Have the wooden boat builders and woodworkers grasped the fact that it is the incorrigibly bent Tas government who hold all the power to allocate timber? And the fact that the Forest Agreement consequently carries within it the gangrene of Ta Ann and Bob Gordon’s FT?

Specialty timber users, who could fare very well without an industry behemoth, can’t survive long as scavengers off the leavings of pirates. Vica Bayley, off to Asia as a cheerleader for Ta Ann, is hardly a credible advisor on such things.

John Hayward

Specialty Timbers at Geeveston are at the point of shutting down parts of their business.
Because of the exclusion zones that have been created through the TFR continued access to sufficient quantities of Celery Top Pine mainly for boat building has been stopped indefinitely until the outcome of this Green grabbing mess is to be finalised.
There are issues that remain unresolved with ongoing supplies of Specialty Timbers from the West and North West of the state with future levels of supply at current rates!
There are already areas rich in unlimited quantities of King Billy Pine head and butt waste logs lying in the bush around the Dundas areas from RJ Howards sawmilling operation based in Zeehan now in Reserves.
I would not be surprised that standing Celery Top Pine still exists in some of the more remote locations within the West Coast forests as well as blackwood growing in areas affected by disturbance, intrusion by wildfires.!
Future supplies of Specialty timbers by could be sourced from some of these areas by legislative change before there is a supply crisis otherwise eventually we will have to import suitable boat timbers from Canada, the US or Siberia (if there is any left) using slow growing softwoods.
Tropical forests may provide some relief for dwindling supplies of local Specialty Timbers too although I think that we should aim to be prepared to look after own affairs first and foremost.
The TFA needs to be scrapped or amended, as with some of these clowns posing as woodworkers, craftsmen and boatbuilders will find themselves in short supply of resource before they realise by agreeing with the current TFA.

I absolutely love how the headline on TT and the focus of the story by other news outlets is on boat builders when there’s only 2 boat builders that have signed this letter.

(I acknowledge that some of the ‘designer - makers’ may be involved in boat building, but they are still in the minority which makes a mockery of the reporting)

#2 How can you describe Kevin Perkins and John Young as ‘clowns posing as woodworkers, craftsmen and boatbuilders’?  Have you ever seen their work?  Do you know what superb vessels the Wooden Boat School has produced?  Your ignorant comment is tantamount to libel, and makes you the clown!

Robin, it is not just Geevston, Smithton will loose its specialist special timbers operator at christmas.

#4 lmxly, I’ll put it this way where do these clowns who are supposed to be true craftsmen, proud of drawing their supplies from the local forests think that their ongoing supplies are coming from?
As said previously Specialty Timbers from Geeveston cannot access any CTP locally due to the State Government placing suitable areas in Huon and Derwent District as Interim Reserves while this mess is to be sorted out.
Forget the Labor /Green nodders, Giddings and her mate McKim both have got it wrong by going head first by agreeing to pass this mess.
I think you will more than surprised where the objectors are coming and I think the craftspeople are far too hasty with their support for the agreement.

As one of Tasmania’s most prolific small boat builders that has contributed millions to the States economy over the past 7 years I feel I am qualified to comment here.

Whilst I have the greatest respect for some of those who have signed this letter, I sincerely doubt they would support it if they were truly aware of how the special timbers sector will be decimated under this agreement.  It should also be noted that some of those that have signed are not commercial operators whose livelihoods are reliant on access to resource and will not have their livelihood impacted by a reduction in special timbers. Easy to make comments when you have no “skin in the game”. 

I certainly refute Vica Bayley’s intimation that all boat builders support this and I would publically challenge him or any of the signatories to produce demand and supply data for the special timbers value adding industry and any non ideological rationale for the size of the special timbers reserves in the TFA to show that our support is warranted.  One would think that after 2 years of talks and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money spent this would be easy to do?  In reality, his comments are just cheap opportunism at its best and show complete ignorance of the sector.

The IGA/IVG/TFA process has produced a bewildering amount of reports, data and numbers. The common theme throughout the reports is that special timbers sector is important to Tasmania but what it has completely failed to do is to verify the amount of special timbers required by the value adding industry.  This was meant to be an important part of the process that has not occurred and one would think an essential part of the logical basis for setting the size of special timber production areas.

