Inaccurate and misleading

George Harris

The article on page three of ‘The Mercury’ of Wednesday, October 24 entitled ‘Old-growth deadline faces axe’ is both inaccurate and misleading. A Tasmania Together deadline to end the logging of old-growth forests by 2010 never existed.
A deadline to end the clear-felling of old-growth did exist, but the two concepts are quite different. The implication of the concept of ending any and all old-growth logging is that there would be no Myrtle, no Blackheart Sassafras, no Celery-top pine, no Huon Pine, or Musk, or Horizontal Scub or any decent Blackwood.

These are the mainstay of the high-value craft industry that thrives on the back of our tourism industry. The availability of these timbers not only supports many small scale specialized saw millers around the state, but many artisans, as well as the proprietors and staff of many craft shops and galleries from Salamanca Place to Smithton, and from Strahan to Swansea, and everywhere in between. The world standard work that is the fruits of the collaboration of all these people is a defining aspect of what is unique and different here, and contributes enormously to the visitor experience, as well as to the local economy.

The quantity of these timbers that is harvested each year is quite small, and the definition of sustainability requires that the annual quantity taken is less than the natural rate of replacement (propagation and growth) for that period across the total area of forest that is available for harvesting, and this is the case. The Special Timbers sector cannot stand alone, and needs the proximity to the mainstream industry to survive. On its own, it could not even afford the cost of forestry access roads.

It is a disservice to those in this industry to cultivate an expectation in the community that the concept of ‘no old-growth logging’ is either desirable or deliverable, or could be delivered without severe loss, disappointment and heartache. It also cannot be offered by the Greens without contradicting a significant tract of their own published forest policy, but that doesn’t seem to inhibit them. I am glad they will never be in a position to actually deliver on their policies.