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

Taz
I'm sure you will be impressed with the following facts and hope you don't mind other viewers getting a chance to learn the truth about what Tasmania has achived in the name of conservation.

Fact 1 Tasmania has a land mass of 6,840,000ha

Fact 2 Tasmania's total land mass in conservation reserves is 2,935,000ha (42%)

Fact 3 Included in Tasmania's total land mass is a total forest cover of 3,207,250ha

Fact 4 Tasmania's total forest cover in reserve is 1,442,440ha (45%) (This is part of the total land mass in reserve)

Fact 5 Tasmania's existing old growth forest cover is 1,246,000ha (this is part of the total forest cover)

Fact 6 Tasmania's existing old growth forest reserved is 977,480ha (this is part of the total forest reserved) There is an additional private land 25,000ha of old growth to be considered for voluntary reservation.

Fact 7 Tasmania's assessed high quality wilderness is 1,943,570ha

Fact 8 Tasmania's assessed high quality wilderness reserved is 1,885,300ha (97%)

Taz I'm also sure you know about the forest conservation target set by the International Convention on Biological Diversity is just 10%.
Tassies not doing to bad after all. (isn't 10% also the target set by your own WWF.

Also pretty sure that you know that the largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest, The Beech Creek Valley of the Giants is in the World Heritage.

Do I need to list all the other old growth forests reserved? happy to if you wish or perhapes you may wish to list them, the TWS has the list on their web site but you know that don't you.

The Australian Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Eric Abetz and the Federal Liberal Party is also concerned over the impact of these protests both internationally and within Australia. The Minister has issued a media release at http://www.mffc.gov.au/releases/2006/06011a.htm strongly condemning these type of protests.

The Prime Minister also sees continued sustainable forestry as essential to Tasmania’s future. (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech1540.html )

Readers should also be aware that the Federal ALP fully endorses the Tasmanian Community Forestry Agreement, with Kim Beazley visiting the State just days after it was signed. He inspected the magnificent Tahune Airwalk http://www.tasforestrytourism.com.au/pages/site_s_tahune.html and the Warra long term research site http://www.warra.com/warra/ .

Martin Ferguson Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism in a major speech outlined the ALP’s views on Australia’s Role In The Global Sustainability of Forestry and Forest Industries.

Many of the issues raised by this article including certification were addressed in this speech and may be accessed at http://www.nafi.com.au/workshop2005/ferguson.pdf

This demonstrates that the both the ALP and the Liberal Party have a sound understanding of the issue and have developed very good policies that should be supported

Well said Alan! It is so uncommonly refreshing to see some factual information available to the public, particularly in southern Tasmania!

In my opinion there is no doubt that the local newspaper the Muckury or is it the Daily Liar or The Wilderness Society Newsletter alias The Mercury, is and has been running a deliberate anti Forestry campaign and clearly promotes the Greens at the expense of everyone else.

I sent a letter to the "Mercury" on 25th January this year, in which I criticise the demonstrably incorrect reporting in relation to the Vernon familys’ proposed forest management plan for their property at Recherche Bay, which Gary Baily (Mercury Editor), refuses to print.

In yesterdays northern Tasmania paper the Examiner, a story of almost two pages extent was provided detailing the Vernons' reasons for selling their property at Recherche Bay. In order for the the Vernons' to get their message to the public in the south via the Mercury, they had to pay $1,500.00 to place an advertisement in that despicable rag.

The Greens and extreme so called environmentalists waffle on about freedom of speech. Well all they are interested in is their freedom of speech and no-one elses. How much longer can Gary Baily and the Mercury continue to deny that they are deliberately assisting to deny freedom of speech in relation to forestry in Tasmania through their sensorship and misrepresentation of facts?

I could complain to the Press Council but should they find in my favour there is no redress. Unlike infringements to the Forest Practices Code, which will attract substantial fines, and rightly so, there is no such recourse when dealing with the press. Should the Muckury decide to print an apology, which is highly unlikely given their history, it would no doubt be so small and well hidden, that it is unlikely to be read by anyone.

We must therefore work hard to get the truth out to the public and reverse the brainwashing that the extremists have been perpetuating. Forums like this may well be a good start?

Looking at Alan Ashbarry’s first reference, on page 4 of the 32 page Forestry document down past Evan Rolley’s fine introduction is a three coloured block map of Tasmania. We need go no further to see why the fuss continues.

