On Tuesday 14 September members of the West Wellington Protection Group (WWPG) made a preliminary evaluation walk-through of logging coupe RU051A above Judbury and Crabtree, which is due for clearfelling by Forestry Tasmania in 2010.
As part of the Forest Practices Planning process, the WWPG will be undertaking its own analysis of the coupe and presenting its findings to Forestry Tasmania at agreed intervals.
This coupe is viewed as an important precedent for other coupes in West Wellington, as it directly borders Wellington Park, is at high elevation and is on the watershed between the catchments of Judbury and Crabtree. The Tasmanian Trail, now turned into a logging road, goes directly through RU051A.
Visit http://wwpg.info for more information.
• An aerial view of West Wellington from above Huonville. The large red area comprises the West Wellington coupes. The three marked coupes including RU051A are due for clearfelling in 2010-2011. Two coupes in this area have already been clearfelled. West Wellington is at high altitude, adjoins Wellington Park and links it to the western wilderness. It is an oasis of native forest between rural townships and comprises the water collection and storage area for the catchments of Crabtree, Lucaston and Judbury.
• Coupe map showing RUO51A and other coupes scheduled for clearfelling in Forestry Tasmania’s 3 year plan.
• Some of the group of WWPG members who walked into coupe RU051A on Tuesday 14 September including Huon Valley Councillor Liz Smith (far right).
• Tasmania Trail marker: the Trail goes directly through RU051A and many of the other logging coupes in West Wellington.
• One of pair of wedge-tailed eagles seen soaring above the coupes, photographed from just outside RU051A.
CALL ON FORESTRY TASMANIA TO CEASE NATIVE FOREST CONVERSION
As Promised in 2007
Kim Booth MP
Greens Forest spokesperson
The Tasmanian Greens today recognised International Day Against Monoculture Tree Plantations, and called on Forestry Tasmania to recognise the serious issues associated with monoculture tree plantations and scrap all plans to convert native forest to plantations immediately.
Greens Forests spokesperson Kim Booth MP said the monocultural plantations invite insect infestations which require excessive use of pesticides to repel, they require massive use of Triazine herbicides during establishment, and the director of Public Health has made it quite clear that he is uneasy about the health risks associated with the ongoing aerial application of Triazines in particular.
Mr Booth also noted that Forestry Tasmania was supposed to cease the conversion of native forest to plantation in 2007.
“On this International Day Against Monoculture Tree Plantations I am calling on Forestry Tasmania to acknowledge the serious issues associated with monoculture tree plantations, and to immediately cease the planned conversion of native forest into plantations,” said Mr Booth.
“Monocultural tree plantations encourage insect infestations that require huge chemical inputs to repel, and those chemicals are being implicated in the contamination of waterways across Tasmania.”
“Forestry Tasmania announced in 2007, to a huge fanfare, that they were ceasing the conversion of native forest into plantations, and on this International Day Against Monoculture Tree Plantations I am calling on Forestry to immediately cease the conversion of native forests into plantations, a practice that they have continued since their big announcement in 2007,” said Mr Booth.
NOTICE OF MOTION
21 SEPTEMBER 2010
Kim Booth MP on tomorrow (Wed) to move –
That the House:
1. Recognises that today is the International Day against Monoculture Tree Plantations;
2. Recognises that the Tasmanian Greens have warned about monoculture tree plantations in Tasmania because:
a. the Tasmania Government still allows aerial spraying of very toxic pesticides including the endocrine disruptor Dominix Duo along with a mixture of hydrocarbons, latex and alcohol ethoxylate (known to be toxic to respiratory systems) onto plantations in water catchments where people live, from helicopters at 45 meters above ground level;
b. The Tasmanian Director of Public Health Roscoe Taylor is reported in The Weekend Australian in April 2009 that he was uneasy about these health risks and about ongoing aerial spraying of triazines in water catchments;
c. Plantations do not support complex ecosystems which endangered species such as the Tasmanian Devil need in order to survive. The destruction of their habitat for plantations is contributing to the species extinction;
d. Plantations continue to reduce available water at an unmonitored rate and that based on calculations done in 2003 by the Manager of Hydraulic modelling and systems at the Launceston City Council, plantations were using free of charge, $1.2 million worth of water per annum in just the Council area alone; and
3. Moves that: Forestry Tasmania be directed to halt all current conversions and scrap all plans to convert Native Forest to plantation effective immediately.