I would suggest that given the content of the letter signed by these people that not all have read this information.

The special timbers industry is a growing, vibrant sector that should not be tarred with the same brush as the broader industry.  If you believe the rhetoric, it has tri-partisan support but in reality there is no substance behind that support and it has been thrown in the “too hard’ basket during the peace process.

If anyone here in TT wants to understand where my concern comes from take half an hour and go to the Federal Environment ministers webpage on the IVG report. http://environment.gov.au/land/forests/independent-verification/report.html

Go through the various documents which are all in .pdf format and do an internal document search for “Special Timbers”.  If, after doing this and reading the content you still feel the special timbers sector future has been considered properly in this process, post back here why.

#, Andrew Denman, I do support the supply of speciality timbers, though absolutely not if the pursuit of these types of material are still going to be sourced by Forestry Tasmania.
Already we know of the habits of Forestry Tasmania and by implication some number of the logging contractors employed by them, who would know of just how much there was and is to the volumes of these sought after timbers that have simply been abandoned, yep, left behind to be pushed into heaps and ultimately destined to become ashes and dust.
That this in itself would be a criminal action in the eyes of the Speciality Timber seekers, it also is seen as the same by a large number of we non-Speciality Timber seekers.

I refer now to the flamboyant Robin Halton, a person who is better known as a keen pro-logging supporter, who in his past life held a long term of employment with Forestry Tasmania, who must have seen exactly that as I have presented here and could attest to my statements.
Often Robin’s opinions are not shared by many others on this Forum, yet of late he has pointed the finger at this GBE by referencing the improper practices and purposes or simply the crude methods employed by Forestry Tasmania, in their unregulated determination to feed Ta Ann Veneer Mills with our ever diminishing HCV Forest logs.
Then too, the encroachment into the not yet achieved maturity of the small amount of the allocated areas set a side after being clear-felled to become this State’s regrowth forests?

That this GBE will not any way hesitate to propel their selves in their usual manner regardless of whether there be some form of constraint or impediment in place, that is instituted to impose some form of control, nothing at all it seems will alter these very same profitless pursuits, by they assuming the pretence of ‘we are an essential industry that is very capably enabled to provide revenues to Tasmania,’ yet are wholly incapable of doing so, even when going about their wild juggernaut logging of this State’s Forests.
The reality is that they continue to do so without any care to whatever regulatory limitations have been placed upon them.
The fact in that they believe they are only beholden to themselves, (is surely a worthy cause for investigation,) even while ignoring their very own F/T mission statement.
This GBE is indeed operating in an uncontrolled free-for-all frenzy of action, but it tis only to help their own selves while serving the Billionaire Taib Mahud family in overseas Sarawak.

Why is it that this timeless evil is allowed to freely flourish as it does, with the complete agreement and support of each of the ‘past and present disinterested board directors’ since Forestry Tasmania was launched?
Why have such as a board of directors who really achieve nothing other than their own stipends and to clap their hands at whatever goes down by the boys out in the bush.
The original purpose merely being to take the place of whatever rat-pack outfit existed before Forestry Tasmania empowered their control over this State?

This Forest Reform proposal either for or against, is not designed to alter the present riotous free-for-all that is the name of the game in this present day of today?

