Tasmanian Times


Weld … business as usual. Rogue corporation, says Booth

This morning, conservationists conducted a peaceful walk-in to logging coupe BB022I, located in the Weld Valley, where logging is still occurring in high conservation value forests.

A new report ‘They are still falling: a critical time for Tasmania’s high conservation value forests’, prepared by Still Wild Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Centre, was also delivered to Premier Bartlett.

SWST and the HVEC are alarmed at the continuing destruction of southern Tasmania’s high conservation value (HCV) forests. Recent surveys by conservation volunteers in the Derwent and Huon Districts have revealed that large-scale industrial logging, including clearfelling of critical areas of HCV, continues, with new logging operations recently commencing in coupes with outstanding wilderness and other conservation values.

While SWST and the HVEC welcome industry claims to be charting a future away from native forest logging we would like to bring attention to the fact that critical areas of High Conservation Value forest are still being destroyed and exported as woodchips and veneer.

“Today’s peaceful demonstration highlights the ongoing loss of high conservation value forests in Southern Tasmania. Clearfelling alongside the iconic Weld River is one of the many large scale and destructive logging operations occurring in the southern forests today,” Huon Valley Environment Centre’s Jenny Weber said.

“We are on the verge of a very welcome breakthrough in the Tasmanian forest debate. Unfortunately, new logging roads are being pushed into wilderness areas and high conservation value forests are being logged as we speak,” Still Wild Still Threatened Spokesperson Christo Mills said.


“Still Wild Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Centre are calling for an immediate moratorium to be placed on all high conservation value forests identified by Tasmanian ENGOs, as a precursor to formal protection. We recommend that current logging operations in these forests cease and that no new logging coupes are started in high conservation value forests as of today” said Christo Mills.

For more information on the Huon Valley Environment Centre, go to www.huon.org

To view images and to download the report go to www.stillwildstillthreatened.org (on the front page, news and resources sections)


Download the SWST Report:

Still Wild Still Threatened
is a grassroots community organisation campaigning for the immediate protection of Tasmania’s ancient forests and the creation of an equitable and environmentally sustainable forestry industry in Tasmania.


PO Box 295. South Hobart TAS 7004

follow us on facebook, twitter and myspace
Watch our videos on youtube

Kim Booth MP
Greens Forests spokesperson

The Tasmanian Greens today called on Premier David Bartlett to exercise control over the rogue Government Business Enterprise Forestry Tasmania and order them to cease targeting ancient High Conservation Value (HCV) forests for logging at a time when the conservation of all HCV forests is being discussed in negotiations between forest industry representatives and environmental groups.

Greens Forests spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that most of the HCV forests being targeted are in highly contentious areas, such as coupe HA044C/E on the North Lune Road, which is located between the internationally renowned Hastings Caves and the Hastings Thermal Pool, and which has already been 80 per cent destroyed during the past month while the roundtable negotiations have been occurring.

Mr Booth also thanked all those involved in pushing for a sustainable future for Tasmania’s forest industry, and welcomed the outstanding work being done by the Huon Valley Environment Centre and Still Wild-Still Threatened, in identifying, documenting and protecting the priceless HCV forests that are being destroyed as the roundtable talks continue.

“The productive negotiations and discussions being conducted in good faith between environmental and forest industry groups are being drowned out as Forestry Tasmania starts up the chainsaws and rolls the bulldozers into more and more iconic HCV forests, and the Premier must intervene and call a halt to this targeted vandalism while the talks continue,” said Mr Booth.

“Given the industry recognition that there is no market for native forest woodchips, it would be very disappointing if Gunns Limited were still encouraging the destruction of these ancient forests.”

“The HCV forest coupe HA044C/E at Lune River contains trees with girths of up to 12 metres, is only 50 metres from the Lune River, and the surrounding area is limestone karst with hot and cold springs and streams running through it, yet Forestry Tasmania have destroyed 80 per cent of this ancient forest coupe in the last month alone,” said Mr Booth.

Kim Booth MP
Greens Forests spokesperson

The Tasmanian Greens today congratulated Still Wild Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Centre for their detailed report “They Are Still Falling … A Critical Time for Tasmania’s High Conservation Value Forests,” and called on the Forest Minister Bryan Green to withdraw contractors from these forests and place an immediate moratorium on their logging, as well as declaring that no new coupes will be opened up in these forests as of the 11th of October this year.

Greens Forests spokesperson Kim Booth MP, who successfully sought leave to table the report in Parliament yesterday, said the report details large-scale industrial logging, including clearfelling of critical areas of High Conservation Value (HCV) forests, in the Derwent and Huon Districts, with new logging operations recently commencing in coupes with outstanding wilderness and other conservation values.