Most of the yellow area is former agricultural land and is farmed out or logged out after many decades of private ownership. The huge pink reserve area on the western side is either mined out, burnt out, dammed out or never had any timber in the first place.

Lets get this lot in perspective my way by using some very reliable data but beware; even this data depends on values made up by each state for the purpose of a commonwealth agreement. However it reflects a more international framework than we had before any RFA process. A quick glance at the first BRS map gives some insight to the differences between states.

http://data.brs.gov.au/asdd/overviews/nfi03r9abfi001/nfi03r9abfi00111a00b.gif

Now zoom in on each of the 3 Tasmanian RFA regions to see the detail of all reserves. Please note some of this country beyond the early private carve ups has very poor soils and is often extremely steep in terms of modern forest management.

Be assured too, the pioneers burnt down what they could not cut down as they searched for mineral outcrops everywhere. This could explain many blanks in BRS data for Tasmania below more recent icecaps and glaciers.

http://adl.brs.gov.au/mapserv/intveg/nht_state.php?state=tas

Happy hunting!

Taz, whatever was done in the past was clearly a great deal less destructive than just about anywhere else in the world. And as for the old photos, you know damned well that they are only a partial representation of the truth if the viewer is not given the courtesy of viewing the same spot today.

Which part of "75 to 80% contributive habitat" do you not understand?

Wilky

Yes the right to freedom of speech is a odd thing at times it appears the greens view it as a right that is only for them, why I say this, is only this week there was a political green protest held in a public place were a lone voice tried to stand up for his family by exercising his right to free speech by asking legitimate questions of the greens speaker.

Yet he was silenced by bully boy and thuggish tactics by green protesters. Clearly the speaker could not answer his questions so the ‘peaceful’ green crowd turned on this lone voice by intimidating and man handling him.

I say if its good enough for the greens to demand freedom of speech, it should be good enough for them to allow ordinary Tasmanians the same Freedom of Speech.

It was reported so have a look at the story:

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18496196%255E3462,00.htm

For those like Taz, who want a good appreciation of the vegetation in Tasmania a reasonable map can be located at http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/soer/image/234/index.php

Don't get caught out like the ABC's Four Corners and be forced to apologise for not being accurate or for misinterpretation of the colour code of the maps in the SFM report! See
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1132297.htm

For a report on land use in Tasmania, may I suggest have a look at
http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/rural_land_trend_2003/index.html
Appendix 1 has some figure that might surprise.

For those interested in loss of vegetation cover, then
http://audit.deh.gov.au/ANRA/vegetation/vegetation_frame.cfm?region_type=TAS®ion_code=TAS
might be illuminating

Alan, Its worth stating here what your link says about the radical Rainforest Network:

Rainforest Action Network is one of the most radical organizations in the environmental movement that has nonprofit status under the 501(c)3 section of the tax code. Its modus operandi is to harass and intimidate businesses into knuckling under to a radical agenda...

RAN President Randy Hayes co-founded the group in 1975 with radical Mike Roselle, who would later go on to found the Ruckus Society and Earth First! Hayes relishes the term “radical.” ...

Like all radical groups, RAN uses euphemisms like “non-violent civil disobedience” and “direct action.” It would be more accurate to say that RAN engages in force and disruption that violates the rights of others. RAN brings corporations to heel by using a never-ending string of protests and illegal activities that make it difficult for a business to function. For example, during its campaign against Home Depot, RAN organized a day of “ethical shoplifting” during which activists stole lumber from Home Depot, which they later handed over to the FBI. It is not uncommon for a RAN event to end in an arrest. President Randy Hayes has been arrested 18 times and Executive Director Michael Brune a dozen for crimes like trespassing and disorderly conduct.

The list of victims is a long one: Home Depot, Boise Cascade, Burger King, Trader Joe’s, Mitsubishi, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wachovia, Occidental Petroleum, Shell Oil and Scott Paper. RAN succeeds for two reasons. First, corporations worry over their public images, and a tarnished public image is bad for business. And an easy way to soil a corporation’s public image is to paint it as anti-environment, or more specifically, anti-rainforest. Second, is a compliant media. News accounts often neglect to mention RAN’s disruptive tactics or radical politics; there is no recollection of its involvement in the Seattle protests. RAN typically gets the saccharine moniker “environmental group.”

Compare this summary with actions described in the Gunns writ, and ask who is copying who?

Alan or any fellow subscribers

I'm still keen to learn of the amount of forests Tasmania has reserved compared with world countries in percentage terms; doesn't any one have that data? I read in Alan's post what the UK has done and looks like Tasmania is light years ahead of the Poms in forest stewardship.

