locals used to enjoy live music, darts and other community activities. In its place is Dogs Breakfast trading company, and a dogs breakfast it is. A cheap chinese import shop in the dining room with inadequate (and jaded) staff to man it along with the white-dog cafe which doubles as a thoroughfare and reception for Silversands, Seaview and Gaol house accomodation (all owned by Jan Cameron). The checking-in experience (sometimes many kms from where people are actually staying) leaves guests confused, lost and not-coming-back. Read the reviews on the net if you want it from the horse's mouth. Aside from this, there is the failed Granite wine bar and Sip coffee-lounge. Looks good on the website, but go there and you'll find an abandoned dump. But the Bicheno experience isn't new, she did this to a place in NZ, too. Towns to her are like toys which she enjoys pulling apart and wrecking.

Sure, Jan Cameron has the right to buy and hoard property with compulsive veracity, she can afford to do it. Trouble is, Tasmania can't afford for her to do it.

Hi Sarnian:

That 5 million tonnes from Tasmania...you might find if you look on the website for ABARE that the volume of chips refered to is for all states - and that it includes the volume of

1) softwood and hardwood woodchips grown in plantations;
2) regrowth native forest chips; as well as
3) old growth native forest chips;

ABARE track all exports of chips for every state by product by year and those stats are publically available. Look it up yourself rather than parroting Wilderness Society brochures and diatribe. Expect to hear that sort of rubbish from a British backpacker wearing a koala suit in Flinders St station.

The timber in your house...and the stuff you burn in your fire...do you think the % of the tree and forest harvested that was usable for paper manufacturing but not economically suitable for structural timber should be left on the forest floor after they log the rest of the tree(s)?

Even selective logging (which Tasmania leads the nation on in Alpine Ash) produces round logs (sawn timber is square) and bent logs unsuitable for sawing. When the site is harvested, do you reckon they should just leave these behind?

Perhaps next time a farmer kills a cow, they just leave all the mince grade beef in the paddock for the crows to eat?

And for grain, they should only get the bits that are suitable for manufacturing bread and leave the low grade products for the parrots and mice?

And when catching snapper, they should leave all the bycatch in the water for sharks to eat?

If you indeed are involved in food production you should understand something about the economics of marketing the secondary products.

I believe Gunns has done a shocking job since the late 1990's (virtual timber industry monopoly created from what was Boral, North and the old Gunns) however, Australia will do globally more harm than good letting native forest industry be killed off by well meaning but poorly formed opinions based on dogma.

My roast lamb was great last night.

To MPOYNTER (author of this piece)

I have seen firsthand the effects of clearfelling. I have felt for a long time that this is the major environmental catastrophe at issue in this state.

Clear felling and following up with napalm burning and environmentally destructive poisoning is not sustainable forestry, and deprives the wedge tailed eagle and other threatenen species of the habitat they need to survive.

Were the forestry industry to practice sustainable forestry I would support them. They do not. You do not even seem to understand what the word sustainable means.

To say current forestry practices are sustainable is a lie. Graeme Wood and Jan Cameron know this. They are smart people. That's how they came to be so successful.

Many others who oppose current practices by the forestry industry know this too. Such people are not victims of "green" propaganda. Like me, they made up their minds based on having seen this shameful destruction with their own eyes.