Mr Booth also noted that the report reveals how logging has degraded critical remaining tracts of HCV forests in the following areas:
• The Catamaran area;
• The Weld Valley;
• The Picton Valley;
• The Styx Valley;
• The Wedge, which borders the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; and
• The Tyenna area.

“Congratulations to the members of Still Wild Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Centre for putting together this detailed report on the fate of Tasmania’s remaining HCV forests,” said Mr Booth.

“The report makes it clear that while talks are occurring between environmentalists and forest industry representatives over the future of the forest industry and the conservation of Tasmania’s remaining HCV forests, Forestry Tasmania are going hell-for-leather behind locked boom gates vandalising huge tracts of HCV forest.”

“The Greens strongly support the report’s recommendations that an immediate moratorium be placed on the logging of all HCV forests, that contractors are withdrawn from current operations inside HCV forests, and that no new coupes in HCV forests are opened up for logging as of Monday the 11th of October,” said Mr Booth.

Reference: “They Are Still Falling … A Critical Time for Tasmania’s High Conservation Value Forests,” prepared by Holly Lewis, Miranda Gibson and Bridie McEntee, Still Wild Still Threatened & Huon Valley Environment Centre, available at: http://www.stillwildstillthreatened.org/sites/default/files/they_are_still_falling_web_0.pdf


Forestry Losing Money While Pushing Viable Honey Producers Into Marginal Areas

Paul ‘Basil’ O’Halloran MP
Greens Member for Braddon

The Tasmanian Greens today called on Forestry Minister Bryan Green to protect hive sites used by Tasmanian beekeepers from logging operations, and to acknowledge that the Tasmanian honey industry makes a valuable contribution to Tasmania’s economy, and provides an invaluable pollination service to the state’s horticultural industries.

Greens Member for Braddon, Paul ‘Basil’ O’Halloran MP, said the amount of available hive sites is being massively reduced by unrestrained logging activities that are currently not economical, but which are being propped up by massive taxpayer subsidies, and this logging is forcing honey producers onto higher and higher ground which is shortening their season and making them more susceptible to climate change.

Mr O’Halloran also noted that there used to be 4000 hives sited in the area to the north of the Arthur River in North West Tasmania, but that in 2010 there are just 100, and that the area to the south of the Arthur River is now also under threat from further logging operations.

“Forestry operations are losing money across the state, but they are also damaging and destroying the sites used by the Tasmanian honey industry, an industry that makes a valuable contribution to Tasmania’s economy and that also provides invaluable pollination services for our horticultural industries,” said Mr O’Halloran.

“There used to be 4000 hives sited to the north of the Arthur River, but this year there are just 100.”

“Unrestrained logging activities, which are losing money despite being subsidised by taxpayers, are forcing Tasmanian beekeepers onto higher and higher sites where the season is shortened and the bees are more exposed to the impacts of climate change.”

“The Greens are calling on the Minister to protect all hive sites threatened by logging operations, and to acknowledge and value the contribution made to Tasmania by our honey industry,” said Mr O’Halloran.

First published: 2010-10-13 07:00 AM

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Bemused

    October 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Re#49, probably because it didn’t contain any.

  2. Observer

    October 17, 2010 at 4:05 am

    #43. Funny, I could swear that you said “I am the owner of an attractive ..” Not joint owner. …Posted by Bemused

    Yes, I did, but it is funny that you could not detect the allegory.

  3. Frank

    October 17, 2010 at 12:49 am

    “Australia imports sawn softwood at the rate of a million dollars a day, (360 million last year), and that balance of payments impact is likely to get worse.” reported #45

    There you have it George,
    Just ask Bob Gordon why and how many pine sawlogs he exported to overseas destinations during the last 20 years or so.
    That on top of selling half of the publicly financed and owned growing pine plantations to GMO Renewable Resources.
    Did he care about the survival of Scottsdale Town and the Dorset Communities in his role as Director of ‘TASWOOD GROWERS’?
    One of the former Founders of the NE Softwood Milling Enterprises suggested that Bob’s attitude was that:”He rather dealed with the Americans”.

    So the reason for the need to import more and more softwood from far away destinations may be amongst your own mates.

  4. Michael

    October 16, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Hmmm, Observer, after 75 years on this rock, is still unable to understand that HE owns no public land. It is just managed for the public benefit. You and I DO NOT own it.

    #42 – Your continued ‘single tree selection’ will continue, and quite rightly so, to be ignored as it provides a far worse outcome for the wet eucalypt forest than the current practices. I’m bewildered that you still believe that it will work.