If this is the case for the rest of the world, it does then ask a big question, why is Tasmania being singled out by the likes of RAN and just about every other green group you can think of?

"Compare this summary with actions described in the Gunns writ, and ask who is copying who?"

Rod Up the Road: I guess you must be making the point that the written statements and the court writs are both faithfully decribing the same reality?

The actual area of oldgrowth forest within reserves remains pitifully small including the 120500 ha extra from 2005, as seen in the state reserve map on page 6 of this document sustainable forest management referred to by timberjack (not Alan as I said in my last post). My concern and I guess many others was the old RFA fell far short of any reasonable expectations for Australians in this vital part of our world

http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pdf_files/sfm_brochure.pdf

For Alans attention; I was particularly bothered by our collective history in knocking down the best forests of E obliqua and replacing them with what ever the industry fancied over time, examples pines and blue gums. Nobody it seemed wanted a natural mix in regrowth either. For too long we were focused on quick yields regardless of all else including long term fertility.

Alan may have the knowledge to discuss the forestry practice here as it was under the last of the pulp wood concessions granted to APPM and ANM but I doubt if others do. My association with some of these forests goes back six generations. I wish we had just some of the old photos my folks and others took with their bush in the background.

Alan may also reveal how we got into this miserable practice of 1080 poisoning of native animals. This nasty piece of modern forestry was introduced after I left the state by operators who knew nothing about the bush. Alan could probably tell why export woodchips now drives the business not value added products like we had with our own massive R&D before Bell Bay and Gunns got their way.

Needles to say I don’t trust the bastards with anything else to do with our future involving public lands until the Practice Board gets the upper hand.

Readers could also be made aware of how the seventh generation got behind the federal government probe into another value of the Tasmanian forests in their carbon sink, as it was and as it must be in the future. I reckon the RFA process still has a way to go.

Taz
sorry old mate but it looks like you are out of step with the vast majority of Tasmanian voters and also the nations for that matter

Here in Tas we have just had a state election with forestry as key election issue promoted by the Greens with full on advertising support from the TWS.

Both the major parties held up for voter support the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement that has set aside 1 million ha of old growth forest. And guess what, both the major parties gained 85% of the vote. The Greens have lost one seat and may loose another.

I shouldn't have to remind that a key to the Federal Liberal party being returned in Canberra in 2004 was the balanced achieved by the same Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement (Howard’s policy)

So I guess you have a choice stay and cling to the old death and doom green view of the world or move forward with the rest of Australia with the knowledge that Tassies forest are more than ever being well looked after.

Up to you

For those seeking figures from other countries that compete with Australia a telling observation is by a leading European forest expert. Dr Jari Parviainen director of the Joensuu unit of the Finnish Forest Research Institute in an article http://www.nordicforestry.org/article.asp?Data_ID_Article=1691&Data_ID_Channel=34 in one of Finland largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on 10 February 2006, said of Swedish forest management:

”The protected part of total forest area has almost tripled in thirty years. The part of strictly protected forest in the whole of Finland is big, 4.1 % of the whole forest area.”

This is a big number for Europe. Others include: Denmark 1%, France 5%and Czech Republic at around 3%.

Countries in other regions include Argentina at 8%, Brazil 6% and Chile 27%.

One difficulty of comparisons between countries is none of the so called International Environmental groups publish statistics on forest within protected areas, it is left to the UNEP WCMC linked to in the article to publish figures and the more current 'version 3.1' country-level statistics are not provided on the web site. 1997 figures are available at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/data/cdrom2/index.html

For Taz, seeking clarification of the map of the SFM report, it shows reserved land and old growth within these reserves prior to the TCFA, it does not show all old growth or all native forest. If Taz turns to page 7 of the brochure, the figure of 1.25 million ha is shown for the total amount of old growth today. The TCFA as stated in the article reserved a total of 1 million ha, an amount that cannot be dismissed as a token reservation.

Taz is right about how deceptive a lack of knowledge can be about previous forest practices by ANM (the N stands for Newsprint) in their concession area. The Styx is in the middle of this former concession and for the last 5 years has been held up as high conservation forest that must be “saved” Taz’s photos could show how ill informed the Bristish MP was on his visit to Tasmania.

Cinders seems to have overlooked the detail in my opening statement “The actual area of oldgrowth forest within reserves remains pitifully small including the 120500 ha extra from 2005” small and extra = not much of the state when considering the total area the state and Australia. Also, a lot of oldgrowth in tall forests = a lot of carbon locked up as we wait for regrowth to catch up.

