The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Greens' burning problem > Comments

The Greens' burning problem : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 11/2/2013

The Greens’ attempts to connect with rural Australia are being hampered by a hot fire season that has exposed their contradictory behaviour with regard to bushfire management.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
*when 75% of its public lands are managed for conservation and just 25% for long term timber supply.*

And this is how the pro loggers "adjust" the accuracy of their propaganda.
75% of public lands conserved, but how much of that is actually high conservation value trees and how much low value scrub?

*killing off Forestry Tasmania* is really the only answer when they have made it obvious that they are not to be trusted in the management of public forest and are so inept that they continue to lose money and demand bailouts even when they have their "stock in trade" supplied to them for free.

They are a rogue organization that needs to be disbanded and a properly supervised management put in their place.
Posted by Robert LePage, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 1:25:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert

In view of your intemperate comment, I'm tempted to ask if you've ever been to any of the many Tasmania's national parks and reserves (comprising about 50% of the state's public lands)? I think you badly need to do so given your ill-founded insistence that they are only comprised of scrub and low value forest.

The figures I use come from the Australian Government's DAFF report, Australia's Forests at a Glance 2012, which shows that Tasmania has 2.23 million hectares of publicly-owned native forest..... not scrub of button grass plains.

It is well known that about 0.6 million ha of this is being managed for long term timber supply by Forestry Tasmania. I DO beg your pardon, that is 26.8% rather than 25%,..... so I guess that makes me a spin meister!

As you are no doubt aware, the term 'high conservation value' forest is meaningless as it is yet to be scientifically-defined. In reality, all forests have conservation values, and the fact that large areas that were formerly managed for timber production are now contained in national parks Australia-wide, is testament to the fact that forestry does not diminish conservation values at a landscape level over a long timeframe.

The Otways in south west Victoria is a classic example. It supplied a strong hardwood sawmilling industry for 150-years before being declared as national park in 2003. Apparently, this political act was enough to change the area from low to high conservation values overnight.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 2:45:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Poynter : Response to D Mills 19th Feb.
Responses need more rigour.

"self righteous lay-person" , sorry a worn out cliche thrown at anyone having to critique how public interest fields are administered by their administrators; perhaps I was hasty in ascribing Mr Poynter eloquence. Read J Ralston Saul's writing on society's inablity to communicate across professional boundaries.

In defence of citizen opinion. Providing argument is based on personal experience and/or respected literature it stands on better ground than that based on the defence of obvious self interest. Hopefully that also aspires to avoid sophistry and half truths so common in debates where reason is no longer respected, on the sad road to polarisation of debate.

To the technical facts of Mr Poynters response.

1.I will pass on the reserve/production split in Tasmania; it is complex multifactorial and best adjudicated by an body independent of use interest.

2.Yes at a macro level mosaic fuel reduction is already crudely practiced by FT. And that is the problem,crude!
The unnatural forced draft holocausts used in the regeneration burns, in late autumn dry soil, destroys most of the organic matter in the top soil and associated life, taking centuries to recover. ref both personal observation at numerous locations and Warra trials.
The damage it does to situational biodiversity, resilience can never recover in the short rotation monocultures understood by monocultural foresters. Add to this the damage done to water catchments by the loss of organic matter and humus and biota and the accelerated water use of unnaturally young crops of trees; Water the birthright of people living and farming in the lower catchments.

3. It is widely accepted by progressive thinkers that carbon management must determine systems of utilisation; yes if wastes can by used in long life material. Biochar has many synergies and huge potential application in Australian soils given sound carbon market signals. For carbon management hazard reduction must be the last resort technique but only under scientifically prescribed methods. I would hope that yes this is current practice, but I would like to have this independently verified.

cont/........
Posted by duncan mills, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 10:06:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued.

4. Sadly scrapping FT is not so much about technical expertise of which its employees have much as about the perverse evolution of its culture. A culture that has degeneration since the inception of the wood chip industry into short term values, self serving decision making, cronyism, conflicts of interests, lack of accountability and transparency and contempt for the owners of the forest, the people of Tasmania. All my experience in dealing with industry players in the last 30 years. But the defensive of course will say I am one observer, but also know there are many many more as this and other forums have shown.
Independent experts also have verified this; URS consultants also putting forward the disbandment of FT as one option to government in the process of verifying wood supply to inform current peace negotiations. As technical consultants their terms of references did not extend to systematic cultural critique or analysis but reading between the lines of the various recent reports implies different and new structural approaches are necessary; particularly the separation of powers and responsibilities. All this particularly in the light of the now obvious carbon management imperatives and opportunities for forest managers.

5."Gawd" rhetorically crude and unhelpful! Facts clearly disputed in 2 and 3.

In summary: Mark Poynter would have more credibility if some sense of balance and humility in accepting the industry's mistakes could be shown. The mistakes are largely systemic and little reflection on most individual foresters; Having blossomed with the lack of collective critical reflection within a stressed and archaic authoritarian system of management.
Posted by duncan mills, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 10:06:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You like to leave forests undisturbed, you don't like mining, you don't like aquaculture, you don't like broad-scale agriculture and tourism is only accepted if there is no development.

You do like your house held up by timber (not burnt down) and wiping your bum with toilet paper, you do like driving your metal car (just one of many mined products you use), you do like eating food grown on farms that used to be forests and you do like revenue generated from tourism.

hhhmmmmm - that is a predicament.
Posted by jmsc, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 10:36:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
that was a generic comment not aimed at an individual
Posted by jmsc, Wednesday, 20 February 2013 10:40:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy