Thank You Miranda for such a well balanced, unbiased article on logging in Tasmania. It's good to see all views being presented instead of the screeching one eyed ,irrational views that the Logging activists have been known to do in tha past !

Miranda, I notice, is also a qualified high school teacher in Studies of Society and Environment and English.

Thus our Children , also , will grow up tolerantand well balanced in their views on such subjects

An excellent overview Miranda, to a situation that seems destined to remain. Only the companies change and not the archaic and draconian attitude of State Government, Tasmanian style. We fought hard to remove Gunns Timber from the forests, after years of destruction. Now, the focus has shifted to Ta Ann and one wonders why, with such low rates paid for timber by these giants, Forestry Tasmania feels justified in continuing to log places set aside for conservation. Many people have given so much to bring about solutions and yet the logging continues. Keep doing what you do Miranda and rest assured, there are many people backing you.

See more on Tasmanian forest destruction: http://www.davidleigh.com.a

The correct link: http://www.davidleigh.com.au

Those who can only think of one way to conserve forests - government ownership or control - deserve to see them destroyed.

The only reason there is a "battle for the forests" is because they are government-owned. There's no political "battle" over how to use whitegoods or lounge-rooms: privately-owned goods. Common ownership instrinsically breeds unnecessary conflict and division.

All Miranda, and those who agree with her, have to do to stop the forest from being logged is buy it! There is no need for "environment groups" to "sit down with" "unions and industry representatives" to "negotiate" what is "good for the environment, communities and workers". The costs per month, divided by all those contributing, would probably be small.

The environmental movement might want to reflect that the reasons they cannot currently buy the forests in issue, is because they have done nothing but campaign for decades for forests to be owned by government and for all decisions on them to be in the sphere of government policy. Well? How's that working out for you?

However if those who want the forests conserved, are not willing to pay for them, it means
a) that the conservationists have no right whatsoever to use force - the law - to get what they want, when they are not willing or able to pay the market price like everyone else
b) that the value society attaches to using the forests as timber is higher than the value Miranda claims they attach to using them for nature conservation.

"Who knows how long I will end up living in this tree?"

Hopefully until you are willing to advocate freedom instead of coercion, and to pay for the values you are trying to force other people to pay for.

Hmmm .... where to start with such an article as it really requires a couple of thousand words in response.

"This is a story of broken promises ......."

Yes, environmental activists who were supposed to desist from their activities continued on right through the so-called Tasmanian forest 'peace talks' process and continue to do so.

The process always allowed ongoing timber supply committments to be met - it is just not possible to immediately tear-up contracts except perhaps in the dream-world of 'Green' activists, so it was always expected that logging would continue while claims of 'High Conservation Value' forests were assessed and verified.

".... one woman sitting in a tree to stand up for the forests and a community locally and internationally who are standing behind her in the fight to save an irreplaceable ecosystem"

Irreplacable ecosystems? Trees and forests regrow so they are in fact replacable. Perhaps Ms Gibson can tell us why forests which were logged and regenerated 60 - 70 years are now regarded by activists as 'High Conservation Value' forests. Surely this wouldn't be so if they were irreplacable would it?

Ms Gibson bandies about the term 'forest destruction' but harvesting and regenerating forests is not destruction as is exemplified by the high quality advanced regrowth from logging in the 1940s now being put up on the HCV pedestal.

Incidentally, the 430,000 ha of forest being claimed as 'High Conservation Value' is essentially just lines on a map drawn by activists - the term 'HCV' has yet to be formally defined.

As usual, no attempt is made to explain that the 'peace deal' process is only about a 20% portion of forest being managed by Forestry Tasmania for long term timber supply.

It somewhat weakens the imperative to save Tassie's forests when realised that around 50% of Tasmania's forests are already formally reserved in national parks and other conservation reserves, while another 15% is effectively reserved by being either unsuitable or located on private land where there is no expectation of future harvesting.

That's right world - Tasmania is hardly about to lose its forests.

The Tasmanian regional forest agreement reserves 1.4 million hectares of high conservation and almost 2 million ha or 97.5% of high quality wilderness. The observer tree is in the middle of an area of forest granted to the media barons Murdoch and Fairfax in the 1930s to develop a pulp and paper mill to provide the nations newsprint.

You can see how this forest was harvested at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW4kcuUvsJk

Despite her passion the article is wrong on the relationship between Regional Forest Agreement and the EPBC act, the final report of the Independent review of the Act states "10.10 The interaction between the EPBC Act and forestry operations is often referred to as an ‘exemption’. This term does not, however, accurately reflect the relationship. The rationale for the RFA provisions in the Act recognises ‘that in each RFA region a comprehensive assessment has been undertaken to address the environmental, economic and social impacts of forestry operations’. Rather than being an exemption from the Act, the establishment of RFAs (through comprehensive regional assessments) actually constitutes a form of assessment and approval for the purposes of the Act."

She is also wrong on Ta Ann (relies on Bob Brown's guest Clare Rewcastle)and Tasmanian forest management, just as she is wrong on the IGA requires a transition out of native forests, only the greens want this and the PM refused this requirement.