Cinders; can you discuss the current sawlog cut over within the old APPM pulpwood concession as well as ANM? Are we in front or behind the good old days when it comes to chipping quality timber? Also what happened to the Yank from Kauri that had me watching the coastal rail log trains or the private miller near the Teirs who was battling a buttress delivered from guess who with a chain saw after he was told that was his share of the forest pickings in that region?

Perhaps I have lost touch meantime.

However Timberjack can tell us who he works for while I do my best in retirement on the main island in harassing both major parties for a better deal in cleaning up the industry back home.

This brings me to another point in political point scoring, your man hassling the dear old ABC gardener as he tried to block the concept of some one developing another stinking pulp mill.
Folks; I can say after working in several of these places on both islands they do stink. No one has handled more technology in these plants at their worst than me. What’s changed since, Gunn’s R&D?

BTW timberjack; I’m traditionally big on value adding down stream and minding the detail. What’s your background?

Chivers,

The percentages are here, scroll down a bit: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001210.html

Taz, when I read your statement that you have been involved with a number of pulp mills, I can only assume that you must have spent your time with your head in a paper bag. You continue with the green propaganda that woodchip for paper production is not 'value adding' when the total value adding from raw product to finished goods is just as good as any other forest product. The only adverse aspect of the woodchip value chain is that the greens have been very successful in limiting the amount of paper that is actually produced here in Australia.

I don't have the latest costings but lets take a closer look at this. A sawlog has a stumpage price of $60 to $80 a cubic metre and when sawn will produce half a cubic metre of boards worth about $500 retail.

A chiplog (ie a bent one, or a thin one that is restricting the growth of a better tree beside it) has a stumpage price of about $15/m3 which after chipping, drying, pulping, washing etc will produce about a third of a tonne of newsprint (circa $1000/tonne) worth $350 wholesale to the newsprinter. The value of a tonne of end product is about the same when comparing paper with board. Some boards are priced higher but some papers are too.

But the actual percentage of value adding for the woodchip value chain is higher than the sawlog value chain because the chiplog starts from a lower initial value. So if there is any complaining to be done about any local lack of value adding, the greens who have opposed any form of on-going investment, should be the last to open their mouths. (fat chance)

So what we appear to be left with, Taz, is an exile who has blown his own credibility in Tasmania because he chose to view his own community through the eyes of ignorant strangers, and now takes pot shots from untouched wilds of Canberra. I wonder how much untouched reserve forest the ACT has left?

Taz
If you wish to be better informed about the outstanding reservation of forest in Tasmania, a quick look at the actual document of the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement might be helpful.

This is available at http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/190505.html ,
if you go to pages 16 and 17 you will find reservation levels for tree communities and for old growth. This table clearly shows that for our Tall (wet) E. obliqua old growth forests, 63% is reserved. That's an incredible 52,840 ha of a standing area of 83,490 ha.

These figures clearly demonstrate the outstanding conservation achievements and the effectiveness of Tasmania's sustainable forest management practices.

This is fascinating to me as a New Zealander.
This is an absolute rerun of the Green attack on our own West Coast Forest Accord.

We had one of the worlds leading sustainable management programmes.

But the Government decided the urban greens had the votes and they closed the Forests down and sacked the CEO (a world leader in sustainable management) for daring to protect his forests from these uninformed assaults.
The Labour Government won the election.

The same players. The same gangs.

Timberjack; Thanks but the information you outline on stringybark reserves on the NW seems not immediately available to us from the premiers site. But the maps do indicate a large new reserve running northwards up the old pipeline track to the coast from the Savage River iron ore open cut mines. How much tall old growth Messmate have we here?

Readers may be interested to know too, this seemingly huge reserve in total on the western side was not in recent times completely covered in millable timber being quite alpine like in many places. As I said previously the good bits were mostly elsewhere on the agricultural soils at lower altitudes.

Perhaps Timberjack can tell us more about present operations say the in long green forestry indent between the Western Tiers and Cradle Mountain at the southern end of the old Mersey Forth hydro scheme. It’s been a while since the Arm River was opened up.

Perhaps Perseus that can give us the low down on value adding technology inside the proposed pulp mill and the return on federal or state subsidies involved in the forest industry in general now the election is over. Why is there no fine paper or particle board process upfront in the scheme? Exactly where are the resources coming from and who is paying for their developments?