MINISTER MUST EXPLAIN WHY NATIVE FOREST CONVERSION IS CONTINUING
Kim Booth MP
Greens Forests spokesperson
The Tasmanian Greens today called on Forestry Minister Bryan Green to order the rogue agency Forestry Tasmania to cease converting native forest into plantations, and to explain why this practice has continued despite Forestry Tasmania claiming in 2007 that it had ceased.
Greens Forests spokesperson Kim Booth MP said this deceitful behaviour places current talks aimed at resolving the future of the forest industry at risk, as well as damaging Tasmania’s international reputation and brand.
“Minister Green must explain why Forestry Tasmania claimed in 2007 that it was ceasing the conversion of native forest into plantation, when in fact this practice is continuing in late 2010, and the Minister must also order this rogue agency to cease this primitive practice immediately,” said Mr Booth.
“If Mr Green cannot or will not order Forestry Tasmania to cease converting native forest into plantation, then he must explain why not.”
“Once again Tasmanians discover that Forestry Tasmania cannot be trusted to tell the truth about its own practices.”
“The Greens are calling for a full explanation from the Forestry Minister, and for the Minister to order the rogue agency Forestry Tasmania to immediately cease the conversion of our native forests into plantations,” said Mr Booth.
Reference: Native forest coupes listed by Forestry Tasmania for conversion into plantations in 2010/11:
• Huon Coupe FN026B – 25 hectares of State Forest to be converted to Hardwood Plantation in 2010/11;
• Derwent Coupe FO006C – 35ha of State Forest to be converted to Hardwood Plantation in 2010/11;
• Mersey Coupe KA006H – 7 hectares of State Forest to be converted to Hardwood Plantation in 2010/11;
• Huon Coupe KD043C – 6 hectares of Native forest to be converted to Hardwood Plantation in 2010/11;
• Bass Coupe RR186G – 35 hectares of State Forest to be converted to Hardwood Plantation in 2010/11;
• Mersey Coupe ST204G – 12ha of State Forest to be converted to Hardwood Plantation in 2010/11.
Download: Google Earth Coupe Images, compiled by Pete Godfrey:
Sep22_2010-11_Forest_Conversions_K_Booth_ATTACH.pdf
On Tasmanian Times HERE
THREATENED SPECIES NEED HABITAT PROTECTION
Cassy O’Connor MP
Greens Environment spokesperson
The Tasmanian Greens today called on the Labor and Liberal parties to support the adequate protection of habitat for threatened species such as the Tasmanian Devil and the Wedge-Tailed Eagle through the implementation of a system of secure reserves ensuring long-term stable habitat conditions for threatened species.
Greens Environment spokesperson Cassy O’Connor MP said the tragic death of Cedric the Devil has highlighted the need to increase efforts to save the Devil from extinction, and the prioritisation of habitat protection in areas where healthy Devil populations have been recorded is an obvious start.
Ms O’Connor also praised the Raptor and Wildlife Refuge of Tasmania, which has successfully rehabilitated and released two Wedge-Tailed Eagles over the last two months, and noted that the major threat to the Eagle’s survival is the loss of breeding habitat, and a lack of genetic diversity.
“The hard work being done by the Raptor and Wildlife Refuge, which recently successfully rehabilitated two Wedge-Tailed Eagles, highlights the need for more habitat protection for Eagles, which are specifically threatened by the ongoing loss of their breeding habitat through logging,” said Ms O’Connor.
“The Auditor-General has identified that Tasmania’s threatened species are in trouble, and that successive governments have not done enough to protect these species in the past, so the Greens are calling on the Liberal and Labor Parties to support the implementation of a system of secure reserves ensuring long-term stable habitat conditions for threatened species.”
“The Greens are calling on the Labor and Liberal parties to acknowledge that many of our threatened species need our sustained and committed assistance. The implementation of a system of secure reserves ensuring long-term stable habitat conditions for threatened species is the best way forward at this time,” said Ms O’Connor.
salamander
September 20, 2010 at 15:41
So much waste.
