Regeneration or degeneration for future generations?

Charles and Claire Gilmour

In summary: Forestry and Co invaded the local rainforest and played Russian roulette with a rainforest and permanent water supply. It was inevitable, with the current forest practices that this would happen. Common sense alone could predict the outcome. These sorts of practices are being practiced alongside farming communities and in water catchments supplying towns and cities their water. The lack of duty of care is complete madness.

Regeneration or degeneration for future generations?

In the far north west of Tasmania, not far from the Tarkine is approximately 6000 acres of rainforest that either has been or is in the process of being clearfelled. Which is next to another 6000 acres of rainforest which is also being clearfelled. Which is next door to, if not part of the Tarkine. David Bartlett’s recent promise of around 600 hectares of protection around the Tarkine is a massive joke in comparison to what he is wiling to sacrifice.

According to the Governments Forestry Tasmania all’s well that’s clearfelled in Tasmania. Or is it?

In a recent article in the Sunday Examiner ‘Effects on forestry still not known’ by Peter Wells, Feb 22 2009,
“Forestry Tasmania has conceded that the long-term impacts of climate change on the industry are still a great unknown.”

Forestry Tasmania executive general manger Hans Drielsma said…

1. “That’s something that’s probably a little more conjectural, and not something that I guess we can be all that clear about,’.

2. “All we can do is respond to the sorts of modeling that various people have done.”

3. “We aren’t doing that much activity on the East coast, we’re in the better-watered parts of the state,”…

In answer we say…

1. Take a look at the photos provided, (reality exceeds conjecture!) and it’s very clear that at least the native regeneration is not growing, and that the effects of Forestry practices in what were wetter areas are drying out those wetter areas. Something the forest GBE has been warned about for years … is now a reality.

2. Forestry Tasmania could better respond to the on the ground facts, that being, destroying water catchments in the face of climate change is a recipe for disaster.

3. You better believe they are taking over the better –watered parts of the state … and destroying them.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

THE LAND OF DECIET

The photos below (looking east) are in the Shakespeare hills (crayfish/hook creek catchment) in far N/W Tasmania, one of the higher rainfall areas in the state. Interestingly enough it normally prolifically rains in these hills but travel a couple of kilometres north towards the Bass highway and there won’t be a drop of rain. Rainforests are so named for a reason aren’t they! This once cool temperate rainforest, is now hot and dry, the humidity has been altered by destroying this ecosystem. No more rolling waves of cool, damp mist, no more temperature difference from inside the cool rainforest to outside. This rainforest has been sucked dry by inappropriate rules, exemption laws, the woodchip industry, forest managers, a Labor/Liberal anti environment accord, who all care more about greed and a self made downward spiraling industry, rather than protecting communities water catchments, endangered wildlife habitat or managing forests properly in the face of climate change.

Photos below are a small snapshot of the continuing clearfelled rainforest and water catchment near the Tarkine.
Some of this area was partly cleared just prior to FT’s promise of no more plantations in state native forests. However, FT have continued to clearfell and plant plantations. The original forest, was regrowth forest. Although it contained some very large trees the majority was logged for woodchips. FT had previously said this area would not be touched as it needed 20 or so more years to create enough good sawlogs. (photos taken 3Feb’)
In summary: We allege Forestry Tasmania has deceived the general public by continuing to convert native forest into plantations.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

THE STATE OF IGNORING CLIMATE CHANGE

The once damp, cool waterways are now wrecked, dry, cracked and burnt out. As evidenced by the photo below, which was taken by directly turning and looking west from the photo above.

This is allegedly a buffer/reserve on part of the headwaters of Crayfish creek. The lower reaches were trashed and we had FT fined for that. The fine was paid for by the public, not by the company that made the money.

Where do the 3 variety’s of robin red breasts nest? Where do the devils or spotted quoll hide? Where does the Grey Goshawk, now live and hunt in this area? Who is capturing and using the water? (photo taken 3Feb’09)

In summary: We allege Forestry Tasmania has ignored critical evidence regarding climate change.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

THE LAND OF FOOLS AND FAILURE

Below is an example of FT’s ‘mimicking’ nature – nothing short of a total failure.

This particular coupe (pictured below) was clearfelled around the middle of 2005, some 4 years ago.

Of the approx 40 hectares, we managed to reduce the size of the coupe back to approx 22 hectares, this was achieved by us demanding they stringently adhere to the forest practices code. After clearfelling we spoke to the contractors – the financial structure was approx. $40 000 to the contractor (for cutting down, transporting to Burnie etc) approx $12,000 to FT (which would not cover the costs of surveys, road’s, bridges etc), and approx $120 000 to Gunns (who did nothing but chip the forest at Burnie wharf). There were very very few saw logs (1-2 loads – as the regrowth forest was chipped too young). The coupe was left in a mess for 2 years. During that time natural regrowth occurred and the coupe appeared quite vibrant. (the activation of dormant seeds in the ground occurs naturally by either ground disturbance or fire).