BTW if Perseus thinks his research has found me looking in through strangers then he should explain where he gets his info on the Tasmanian situation from.

Owen; there is no conspiracy as far as I can see. With all this consumerism everybody is a culprit in building demand.

Cont.

Taz
As its clear you are not interested in facts that are provided I see nothing to be gained from engaging with you but it may interest you that once again the people of Tasmania made their feelings regarding forest policy known through a strong democratic process that reflects the will of the people.

It looks like the Greens will loose one member and hopefully two It is satisfying when your vote helps to remove people like the greens from politics.

The surrender speeches were interesting. Ms Putt and Milne both claimed they were robbed of victory through “shadowy” forces which were imposing some sort of 1984 Orwellian vote control over people. These claims infer that the people of Tasmania are easily led and cannot think for themselves. What an insult.

All members of a community - those employed, unemployed, rich doctors (for forests) and poor (timber working) patience, small business and big business, students, and even green organisations (such as the Wilderness Society and the Huon Environmental Centre) have a right to express their views. Even when their wrong.

These views may support a particular candidate, a party, a philosophy or the Greens loony policies. No matter what the outcome, all politicians have a responsibility to accept the will of the people and give voters the respect reflected in their choice on the night.

Ms Putts made a vitriolic and conspiracy filled defeatist speech on Saturday last. It indicated that she considers voters are sheep and easily led by “shadowy figures” and “big business”. What Ms Putt does not realise is that people are smarter than she thinks, and Tasmanian's voted using the freedoms granted under our Democracy. That is how a Democracy works and it is about time the Greens and Taz supported it.

Friends of forests; I now appreciate the tables in the CAR forestry reserve system detailed here;

http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/publications/forest/agreement.pdf?id=14303

46170+6670ha E. obliqua in a total of 857,000 old growth reserves of all types. It also details how the extra commonwealth money will be spent on upgrading Tasmanian forestry operations and timber uses. All in all it’s a great document and a big leap forward. This supplementary RFA outline also details woods left in places remote from Hobart like the Bass Strait islands where residents had no fuel.

I still wonder what’s in the new 30946 area 25 Savage River pipeline reserve in terms of quality timber considering the time forests around the link have been exposed. My interest is in what survives in these wet regions after disturbance and major fires.

Qwen: This is not about far left or right, it’s about what federal taxpayers get for their additional handouts. What do our visitors see now on the restored Abt Railway in the most damaged region in this country?

I note with interest (again) the APVMA decision on the restricted use of CCA treated products like radiata pine for human contact areas. In the mid 60’s I was helping commission new capacity in just one mill in a major city with an ability to wrap the equator with tissue many toilet rolls wide every few hours. My counterparts in SA were doing the same thing. Sydney and Brisbane also had tissue converting plants. Our softwood plantations could quickly dissappear

When I asked about clean up rates in pine plantations after clear felling for timber and paper, Vic,SA, Tas, NSW etc (several decades ago), interstate cartage contractors confirmed prices for NZ pine in our region set the pace here. IMHO; our government forestry agencies back in the early days of generating softwood plantations could not get out of managing hardwood forests quick enough.

Later I watched mature pine plantation timbers being CCA treated and used for log cabin construction in exposed costal areas. IMHO they failed to meet a number of customer’s worst expectations. Cont.

Taz
Great to see you have joined the 85% of Tassie voters that also see the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement as an achieved balance in forest management for conservation and every day timber needs.

Tassie voters saw the 1 million ha of old growth forest reserved as an achievement worth supporting and I'm pleased that you now see it that way also.

The vast area you ask about in the North West is the green icon called the Tarkine with vast areas of myrtle forest was to have very limited selective harvesting for deep red myrtle but is now reserved.

Taz,
I agree there is no grand conspiracy. Just as Christianity was not taken to the world by "a conspiracy of twelve".
It is more of a common "grass" roots movement where many people breathe and think in unison.

Similarly there is no conspiracy driving the lunacy of so called Smart Growth in cities. It's just that Dense Thinking has many advocates and has seductive appeal.

However, it is useful to compare notes. Those trying to protect their Sustainable forests in Tasmania might find it useful to follow the story of the West Coast Accord and how the game was played out.
Forewarned is forearmed.

Owen

Tasmanian timber cutters, log-truck drivers, mill workers, etc. only see, and will ever see, a pathetic handful of coins compared to the billions in profits siphoned off to Sydney - AMP, etc. Although different groups might have able to agree a bit, the people of Tas are still getting ripped off big time.