This does demonstrate how much everything in Tasmania is subject to the wishes of Forestry. They can destroy something like the Tasmanian Trail, affect the water supply of towns, literally do what they like, all with the blessing of Labour and the lookalike Liberals.
But a public protest in our own public forest, to insist that the rights, health, jobs of all Tasmanians should be considered – that is likely to result in arrest!
This is not about saving Tasmanian jobs – it is a power play and land grab by FT, to plant more plantations – just what the tourists want to see!
john hayward
September 20, 2010 at 20:06
Clearing forest of this steepness, altitude, biodiversity, and aesthetic quality, would be criminal in most advanced countries. It even seems to contravene the Forest Practices Act here.
But the Tasmanian industry is blessed with its Forest Practices Authority, a.k.a.Chief Forester Graham Wilkinson, who may be the fastest rubber stamp in the business. Nothing, it seems, doesn’t get by him.
Gunns’ conversion to ecological sainthood had best be regarded as purely cosmetic . Their real strength could be seen this past week in slavish endorsements of the industry from the likes of Eric Abetz and Mark Shelton. They still want it all.
john Hayward
frank Nicklason
September 20, 2010 at 21:31
Thank you wwpg for your efforts and good luck.
William Boeder
September 21, 2010 at 04:51
Now then, all the pro-forestry whispering, silken, (though yet, still poison-tongued,) scribes who are currently crying foul whilst refuting most all factual contentions?
In most all of my comments I’ve written and had published on Tas Times this last 3 or so years, I have dwelt upon the rampant raging bull-shitting promises and announcements that seem indigenous to this State government GBE, then of Gunns Ltd.
So that is something like 8 years of false announcements, obfuscating announcements, secretive operations etc, so, ‘not really that of which these silken smooth spielers of sustainable forest destruction’s do allude to,’ in this Tas Times Internet Forum.’
Then there is all the rest of whatever these 2 timber industry mega-political-supporters to the Lib/Lab coalition involve themselves within?
These 2 major Tasmanian political parties, and, the 2 largest forestry plunderers, are still just as guilty today as when I arrived back in late 2002?
So where to from here people?
Dr Kevin Bonham
September 21, 2010 at 05:29
Re the “Threatened Species Need Habitat Protection”, I hate to break the bad news to the Greens but setting up new reserve boundaries does not in fact stop Devil Facial Tumour Disease.
What the species actually needs is captive breeding, insurance populations and if practical, complete exclusion of devils from some healthy population areas. Using the presence of healthy devils (at this time) as an argument for reserve prioritisation when in many cases those areas will not remain DFTD-free for more than a few years is bad science and bad conservation. Unfortunately it is yet another example of throwing around a threatened species argument to try to get a conservation outcome that is desired but doesn’t actually follow from the argument being made. There are always plenty of threatened species that could really do with a higher percentage of their population in reserves and for which reservation [i]is[/i] the most effective strategy. If there is a desire to make an argument for more reserves, try looking at, and publicising, species that really need them.
Pete Godfrey
September 21, 2010 at 10:33
Dr Kev you are right on the devil issue. Pity the government are a bunch of people with paper thin hands from sitting on them so long.
Actually the program of captive breeding is so inadequate that it would be lucky to have enough Devils to supply a couple of wildlife parks with their needs. That may be the actual intent, to supply highly priced almost extinct animals so we can look at scratchy videos of them in a few years time.
In the current woodchip market is does appear to be a ridiculous thing to go on clearfelling the forests as if the world wants our “high quality woodchips”.
Maybe the heads of the forest industry need to look over the front of the boat and realise that it is only rocking because they are on a mound on dry land.
mjf
September 21, 2010 at 12:37
#2/5. Surprise, surprise, the daily double of Langfield & Boeder. Never let the facts spoil a nice green embellishment or three boys.
hugoagogo
September 21, 2010 at 14:04
#8 that daily double is unbackably easy.
The bookies won’t even open their bag unless your (oops, I mean you’re) talking at least quinella.
Chad C Mulligan
September 21, 2010 at 14:09
mjf,
Sigh. Go on then, tell us why logging this bit will make us all wealthy, happy and wise.