Nearly 2 years ago, on the 14/5/2007, this coupe was bulldozed with only partial firebreaks and then burnt. At this stage it went from a very young natural regrowth forest containing a variety of species, to a barren wasteland. Whilst the fire was still burning, a helicopter aerial sowed it (we were in the coupe when this happened, and the helicopter landed and we got to talk to forestry personnel).

Some two years later it is essentially still a barren waste land. The aerial sowing has had a very, very poor strike rate, the natural regrowth is quite limited, (it was better before burning) and infact the coupe has been (not long ago) lightly hand planted to fill in the significant bare patches, the vast majority of these have also died. What was relatively fertile and moist land is now struggling to even grow a weed. (It is said the area is so fertile – if you plant a nail you’ll grow a crowbar!) What we have got to look forward to from the beautiful forest is now a trashed landscape. It will take every bit of a hundred years to regrow.
Photo below, 4 years after clearfell, and 2 years after burning, and aerial sowing. Even a desert has more life.

(Below) FT’s aerial sowing strike rate test cage. Strike and survival rate? NIL (photos taken 3Feb’09)

Hand planted seedlings have also died. It is one thing to destroy rainforests, water catchments and endangered wildlife habitat, but to also destroy the very soil required for regeneration? This cannot be called renewable, sustainable or best practice. (photos taken 3Feb’09)

This entire pictured scenario is repeated time and again, over thousands and thousands of hectares, across the Tasmanian landscape. We defy anybody to believe that these types of forestry practices are remotely creating a renewable resource for future generations, especially in the face of climate change. It is quite simply wrong. What was naturally right is now purely a black mark against all that is clean and green about Tasmania.

Is this coupe a success or failure?

From a publicly viable economic point of view it was a failure.
From a social ‘multiple use’ point of view it is a failure.
From an environmental point of view it is a failure.
From a sustainable, renewable point of view it is a failure.
From an FT scientific point of view it is a failure.

In summary: We allege this CANNOT be in compliance with AFS and PEFC requirements. We allege it is a breach of the Forest Practices Code and Forestry Tasmania should be significantly fined.

But it gets worse!

——————————————————————————————————————————————

THE STATE OF UNNATURAL DISASTER

What is at stake?

The Giant Freshwater Lobster. She may not be cuddly, but like a human this ancient girl (pictured) can live up to 80 years old. This old girl doesn’t have a voice we humans can understand, so we’ll speak for her and ask, WHY ? What did I ever do to you for you to trash my habitat and contribute to my species decline?

Through no fault of their own, they have to travel miles up stream into the headwaters to survive when their water supply has been trashed.

Those headwaters are now being systematically destroyed in exactly the same manner as the previous pictures show. Her previously long term presence tells a story of a healthy ecosystem. Similar to a human she doesn’t have the ability to breed until she’s about 14 years old. She is territorial, knows exactly where her home hole is, she will fight and defender her territory. But her territory is being destroyed by greed and because enough people who have the ultimate power and could protect her, don’t care.

Pictured below is the creek in October 2007.

The picture below is exactly the same part of the creek as that pictured directly above, in Feb/Mar 2008. We believe the drying out of the creek is a direct consequence after part of the rainforest catchment and most of the class 4 streams down stream were destroyed by clearfelling and the massive planting of water sucking plantations in the preceding years. It will only get worse the longer FT and Co control the forests with such little thought for the consequences.

In summary: Forestry and Co invaded the local rainforest and played Russian roulette with a rainforest and permanent water supply. It was inevitable, with the current forest practices that this would happen. Common sense alone could predict the outcome. These sorts of practices are being practiced alongside farming communities and in water catchments supplying towns and cities their water. The lack of duty of care is complete madness.

When will the state and federal governments, and the forest industry face up to the facts? How much more clearly do they want reality proven to them?

Is any of the above, kind, clever or connected to anyone or anything good? Because from where we’re looking, we can’t see it. This degeneration of native wild forests, rainforests, old growth forests, endangered species habitat and water catchments is certainly not thinking about the next generation, of any species.

We personally challenge the Premier to have an on the ground look at what he is willing to sacrifice. Does he want to wait until FT totally destroys local water catchments? Or is suing them the only choice left? We are up to the challenge Mr Bartlett – are you? Or maybe Will Hodgeman would care to take a look, how about it Will?

Charles and Claire Gilmour