What company doesn't try to keep the number of employees and contractors to a bare minimum to keep their costs down? Gunns is the largest woodchipping company in the world. As if they give a crap about how many Tasmanians are employed or not. And as if AMP gives a crap about how many Australians are employed or not.

Sorry fellas, but more skyscapers and mansions in Sydney don't help many Tasmanians.

Timber workers in Tas are getting ripped off, timber workers in South America are getting ripped off, timber workers in South East Asia are getting ripped off. I'm no Greens Party follower, but I'm damned sure the ones in charge are more of a threat to your jobs than some feral uni students.

Is Tasmania an international pariah, or is it in fact a saint? Good question Alan Ashbarry.

“Great to see you have joined the 85% of Tassie voters that also see the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement as an achieved balance in forest management for conservation and every day timber needs”.

Bas, I never disagreed with our RFA process or this latest commonwealth handout but I do confess to standing in the way of the HEC on the mainland over lost timber resources.

Also anything I say today is not about you, the TCA or a sentimental old bugger like me. It’s about the seventh generation (and their children) who lived for a time with me in old towns like Zeehan where one uncle cut and laid thousands of sleepers and slept on the track. Other uncles retrod the Balfour track, drained the NW swamps, opened the NE and Central Highlands looking for these forests and other resources.

Owen; cont: My keen interest began with using local timbers as a boy. Later we had a 100 + year old timber beach side cottage that required an electric drill to make holes in studs for new nails. Damn those old blue gums (and their pulp) along with that weed P radiata, what about the rest of our eucalypts and their timbers?

Early forestry here was the European traditional farming at its worst being applied where everything had to be shackled in squares before they recognised it as a crop.

Ignoring the emotion on many sites after a Google on “Irby” (re early pine plantations) finds this fascinating story on blue gum research. Although the practice of planting blues all over the world is old the research is quite young.

http://www.gianttrees.com.au/pdf/potts_et_al_aveira_iufro.pdf

Without these RFA processes we would have been minding only fire wood towards the end

Ev

As a forest worker I can ensure you that my industry provides a worthily livelihood for many thousands of Tasmanian families whether they be a tree faller, skidder driver, log grader, truck driver, sawmill benchman, timber racker, seed collector, seedling nursery hand, forest planner, research scientists the list goes on and on right through to a book binder.

Also please don't put down AMP because that’s my super fund so I do very much hope they are doing very well from their shares in our very own Tasmanian timber company Gunns,

Also I'm sure you will be pleased to know that our industry injects $1.3 billion directly into Tasmanian's economy annually.

Also the Monash University has estimated that our pulp mill will generate $91 million a year in State and commonwealth taxes, now don't you agree that’s a nice little earner for a few extra nurses, teachers even perhaps a few university lecturers or perhaps fix a few roads, Oh sorry yes I know we should go back to riding bikes, so guess I better sell the Land Cruiser. But can I keep the boat, please, Ev

Taz great to see you getting into the detail about present day forest management.

Our next subject perhaps could how be the greens view democracy and how it is such an annoying thing to them when people do not do what is right!

The Greens have not taken any responsibility, nor acknowledge their policies may be wrong. It is all because those Christians and business crashed the party and dragged people to the voting booths and made them vote against the Greens. Shame on those voters.
I have sympathy for the Greens, I mean, how can anyone develop a welfare based economy if business keeps operating and employing people? As for those Christians - everyone knows that our society is being undermined by promoting families, understanding, compassion and harmony.

So it is obvious that this State's welfare based economy potential is undermined by the Tasmanian democratic system.

Bas, you said: '..or perhaps fix a few roads, Oh sorry yes I know we should go back to riding bikes, so guess I better sell the Land Cruiser. But can I keep the boat, please, Ev'

Not sure what you really mean here mate, it's totally up to you if you want to have a Landcruiser and boat. But I reckon you will probably sell it for something smaller within 5 years (petrol prices and all that).. A Subaru will do the trick. Maybe it won't pull your boat.. oh well, if not might have to get a smaller boat too. Nevermind.

As for the roads, the ones who damage them the most should be the ones who pay the most to fix them. That's fair, don't you reckon?

And why not invest your money directly into Tas rather than going through the AMP middle man? Again though, up to you of course.

Personally I'd like to get a nice private forest going with all different types of high grade timber, that's my ideal nest egg. I've got the patience to wait for it to grow.