Bemused
September 21, 2010 at 18:59
Gee william, 3 years worth of that? just goes to show that no amount of Grima wormtounge-esq obfusication doesn’t refute the scientific facts. maybe you should rethink your approach,as it doesn’t seem to be getting you anywhere. Where to indeed.
Dr Kevin Bonham
September 21, 2010 at 19:05
Where I said “complete exclusion of devils from some healthy population areas.” I of course meant complete exclusion of other devils beyond those already in such areas, not booting out those already there. 🙂
john hayward
September 21, 2010 at 19:56
Once again, Dr Kev (#6) has leapt on a nit, albeit a sickly one, in a pro-environment argument.
Protecting devil habitat could arguably slow the westward advance of DFTD, increasing the numbers that might survive until such time as there might be a Tas Govt with the brains and integrity to set up an adequate insurance population elsewhere.
Curiously, the eminent doctor doesn’t mention the wedgie or the myriad other endangered Tassie taxa, which would clearly benefit from habitat protection. Perhaps he is evincing an adaptation for surviving in the Tassie mainstream.
John Hayward
Dr Kevin Bonham
September 21, 2010 at 21:21
Concerning Kim Booth’s call – this issue comes up on this site rather often with false claims made on both sides of the debate. What Forestry announced in 2007 was an end to “broad scale conversion” – not a complete and absolute end to all conversion whatsoever. What it means is that the areas still being converted are few in number and relatively small in size – as the list indicates.
Dr Kevin Bonham
September 21, 2010 at 22:31
John Hayward (#14) says that “Protecting devil habitat could arguably slow the westward advance of DFTD, increasing the numbers that might survive until such time as there might be a Tas Govt with the brains and integrity to set up an adequate insurance population elsewhere.”
But actually, since DFTD is more likely to spread more rapidly through [i]dense[/i] populations of devils than sparse ones, increasing the numbers of devils in areas between the diseased and the undiseased areas is more likely to increase the flow of DFTD and not in any way likely to retard it. Indeed, if anything was likely to retard the spread of DFTD into untouched areas (apart from devil genetics in those areas) it would be more likely to be increasing habitat fragmentation – or decreasing population density – so that devils are rarer and have less contact with each other. So Hayward’s claim is simply more bad science.
John Hayward claims “Curiously, the eminent doctor doesn’t mention the wedgie or the myriad other endangered Tassie taxa, which would clearly benefit from habitat protection.”
However this is yet another instance of Mr Hayward failing to read what is in front of him. It’s true I didn’t mention the eagle but I did write:
“There are always plenty of threatened species that could really do with a higher percentage of their population in reserves and for which reservation is the most effective strategy. If there is a desire to make an argument for more reserves, try looking at, and publicising, species that really need them. ”
Thus Hayward’s claim about my comments is false and his nonsense about “an adaptation for surviving in the Tassie mainstream” is silly. I ask Mr Hayward to give his invariably misguided attempts to discern my motivations a rest and stick to debating the facts and the issues.
As for the threatened Tasmanian subspecies of the otherwise non-threatened eagle, I could easily go into that one too but have not yet reached the point of being bothered. I understand its primary problem to be direct persecution.
mjf
September 21, 2010 at 22:46
#11. We did harvesting of wet viminalis at Weegena (or was it Kimberley)to death many weeks ago. You wouldn’t listen then culminating in a hissy fit, you’ll be no different now. Nothing to add on that topic.
Peter Godfrey, on the other hand, has a somewhat more balanced view and makes some sensible points at times. You would do better to follow his example of commenting.
Who I am is unimportant.
john hayward
September 22, 2010 at 00:51
A marvellous piece of reasoning by Dr Kev at #17. By fragmenting habitat, according to the good Dr, we will slow the spread of the disease.
A less inspired zoologist might have presumed that concentrating the remaining population in constricted pockets would actually accelerate DFTD spread.
At any rate, this fragmentation strategy would obviously reduce the habitat and sustainability of everything else that lives in forests, all for a species that some believe doomed anyway.