#8 William, I am not too sure about being described as being flamboyant!
The Rolley/ Gordon/ Lennon combination has not been kind on our forests, by all accounts the facts are becoming well known!
Premiers Bartlett and Gidding would be shocked if they realised what was going on in the forests, in my opinion Lara Giddings now knows but does not want to reveal that she is aware of the regrowth management issues for political reasons.
Much has been revealed / the IGA, the provisional TFA should be considered by the MLC’s to further investigate the condition of both our working forests and the adequacy of conservation covernants and create a fair and reasonable balance.
I compliment Frank Strie and his associates, the 12 local councils, Timber Communities Australia members/ Give it Back led by George Harris and Michael Hirst to look further for a better understanding and help with the eventual decision making process so eventually there will be a fairer and more reasonable outcome!
Personally I feel it is best that the MLC’s use the opportunity to take their time, in particular investigate the sustainability aspects of current forest management regimes, this has to be in everybody’s long term interest.
I am absolutely sure that by the MLC’s approving the current TFR supported by Lara Gidding and her Cabinet incl. Nick McKim is not only a smash and grab for the major players but hides the deceitful workings of FT who have failed to place the future of their organisation on a sustainable footing!
Basically the working native forests are in run down mode there is little headroom available for future harvest.
For example a generation of eucalypt regrowth has already been lost to zealous overcutting since after the 1967 wildfire.
Worse still while the existing FT heirachy remain, then we are not far of stepping back two (human) generations before any mature forests are available.
Another 60 years before the majority of today’s regeneration/ regrowth would be available for cutting although there should be pockets of regrowth untouched in Eastern Tiers, which ever areas of forest are furthermost from the Ta Ann mill sites may survive earlier cutting and grow onto maturity.
It is likely that X amount eucalypt plantation timber may be mature enough to commence cutting by approx age 60 years ( 40-45 years time) as long as those forests are managed by thinning leading up to maturity.  Although these are my estimates however I cannot see immature plantation timber being suitable for cutting at any younger age than I have indicated.
The plantations are probably not a complete write off for future sawlog however it will remain for decades to come when can harvest commence for the cutting “quality” sawn timber?
I do hope the MLC’s sound out their witnesses with some detail otherwise or again the forests will remain to be managed in most mysterious ways to protect the organisation from public scrutiny.

(9) Good on you Robin. Doesn’t it feel good to be open and upfront, not have to hide the truth of what you have known and seen and lurk forever in the shadows of an industry not set up to use the best of your and your fellow workers abilities but instead to intimidate to keep only the ‘club’ looking good and on the money.

You can’t buy self respect, let alone the respect and support of others.  With the help of honest experience – learning from the mistakes of the past – recognising and then working together on the needs for a better industry … there’s hope!

Thank you for your response Robin, you have confirmed the extreme negative factor of the Rolley/Gordon/Lennon, I note you did not include the Bryan Green syndrome whereby this sly fellow was actively the servant goblin to at least one of the former chairmen of Forestry Tasmania?
This overall matter even touches on the ineffective role played by the FPA as the regulatory office that was supposedly set up to prevent most of what the Forestry Tasmania executive board directors have permitted to go on ans simply ignore.

I have not read or heard of disciplinary measures imposed by the FPA other then recommendations toward the more galling actions and impositions arising from their follow-through regarding their disciplines and enforcements that should have halted the more outrageous of the executive board sanctions, yet this was never acknowleded in that it allowed this board to flagrantly ignore the FPA codes of practice.
These ignorances by the executive board further illustrate another of my reasons for seeking the revocation of authorities held by this serial rogue GBE.
We now come to the bold truth of the over-harvesting which has almost entirely created the wretched unsustainability of Old growth logging and also how this has effected many of the smaller construction industry oriented sawmills, (of which most all have now gone or been bankrupted, same thing anyway,), by the board of F/T disinterested in the plight of these smaller outfits in gaining their log supply.
Much of the detriment that has now arisen from within this logging caper has so obviously been consented to by those somnobulistic expensive suited executive bozo’s of this GBE board,

Then of course each of the only 2 stakeholders being forestry minister Green and the prevailing State’s Treasurer or Premier, who seem to merely nod, no matter the magnitude of the transgressions attributed to the persons out at the coal-face.

That this sham executive board has not changed for the better at any time in the whole time it has been riding on the State government gravy train, then we read how Lara is trying to bullet proof this GBE from its own constant shooting of themselves with and by their own uncaring conducts.
Nobody, not a dicky bird of care or concern by any of this State’s Lib/Lab ministers would dare to call this GBE to account, were this GBE not being kept under the surveillance of Kim Booth, rest assured there would be nil mention of these unsavoury, nay outright rebellious actions engaged in by this festering hierarchy?

Now this is something that in all likelihood will not be considered by the upper house when they have their get-together to come up with a decision, which of course will have been early loaded in favour of continuing the Forestry Tasmania malaise as it is.
Never mind that this present pack of non-punctilious boardroom patsies will be still in the act of ruining for all time the future of a more professional, productive, profit providing, planning foremost, forestry operation, in our State.