And who's going to benefit from my private forest? - all those you've mentioned: tree fellers, skidder drivers, log graders, truck drivers, sawmill benchmen, timber rackers, seed collectors, seedling nursery hands, forest planners, research scientists, etc.

Ev
Thanks heaps you have done me a great service regarding putting my super funds to best use. I am now going to roll mine over to our timber industries super fund TISS.

As it looks like you are keen to become involved in growing forests for timber perhaps you could follow me in making the change.
The TISS web sit is www.tissuper.com.au. You would have to agree that having its own super fund is a pretty good indication that the Australian (including Tasmania's)forest and timber industries are major employers providing sound long term careers for families and underpinning regional communities throughout this great country.

Now to the other bit of great news you offered about wanting to grow trees. Here in Tas there is a joint government / private body called Private Forests Tasmania that could help you achieve your very worthy goal, they also have a web site www.privateforests.tas.gov.a

Bas, just about the links, if you put the full address (ie. with http:// in front of the www) then anyone reading your post can just click on the link and go to the website, for example:
http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/ like that.

I already have a copy of the Farm Forestry Toolbox which I got from them about 2 years ago. I'd like to see a more modern version but hey it's free so no complaints.. In addition I've done a fair bit of other research re plantations, including using multiple species in the same lot to reduce insect damage among other benefits. This includes integrating Acacia species into the lot during the earlier years when the taller trees are still small. I do not want to follow the 'mono-culture' style used all over the place. The Acacias of course can also be utilised for timber and with a shorter turnover than say, eucalypts and casuarinas.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic regarding super. I had a look at who TISS's major shareholders are. What you do with your super is your own business, as is mine my own.

The thing I care most about in life is being content. Call me simple or old-fashioned, but I just don't need heaps of crap.

The more someone wants, the more they want.

A good day to you.

Ev

That’s great to see you have already been in contact with PFT they are very knowledgeable about all things involving the growing of trees. Your idea of including Blackwood is a good one, there has been a few trails in both the North East and South for using Blackwood as a second species for mixed plantations and one of the issues is they tend to be very limbey (no clean stem for future sawlog)

I also agree with you about being "content" I'm happy to say that my family is very content with working in a great industry which has provided us with the ability to have a comfortable family home, yes I guess with items you would call "junk but my view is when we brought our new fridge that in turn was helping to provide a job for some one else, just like contributing to a good super fund as I'm sure you would be happy knowing that some of your money is helping to provide job opportunities for fellow Aussies.

Also thanks for the tip about web addresses

Great to see people are getting involved in managing their own forests for long term timber production.

It is becoming important for land owners large and small I know of many small farmers that now manage their farms forest for a range of values including timber. Tree farming is also providing another string to maintaining farm economy. Also large land owners are totally committed to the extent of developing Forest Management policies for their land one such is Tasmanian company Gunns Ltd http://www.gunns.com.au/downloads/FMS_10_LR.pdf

Gunns forested land and it's extensive tree farms are managed with conservation as important along with managing for a broad range of timber products such as sawn timber and high quality veneer as well as pulp and paper products.

A great example of balancing the productivity of land with conservation needs

Timberjack,
About Christianity:
Luke 12:16-26
16Then He told them a parable, saying, The land of a rich man was fertile and yielded plentifully.
17And he considered and debated within himself, What shall I do? I have no place [in which] to gather together my harvest.
18And he said, I will do this: I will pull down my storehouses and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain or produce and my goods.
19And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have many good things laid up, [enough] for many years. Take your ease; eat, drink, and enjoy yourself merrily.
20But God said to him, You fool! This very night they [the messengers of God] will demand your soul of you; and all the things that you have prepared, whose will they be?
21So it is with the one who continues to lay up and hoard possessions for himself and is not rich [in his relation] to God [this is how he fares].
22And [Jesus] said to His disciples, Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious and troubled [with cares] about your life, as to what you will [have to] eat; or about your body, as to what you will [have to] wear.
23For life is more than food, and the body [more] than clothes.
24Observe and consider the ravens [or kurrawongs]; for they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn; and [yet] God feeds them. Of how much more worth are you than the birds!
25And which of you by being overly anxious and troubled with cares can add a cubit to his stature or a moment of time to his age [the length of his life]?
26If then you are not able to do such a little thing as that, why are you anxious and troubled with cares about the rest?

Ev
Good you have mention Christianity, as a follower I take great comfort that Joseph was a carpenter and a gentleman call Nora build a boat called the Ark, from tell me if I'm wrong, a renewable resource called wood.