John Hayward
William Boeder
September 22, 2010 at 00:59
I refer to those persons whom are so mind-fuddled by their insatiable lust that F/T should continue logging the guts out of Tasmania’s Native Forests.
The very fact that this small coterie of word-bangers have become so blinded to all the rapacious intents and actions of themselves and of the few like-minded followers that may visit their camp, in that this soon tells us that there ‘cannot exist’ any bona-fide principles among this gaggle of wood-filchers?
So who or what is the customer of the moment, is it under-priced Native Forest logs to the Chinamen, or Native Forest (less 30% of all the prime-graded logs,) (In referring to ‘woodworkers’ estimations,)
is to go into the wood-chipping cruncher of good old Gunns Ltd?
Now I again refer to the peculiar Hackus Destructus, the slow thinking mob who live, sleep and dream, of just how much can be filched from the PEOPLES FORESTS, why do you believe that this can go on forever?
Then there is the fact that Both Gunns Ltd and F/T haven’t any idea of how to properly plan the very best outcomes for themselves, (ie: earnings above expenses,) that forever and again they are still reliant on the poor old whip-scarred backs of the Aussie taxpayer?
Gunns Ltd want, (but certainly is not in any way warranted,) $200,000,000-00 to halt their rapacious attacks upon our Native Forests?
This is an acute example of how you lot think, even in your actually knowing that the present forestry operations cannot make proper respectable money?
Rubbish me all you want, but before you do, check on how much is visible in the cash registers of both the Super-Dooper High Falutin’ Forest Rootin’ forestry ruining entities of F/T and Gunns Ltd?
Michael
September 22, 2010 at 02:10
Wellington Park encompasses an area of 18,250 hectares. From the map provided above there is approx. 330 hectares planned for harvesting over the next THREE years in this area.
This equates to area of 1.8% the size of the Wellington Park is planned to be harvested over THREE years, or 0.5% a year.
Hardly, a threat to the regions habitat values or whatever other things the can dream up (and somehow blame the forest industry for it), especially considering the stringent FPP planning processes etc.
Do they realise that 44% of Tasmania is in formal conservation reserves, already? Do they realise that only 592,000 hectares (includes 100,000 or so hectares of Pinus radiata and E. spp plantations) of the 1,600,000 hectares of the Tasmanian State Forest estate (37%) is available for timber production? Of that 37%, some will never be harvested anyway due to informal reserving of streams, provisions of wildlife habitat clumps/strips through the FPP planning process, access issues etc.
I doubt they do.
Having enough forest in reserves just isn’t enough for some people, they want it all. Though there is something these people are lacking…
It’s called perspective, these people definitely need to find some…
William Boeder
September 22, 2010 at 02:25
#12. Bemused is not able to amuse, but endeavors to regularly confuse and abuse.
Do go and buy your self a small bag of mixed lollies!
Dr Kevin Bonham
September 22, 2010 at 02:26
Re #19:
“A less inspired zoologist might have presumed that concentrating the remaining population in constricted pockets would actually accelerate DFTD spread.”
They would indeed be less inspired because the assumption that the same population would just concentrate in remaining adjacent portions of fragmented habitat, even if those areas became completely overpopulated, is unrealistic. After all if devils just stayed close to where they are the disease would not spread as effectively as it does.
William Boeder
September 22, 2010 at 10:42
The important matter to that of what actually happens to the bulk of say (the Tarkine Forest harvested logs,) is somewhat tenuous, given that a meagre portion only of what ultimately leaves these Tarkine Forests, results in only 30% of the good stuff, (being good straight and sound Tas Oak species,} is selected for the building timber industry.
(I have the newspaper picture of that photo shot now deeply embedded in my mind, of all those log trucks that were waiting to access the Triabunna wood chip mill only 12-18 months ago, during a protest sit-in at that mill at that time.)
If we look at the percentage of use gained from the good straight logs, just what is the actual volume of logs harvested that go off to the Chinese, then to see the remaining huge volume that is destined for the wood-chippers, Phew?
The attrition rate to that area of logged forests must result in an extraordinarily high volume of those of our forests, (((but only of those species sought,))) is either burnt or is then either sent to the Chinese or to the wood-chippers?
