Alan you are spot on with every thing you have said including the fact that our forests are far from destroyed by the clear fell burn and sow silviculture in fact it grows back. This can be seen in pictures showing a Picton coupe in southern Tasmania that was clearfell, then high intensity burning was used on March 21 1989 with aerial ignition. Sown with seed collected from the area prior to harvesting. Seeding was by fixed wing aircraft on April 15, 1989.

These pictures can be found on page 17 in the brochure at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pdf_files/sfm_brochure.pdf

Forestry Tasmania’s commitment to scientific research to ensure sustainable management can be found here http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pages/research.htm

interesting reading Alan.
I am very surprised that the WWF would endorse the Tasmanian chapter of the international report referred to in this article. Their latest report on the Asia Pacific region shows that Australia’s forests are being managed sustainably. http://www.nafi.com.au/news/view.php3?id=1599

Also many elements of their Blue Print for Tasmania’s forests http://wwf.org.au/publications/tasmaniablueprint2004/ were incorporated into the Tasmanian Community Forestry Agreement, the ‘Tarkine’ the 95% retention of native forests and the phasing out of conversion to plantation. This report provided for the continued clear felling and cable harvesting of ‘old growth’.

It is disappointing that the IUCN endorsed the report, but as Tasmanian Greens Senator Christine Milne is one of their Vice Presidents perhaps they too are under political pressure.

The IUCN/WWF report Forest for Life (1996) objective 1 is for 10% forest reservation.

Littleed
it's hard to understand why the anti forestry groups keep targeting Tasmania when as you stated the rest of the world is only required to establish conservation reserves of up to 10% of their forests.

It would be interesting to learn how the rest of the world is going in meeting this IUCN target? Also be interested to know how they compare with Tasmsanias's 45% forest conservation reserves.

Great article. Why should we punish Tasmania for practicing world's-best logging methods?

It's just like Iraq. Hussein set the benchmark for oppression and efficient genocide, but liberal fascists selectively picked out information which made him look like the bad guy.

The reason the international greens choose Tasmania for their diatribes is because it is too far away from their main audience for them to ever be caught out lying.

For the record only 39% of Tasmania is private land, the rest is public land which is either forest or heathland. Almost all of the public land (61% of the state) is contributing the same ecological services that they were doing before european settlement.

Add to that the 37% of private land (14% of the state) that is forest and maintained in a continual cycle of harvest and regrowth then we have 75% of the state contributing the same ecological services that they did back in 1788.

Furthermore, an unknown portion of farmland maintains natural heathlands, wetlands, creeks and grasslands in much the same condition that they were in back in 1788 and this is likely to bring the total area of fully contributive habitat up to about 80% of the state.

Yet, the ageing, single, neurotic, poodle owning inheritance donors to the international green movement cannot show us that even 0.8 of 1% of New York, London, LA and Brussels is providing the original suite of habitat services to their wildlife.

What appalling hypocrites! Their "species list" consists of nothing more than rats, pigeons, dogs, cats and seagulls. And they have the gall to interfere in the state election of arguably the most responsible environmental managing community on Earth.

They make my flesh crawl.

Alan Ashbarry writes a very convincing article on Tasmania’s recent record on forest management just before a state election. I take my hat off to Alan for his timing.

Although I know what he writes is genuine enough in content we should ask “What’s all the fuss about” over and over. A good first question is who wants the old growth forest and why??

Considering the latest practice as outlined by Alan and I can guess other TCA members at this critical moment, is so reasonable in forest industry terms, what do the rest of us have to worry about right now? I’m damn sure it’s more than a handful of Greens and their potential in any state parliament

It’s all about federal money and who gets hold of it after the State election. How much was promised to the forest industry in the last Federal election campaign and how much still has to be spent??

Folks, Tasmania as much as I loved it had an atrocious environmental record under various governments and persuasions. Anyone who doubts somebody needed to drag the that motley lot before a modern and perhaps independent resource arbitrator such as we had with the RFA process could start looking through the historic paintings, photos and postcards published on the web by the Tasmanian Library. I suggest using index M for Mount Something or Mining first up.

http://images.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/SubjectIndex/Default.asp?Letter=M

Yes Alan we have come a long way but much of the good stuff is gone