Also am I correct that countless places of worship throughout our great country are excellent examples of the beauty, strength and durability of sawn timber harvested from our abundant native forests

Yes our forests do provide for all needs, including spiritual and most important the material needs for spiritual worship to take place.

Then you've probably read this one too, Timberjack:
Mark 10:17-25
And as He was setting out on His journey, a man ran up and knelt before Him and asked Him, Teacher, You are [essentially and perfectly morally] good, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me [essentially and perfectly morally] good? There is no one [essentially and perfectly morally] good - except God alone.
You know the commandments: Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.
And he replied to Him, Teacher, I have carefully guarded and observed all these and taken care not to violate them from my boyhood.
And Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and He said to him, You lack one thing; go and sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come [and] accompany Me.
At that saying the man's countenance fell and was gloomy, and he went away grieved and sorrowing, for he was holding great possessions.
And Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, With what difficulty will those who possess wealth and keep on holding it enter the kingdom of God!
And the disciples were amazed and bewildered and perplexed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, Children, how hard it is for those who trust [place their confidence, their sense of safety] in riches to enter the kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

By the way, may I ask what your job is? I'm guessing that your not a timberjack, but that's just a guess.

I grew up on a farm on the edge of a massive State Forest Radiata plantation, where we grew AAA Merino wool and a variety of crops. The old man at one time worked at the local mill and also made timber furniture and enjoyed woodcarving.

Ev

Your quotes are very inspiring they add greatly to my personal happiness and career comfort in that Joseph was a carpenter.

I'm more than happy to share with you my pride of being a member of a timber family.

Why timber jack? well I owned one, a Timber Jack 23AP cable log skidder, also been a faller, contract log barker loader driver, timber racker, truck driver, contract seed collector also not bad on a pick and shovel (got be sand though) have also split the odd fence post or two (with good straight grained stringy its still fun) and had a go at the odd repair job with a welder (did get the slag to lift once)

Totally agree with you about how valuable local sawmills are, I have close friends that are (what we call in Tas) country sawmillers. A few are still cutting green scantling but most have now “modernized” with kilns to produced dressed timber and moldings and furniture components. Also a couple cut softwood.

Why don't the greens give credit to the facts about Australian Forestry Industry? Simple it won't sell membership tickets.

Quite simply the green groups and activists have been taken over by paid professional marketers/lobbyist that require an income stream.

They depend upon donations and membership fees. So they need to campaign on sexy issues such as forests, save our koalas etc

When was the last time you saw the greens campaigning to save the habitat of the Australian Blowfly.

So they do not want to know the facts, more disturbing they work on the goebbels principle if you are going to lie make sure its a big one because it is more believable.

look at their marketing techniques, do they use average looking Australians to promote their organisations, handing out literature on the streets. No they use good looking attractive women predominantly, because sex sells. they are no different to the strip club using promotion models to entice customers to their club.

They work on a premise that in the new world everyone can have a clean thought based job, there is no need to manufacture or mine.

Their first premise is stop these activities, god forbid that industry works out a way to genuinely conduct sustainable economic activity because this undermines the need for the paid professionals in the green groups. If society can have their material riches and genuinely conserve the environment then these paid harlots can't get their slice of the pie.

Slasher
Agree with every thing you say about the greens using our forests and those that work in them as marketing play things.

This green marketing machine is very well oiled to the point that it takes from ill informed big city "donators" no less than $15 million annually. And we mustn't forget that federal governments have helped these green groups along, with affording them a massive benefit by providing tax deductibility status for all ‘donators’

.

Slasher; with a handle like that you can’t help but give yourself away.

Mate; society has moved on in your absence.

Mind your foot today.

Taz
You are spot on that the world has moved on. Here in Tas at last weeks state election 85% of voters choose to totally reject the dark green old world policies of stop every thing by locking every thing up.

This massive rejection of the greens can only be seen as a clear tick for the pulp mill approval process. The election saw a complete failure of the anti pulp mill candidate that stood in Bass (the electorate where the planed pulp mill is to built) this candidate has only received 1,182 votes from 63,640 votes counted, that’s only a 1.86% share while other candidates from the same electorate that supported the pulp mill process achieved 84% share (massive I do think is the word).

On top of this the green sitting member in Bass looks like he has also been rejected by the electorate and will loose his seat.

Yes again you are spot on, the world has and still is moving on from the old world days of dark green stop every thing policies.

It sure is a bright world out there.