Great work Forestry Tasmania!
mjf
September 22, 2010 at 12:31
#24. Rest easier old chap. FT’s Chinese hardwood log trading has very recently been stopped.
hugoagogo
September 22, 2010 at 13:09
#24. Bill, the photo, and the resulting scald in your brain doesn’t count because Still Whining’s Freestone Point Protest was OHS non-compliant.
Bemused
September 22, 2010 at 14:11
Re#15, Once again i must voice my objections over the use of the word rape to describe forestry operations. To liken a crime of violence against a person to cutting down trees, no matter how offensive you may find that practice, is an inappropriate use of the word. Please refrain. And yes johnny boy, they belong to us all, with the exception of privately owned areas, and I dont remember giving any NGO’s permission or social license to look after them.
Re #22 Willy, dont be silly. I too can make a rhyme anytime.. And as for abuse? Perhaps you should look in the mirror old son, and refrain from such descriptors as slow thinking, evil cultists and the like.
Bemused
September 22, 2010 at 14:32
Hey ed, how come john wade can tell people to ” take their hands off their dicks” but we are not able to ask him to remove his digits from his old fella? Double standard? And old willy can tell me to go and buy a bag of mixed lollies but I cant tell him to take his bat and ball and go home? isnt this what you got paid out for by Pilko?
William Boeder
September 22, 2010 at 15:02
#27. May you one day be blessed with some inspiring creative thoughts of your own, so that you may deliver that substance and originality of some such new entertaining subject matter, to softly alight upon the minds of those crowds of people whom e’er must continue to worry and wait upon your issuing of such profound writings?
Bemused
September 22, 2010 at 16:51
Oh Hear Ye, Hear Ye. Boeder the bard, wordsmith of the west, high lord protector of forests has spoken. How dare we upstart younglings challenge the literary might of aforementioned sir wiliam? Why, with such vouluminous scribblings and oft proffered comments regarding the evils of forestry and their evil cults, of conspiracys and wrong doings visited upon the forested might of tassie sureley he speaketh the truth? Who can challenge the veracity of said comments when offered up with smatterings of latin to embellish? But lo, when offered the oportunity to verify his claims, to respond with hard, cold facts, the bard gives us such gems of wit as “Do go and buy yourself a small bag of mixed lollies.” Please sir william feel free to belittle my intellect, I’m sure i will get over it rather quickly, as i hold your profound utterances of effluent in such high regard..Oh and I would prefer a Kit Kat.
Bemused
September 24, 2010 at 04:21
Oh dear, John that is as lame an excuse to justify your use as I have ever heard.
Dictionary definition’
Rape,
Noun,
defilement,a forced sexual assault.
AnnoyingOrange
September 25, 2010 at 06:00
Re #21 … those forest stats are funny, you only have to look at the photo above or Google Earth to see how much of the state has been cleared, be it for forestry or whatever.
It’s time to stop.
Michael
September 25, 2010 at 16:09
#35 – I’m truly sorry that the facts and figures don’t sit well with your pre-conceived view of the world? Really, I am…
mjf
September 26, 2010 at 12:17
#32.
a) My incorrect reference to “vulnerable” wet E vim was publically corrected and acknowledged, you may continue to use false if it makes you feel better
b) The posted comment regarding the nearest WTE nest was not mine
Feel free to verify and satisfy yourself.
Malcolm
September 26, 2010 at 17:57
#16 Dr Kevin Bonham’s comments fail to accord with Forestry Tasmania’s most recent Stewardship Report for 2008-09 which states on page 30:
“On 1 June 2007, in line with the requirements of the Australian Forestry Standard, we announced an end to the practice of converting native forests to plantations. “
There is no mention of the word “broadscale†even in the accompanying qualification:
“This statement was in the context of:
native forest production areas that were commenced (that is road work completed, harvesting commenced) before 31 December 2006 being completed and planted over the next two years; and
native forest production areas that had commenced after 1 January 2007 being returned to native forest.â€
FT subsequently admits “This year, a total of 2,191 hectares of plantation was established on land that met the above criteria.â€
The full Stewardship Report can be downloaded at the following link:
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/publications
The areas of native forest which FT proposes to convert to hardwood plantation this year appear to be in breach of the Tasmanian Government Policy for Maintaining a Permanent Native Forest Estate dated December 2009 which I will expand upon in my next post.
