Garry Stannus
WELCOME back, Woodworker.

The article in Tasmanian Times (13 April 2009) ‘A Review of the Tasmanian Woodcraft Sector for The Woodcraft Guild & Forestry Tasmania’ and appearing in TasTimes as “Tasmanian woodcraft sector review” by a ‘Special Correspondent’ ( Here ) is memorable for all the wrong reasons.

1. The Review is the brainchild of George Harris, known to our readership as ‘Woodworker’. George has been missing from Tas Times since being implicated in the discredited smear campaign ( Here ) that State Labor recently ran against the Tasmanian Greens. George had failed to answer any of the questions that were raised regarding his involvement in the smear and remained quiet on his links with the CFMEU and his trip to last year’s Labor Conference as a guest of that union. George is also a member of Timber Communities Australia, (TCA) – periodic recipient of Gunns sponsorship. Readers will possibly remember TCA was once oxymoronically known as the ‘Forest Protection Society’.

Review suppressed?

2. George has been challenged by other TasTimers to explain the delays last year, in the publication of the report. It was claimed then, that the reasons for the delay in publication had to do with the report containing things that Forestry Tas was not comfortable with. The report itself is still not available to the public via Forestry’s website. What readers were presented with here in Tas Times, is only an executive summary.

Poor-practice persists?

3. A ‘reading-the-tea-leaves’ approach to the Exec summary arouses interest in the area of ‘sustainable harvesting and recovery’. The Review’s summary canvasses this as a strategy objective, in order to ensure a viable supply of Special Species Timber (SST). This will be achieved, it says, through “enhanced management practice and optimum recovery of materials”. Those versed in Newspeak and gobbledygook may understand exactly what this means. I take it to imply that the Review might well have been critical of persistent wastage in the forests.

Old Growth Logging will continue

4. The reader will not find ‘old-growth’ in the Exec Summary. It is apparently an issue that Forestry Tasmania and George Harris’s Woodcraft Guild Tasmania (WGT) would rather sweep under the carpet. In case the reader is in any doubt about where this Review stands on the question of old-growth logging, here is what George has already stated:

“The cessation of old growth logging and native forest logging would mean the complete cessation of the Special Timbers industry that so many of our artists, designers, furniture manufacturers, wood turners, boat builders and musical instrument makers depend on.”

and

“It is unrealistic to consider plantations for some of these species. Rather, it is better to have an area of a suitable size, (where these trees naturally grow), that is continuing to propagate new growth while having a full age spectrum (through to very old trees) that are available for careful management, such as harvesting small amounts on long rotations. This is the theory behind the Special Timbers Management Units. It just happens to be that some of these areas are in the Southern Forests, the Styx, the Upper Florentine, and parts of the West Coast. If you think any of these are going to be removed from availability, you are seriously mistaken.”

George and the WGT are therefore solidly behind Forestry Tasmania’s ongoing and future logging of old-growth forests.

Stockpiling

5. It is puzzling that the stockpiling of Special Species Timbers seems to be viewed as not being conducive to the commercial well-being of the woodcraft industry – an ‘impediment to its viability’. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the summary, but it left me wondering if the real aim of the Review, was not to simply give a snapshot of the industry and of its contribution to the state, but rather to provide some sort of documented rationale for the further exploitation-by-logging of our old-growth forests.

Opposition ignored

6. The Exec Summary lists the following as potential players in the Special Timbers industry: Forestry Tasmania, Industry and Sector Organisations, FFIC, DEDT, Arts Tasmania, Businesses, Industry Partnership, Design Centre of Tasmania, Harvesting Contractors, DED. This is about as realistic as the concept of ‘Terra Nullius’ was. It doesn’t seem as if there is any desire to come to terms with the fact that a significant number of Tasmanians are against further old-growth logging and can be expected to continue to oppose it into the future. How realistic is it to plan for logging old-growth beyond the promised 2010 without explaining how opposition from organisations such as the Greens, the Wilderness Society, Still Wild, Still Threatened etc can be financially factored in?

Conclusion: Boycott further old-growth products?

If what you read has got Forestry Tasmania or Woodcraft Guild Tasmania somewhere up there in the letterhead, you might well be advised to take what you read with a grain of salt – there is as yet, no known cure in Western medicine for ‘vested interest’. If Forestry and the unrepresentative* WGT continue their logging of old-growth forests, maybe it’s time to stop buying these special species products. Maybe a proper certification system would tell you that the next bread-board you buy from Woodworker will be certified as “Not being sourced from old-growth forests post April 2009”.

*It must be said that woodworkers other than George Harris have written to TT. They have not found it necessary to support Forestry Tasmania and the continuation of old-growth logging. It must also be said that the WCT claims about 80 members. The Review claims more than 10,500 Tasmanians participate in woodcraft.

[Writer’s Certification: No old-growth forest was destroyed post Apr 2009 in the composition of this article]