Native forests can and are sustainably managed throughout the world, almost 90% of FSC certified forest is managed native forests. This can also be seen from the public statements of Forestry Tasmania that they do not and can not, under their contract, supply old growth to Ta Ann Tasmania.

She is also wrong about endangered species that are well reserved under the forest practices code.

If anyone is interested in her high horse, the platform for her tree sit, this photo http://florentineprotection.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/observer-tree.jpg shows the amputated limbs of the tall Eucalypt tree that were chainsawed to make way for her soap box.

I'll break my policy on not commenting on OLO articles here just once (I find that commenting here is just like a game of ping-pong between polarised camps usually and my time is better spent behind a lense) because it is a chance to air some observations I found from a recent trip to Tasmania. My thing is taking photos and I used this trip as a 'learning' the landscape one and hope to return in the future to spend time photographing Tasmania's beauty and especially it's forests. Also because I couldn't kindly leave Cinders there fluffing and pointing in the wrong direction. Here clearly is a conservationist in the making. Her outrage at the sawn branches from the tree sit was truly inspiring. So here for Cinders is a picture of what clear-fall looks like from the Weld Valley. http://www.flickr.com/photos/38859456@N05/6537000903/in/set-72157628465270141/ This should drive her blood pressure up. Cinders, protesting has been found to be good for your mental health. I expect you up the tree next to Miranda's pronto!

Anyway I would encourage anyone thinking about this stuff to go and see the forests for themselves. The Huonville environment centre, the Wilderness society, and the people of the Florentine camp will gladly assist. They will address people like MW Poynter's arguments. The Florentine camp is on the sealed road towards Lake Peddar. Dont be put off by people like a negative Park Ranger who had never been to the camp but knew it was really messy. Yep, the authories bull-dozng a camp does that, it was neat and livable when I was there. TBC

Anyway some observations. Firstly I got the impression that Foresty Tasmania doesn't really want to publise the wonderful gems it has or really want people to go into them. You can drive practically to the end of the Styx Valley before you see the word Styx on a road sign. The same with the Florentine though the Florentine road is a bit of a give away. The Styx is slightly better off with the giant tree walk signposted. There is also the Tahune airwalk which you pay about 26 dollars to visit and there is a story they had to lower it, because it gave a view of the nearby clear-fell. But anyway, it was a little like the loggers didn't want the average Joe in there. Maybe when Forestry Tasmania's corporate relations manager Ken Jeffreys said that they had given permission to Bob Brown to land his helicopter in the Styx and made a bit of a deal of it, it said it all. An elected representative of the people needs permission of a organisation that is a apparently a bit of a financial basket case to conduct his work. Who's forests are the Tassie ones? The wider community or the loggers?

Then there is the continual spin. 'Log Trucks' become 'Big Trucks' in road signs, small conservation areas are full of pictures of fire-fighters and talking about making jewelry boxes from wood (not wood chips!) and the signs along the wau to say how long a forest has been logged. 100 years sounds impressive until you realise that the original loggers were going in with axes and saws, not clear-felling hectares and hectares of forests.

Anyway good luck to Miranda and her companions who are doing the real work for Tasmania. Protecting it's future. I'd urge people to visit and see for themselves before buying the loggers spin.

JL Deland

I understand your reluctance to participate in the verbal 'ping pong' of polarised views that follows articles like this on OLO, but perhaps you should appreciate that one-sided misrepresentations of a topic forces those such as myself and Cinders who have a factual knowledge (as distinct from an emotional view unclouded by context and perspective) to respond.

You may regard our views as polarised because you clearly disagree, but hopefully those with a more open-mind get something out of attempts to put some 'flesh on the bone' of claims being made by agenda-driven activists.

I read with interest your take on Camp Florentine. Even Anna Krein in her mostly favourable account of Tasmanian forest activism in her book 'Into the Woods' was somewhat appalled at the state of the Camp and its occupants and raised questions about their motives which largely appeared to about lifestyle and social life, rather than concern for issues of which most had little or no broad appreciation.

Your take on past logging is somewhat romanticised. If you care to follow the link supplied by Cinders showing Styx valley logging 60 to 70-years ago you will see it was indeed clearfelling using bulldozers and primitive motorised saws.

Thye Styx and Florentine valleys are both interesting sites for activism to 'save' so-called pristine forests as both have been logged and regenerated since the 1930s. The healthiest and best logging forests are the regrowth from this early logging, but I suspect most activists don't even know it has beenh logged.

As said earlier, Tassie certainly has beautiful forests, the majority of which won't be logged and it is sad that this is just ignored by anti-forestry activists and other critics.

My father in law was a bit of a cantankerous old bloke. He drank a bit much some times, gambled too much, without success, & always drove old bombs, which regularly shed bits along the road.

His main redeeming feature was his quick wit, & sense of humour.

Here are a couple of his quips while visiting us in the wide bay area, when some fool greenies were similarly up trees on Frazer island.

The first was "help fertilize Australia, bury a greenie today", a little harsh, but appreciated by those who have to work for a living.

The second was the best, he suggested, "we should help these poor greenies down out of those trees, the same way they went up, head first". This one drew applause.