Malcolm
September 26, 2010 at 18:07
Broadscale clearing and conversion of native forest is now prohibited on public land and is to be phased out on private land within the next 5 years as a result of more progressive and sustainable obligations imposed upon the State Government by Clause 45 of the Supplementary Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement dated 13 May 2005:
http://www.daff.gov.au/rfa/regions/tasmania/rfa/supplementary
Furthermore, an overall cap on clearing or conversion of native forest on both public and private land has been established to retain 95 per cent of the 1996 area of native forest. Unfortunately, the latest report by the Forest Practices Authority shows that the 95 per cent limit has already almost been reached.
In addition, the protection of regional biodiversity and water quality values and to meet salinity objectives is to be ensured by assessment criteria for regulating forest clearing and conversion.
Clause 46 of the above Agreement required the State to implement a revised Permanent Forest Estate Policy which took effect in December 2009:
http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/permanent_native_forest_estate_policy
The Policy defines broadscale clearing and conversion as follows:
“Broadscale clearing and conversion means clearing and conversion of 20 hectares or greater of native forest in any period of five consecutive years (based on calendar years) per property.”
“Clearing and conversion means the permanent or long-term removal of significant areas of native forest and its replacement by non-native vegetation, such as plantations, orchards, crops or pastures; different native species such as a blue gum plantation, or unvegetated developments, such as artificial water bodies, buildings and other infrastructure.”
In order to comply with these obligations, Forestry Tasmania’s preferred method of operation is to “regenerate†native forest by clearfelling (often under the guise of variable retention), removing all remaining residue through high intensity burns which are a public health and safety hazard and sowing new seed on the sterile ground.
FT claims that this method mimics natural fire events, however, unlike nature every remnant of the biodiverse flora and fauna is destroyed and replaced with FT’s preferred eucalyptus genus which those in the industry seem to consider to be fit only for low value pulpwood.
West Wellington is only just recovering from the 1967 bush fires and for FT to propose logging water catchment areas and “regenerating†them by fire is a provocative and senseless action of pure irony.
Furthermore, the loss of diverse rainforest species such as myrtle, sassafras, native laurel, pandani and celery-top pine top pine to be replaced predominately by eucalyptus amounts to a “conversion†which is in breach of Guideline 2 of the Policy which specifically defines the term “conversion†of native forest to include “its replacement by … different native species.â€
Dr Kevin Bonham
September 26, 2010 at 22:22
Re #38 you can see the language of the original FT public announcement here:
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2007/06/end-of-conversion-of-native-forests-to-plantations-1st-june-2007
and you can see that my comments accord with that original public announcement.
Just because in all the various FT summarising of this decision in secondary reports, Malcolm can find a place where the word “broad-scale” was omitted, then that’s hardly a failure on my part.
In #39 Malcolm refers to apparent breaches of the policy. If he is talking about the 20 hectare limit then he should note that this is defined per property. Further on property is defined in part thus:
“in relation to Crown land and State forest, any land that is not within 100 metres of any other Crown land or State forest that is subject to forest practices”
Thus, this definition does not strictly prevent the conversion of more than 20 ha within a large coupe provided that the converted area is distributed in patches, so that a converted area <20 ha in size is not within 100 m of any other such converted area. Does Malcolm (or anyone else) have a map of areas for conversion in the few coupes with >20 ha scheduled for conversion?
As for the quoted definition of “clearing and conversion” it clearly does not refer to natural forest logging followed by regeneration to species already on site, even if the species mix temporarily changes. The reference to “different native species” means native species that do not occur on the site.
As for the whole claim that “[..] unlike nature every remnant of the biodiverse flora and fauna is destroyed and replaced with FT’s preferred eucalyptus genus [..]” this sentence is misleading at best and unscientific alarmist hyperbole at worst. It creates the impression that logging followed by regen kills absolutely everything within the coupe from the time harvesting commences, and that what replaces it is a eucalypt monoculture utterly without biodiversity value, all of which is false.
Now, a question: are there pandani (Richea pandanifolia) on any of the coupes scheduled for logging? If so, which ones?