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.