I personally will volunteer to help Miranda down out of that tree, so she can get on with supporting herself, through some worth while endeavour. It may even help her grow up, & out of these exhibitionist tendencies.

I think it's time our Federal government stepped in on the whole forestry issue, especially regarding logging in Tassie - and that we got some real independent science on the case in earnest (as distinct from all the slanted vested-interest haranging). From all accounts Tassie is an economic basket-case, and this must inevitably colour the state government's interest in the returns from logging, and thus its approach towards environmental interests.

Biodiversity and habitat aside, it's time the carbon tax (and emissions) issue took proper account of the value of forests; and that science determined the relative contributions of either maintaining old growth forests untouched, or of selective logging and subsequent re-growth. This has implications for both net emissions (and carbon capture) and potential carbon-credit management.

If our Fed gov was serious about emissions and climate change it would be taking far greater interest in clear-fell logging, wherever it is occurring. The same also applies to preservation of environmental heritage, biodiversity and species protection. Lame-duck government? (Or overly populist, vote-driven, and fiscally incompetent? Or possibly hypocritical?)

MWPOYNTER,

It appears from photos that clear-felling leaves a lot of timber debris behind (as probably would more selective logging methods). Does the timber industry do a sufficiently effective cleanup? If you have ever observed, or been involved in fighting a forest fire, you will note that fallen (or felled) timber contributes enormously to fire intensity and hence to hazard for firefighters, persons, property, and environment/habitat/species-survival.

Does residual timber debris enhance or hinder effective re-growth? Does re-growth effectively re-establish habitat and biodiversity? Why, why not? Is there a better way to pursue a timber industry?

In the longer term, what are the prospects for a plantation timber industry as a viable alternative to old-growth logging? Why is the plantation industry not further advanced? (Lack of foresight, or insufficient profits perhaps?)

Saltpetre

As a forester for over 30-years I am well aware of forest fire and have much experience of it particularly in the first half of my career.

The traditional technique of regenerating forests after clearfall is to burn the logging debris (leaves, banches, and unusable timber)and then re-seed it or rely on natural seedfall from selected retained trees. This mimics the natural regenerative process of forests when they are burnt and re-seed themselves.

Over time, regrowth from logging progressively regains its biodiversity and habitat values as occurs naturally after fire. As stated earlier, many of the Tasmanian protesters aren't aware that forests they are proclaiming to have high conservation values were logged 60, 70, 80 years ago.

The main argument against logging is that the designated forests are to be managed on an 80 - 120-year cycle of logging and regeneration so they will never reach old growth. However, the designated wood production forests comprise only a small portion of the total forest area - about 5% nationwide, but higher in Tasmania. So this can perhaps be seen as a trade-off made to be able to supply native hardwood products. In any event, not logging forests is no guarantee that they will ever reach old growth given the prevalence of fire which affects vastly greater areas each year.

You ask whether plantations can replace old growth logging. I would firstly say that old growth logging has virtually ended anyway as it no longer occurs in WA, NSW, Qld, and virtually none in Vic. There is still some in Tas (as per this article) but even there, the vast majority is reserved and won't be logged.

You really mean can hardwood plantations replace native forest (regrowth and mature) logging rather than old growth logging. Perhaps in time, but we have nowhere near enough hardwood plantation that is old enough to produce sawn wood, and there are real problems with its quality when fast-grown and sawn at 25-30 years compared to native forest grown slowly for 80 years.

Just one more post here as I dont want to become bogged down in this. Thankyou MA Poynter for your response as it rather proved my case in my mind. My rather moderate call for people to visit the forest to talk to helpful, friendly and cluey people there became a 'rant'. Needless to say you probably wont feel the need to comment Hasbeen's contribution though. My lack of facts was a problem for you also. I wasn't trying to give facts in my post Mr Poynter. There are volumes and volumes of hard data out there for people to access. I was giving my own the ground view from a recent trip and impresssions.

Then I was emotional apparently. Well I can do emotional! I could have also talked about the stoney faced logging truck driver in my last post who felt the urge to jump out of his truck when I was in the Styx forest kms from any active logging one morning looking for pretty shots and then very obviously had a good sticky beak in the back of my car (dangerous cameras were there)and confused the hell out of me by talking about locking gates and by announcing I had to follow him out of the State forest. I did follow him and then couldn't keep up so went back out the way I came in which was obviously very much still open. Anyway I lost a morning's work to this over-officious person who as far as I can see didn't have any right to be messing around with me. It's a state forest, I'm a fifty year old woman, a very ordinary looking person, there was no fire danger, I was conducting my own perfectly legal business, and was not in harms way so perhaps Mr Poynter pass this on to the logging workers that it is not their exclusive forest or next time I may get 'emotional' - read that as 'very annoyed'. tbc

People also aren't stupid. Of course there is a difference between the logging of a 100 years ago and now. The sheer scale of devastion for one thing. What would have taken months can be done in weeks.

Anyway I do encourage people to visit the forests and to see for themselves. Very quickly they will learn to recognise depleted,impoverished logged forest from the sort of rich diverse forest that Miranda is fighting to save.