    #44 – Unfortunately, Woodworker, some people cannot see the consequences of attempting to remove an entire industry that is one of the largest in Tasmania. An industry that contributes more to the Tasmanian economy than Agricultre, despite utilising far less land, and almost as much as Tourism (also despite receiving less government subsidies than both these industries).

  5. Pete Godfrey

    October 16, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    Woodie, I appreciate your comments especially the way you have written them. I am glad that you have stayed away from going for the man. This way I can take in your comments and objectively look at them.
    You may be right I guess time will tell.
    My thoughts on FT not having markets were based on the statement by Gunns ltd that they were also going to get rid of their hardwood mills. This would mean that another company or bunch of individuals would buy them out and continue running them.
    I was thinking that most likely the mills would just close and any new players (if they were game to enter the fray) would start from scratch with more modern automated mills with their own kilns etc.
    Until this happens FT would be reduced to selling whole logs to the big island or overseas. Their market will collapse temporarily or permanently.
    Like I said time will tell who is right, at the moment it is all conjecture and guess work.
    Thanks again for your comments. I do agree that we should not support Tropical Rainforest Logging in any way.
    I don’t understand why there is not a ban on importing timber from those areas.
    I guess one day a government may have the guts to do such but not as yet, too many deals are being cut with those countries is my guess.

  6. Woodworker

    October 16, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Rubbish. Mill logs took a hit for a while in the building industry slowdown, but this is recovering. Further recovery, plus the projected demand for building materials in this country that comes with population increase will mean the domestic demand for sawn timber will be significant, and the current plantation estate is known to be not able to provide sawn timber of the quantity and quality required. Expansion of the plantation sector with management to produce sawlogs might not only be hard to find investors for, but I gather it will not go down well with swathes of Green voters, some farmers and others in the community. Leading figures in the Greens and Wilderness Society will not be able to escape the fallout. Nor will they be immune from the fallout from across the community when it is realized that little or no Special Timbers will be either available or affordable. (Show me what would be available anyway since everything has been labeled HCV forest?)
    Can you explain to me how Parks and Wildlife could raise their budget to meet the extra responsibilities you would send in their direction? And what of the remote area fire fighting capabilities that FT currently maintains? Or maintenance of even the existing forestry road network?
    Some proposed disaggregating functions from FT as a means of being able to say they provide no reserves, or environmental management for its own sake, and hence a case for no FSC certification, as part of the strategy for ending ALL native forest logging. They did not understand how that one would backfire!
    Ultimately the Greens/ Wilderness Society and etc. will be easily identified as the driver of the shrinking of the Tasmanian economy, the lowering of the tax base, GST returns, and employment, and the confirmation of the state as the last place business should consider investing or seeking approval for anything.
    Further, they are seeking to roll out their campaign to end native forest logging across Australia, but they don’t understand how the finger will be pointed at them for that, as well. Other states are lining up to seek compensation from the commonwealth, and are watching the Tasmanian situation closely. The comment has been made in these talks that if Tasmania hesitates, and other states get in first, there may not be as much funding to go around. The Murray/Darling compensation bill is looking like being huge, and is also being driven by greens and Greens. It may not be such a huge task to paint them as responsible for seeking to not only drain the federal budget, but to raise unemployment and dislocation across the country.
    Australia imports sawn softwood at the rate of a million dollars a day, (360 million last year), and that balance of payments impact is likely to get worse. If some of that come from Indonesia, where around half of all native forest logging occurs without any government approval or control, the Greens/Wilderness Society could be contributing to reducing the habitat of the Orangutan. What irony!”

    cheers, George aka woodworker

  7. Woodworker

    October 16, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    “Pete Godfrey, (#39), thanks for your comments, but I cannot agree with you. When these talks were started, much was made by those around the table of the fact that FT was not only not included, but asked to stay out. However, before long it was realized just how crucial is the role it plays. While not asked to join after the start, they were asked to provide information and analysis of data, etc.
    Forestry Tasmania will not be disaggregated. Any proposal to do so will be met with extraordinary resistance. Will Hodgman found this out recently, when he made a loose comment without sufficient research behind it. The upshot was that FT staff are now much more organised and militant, (off their own bat), and the reverberations went right through the state and federal branches of the Liberal party, (and other organisations), to the point where a clarification (backdown) was directly and clearly expressed.

    It is not a question of “if Gunns pull out of native forest logging.” They ARE pulling out of native forest logging. They have clearly said this, and not least of whom they have said it to is the ASX. You cannot mislead the ASX and get away with it. The real point is who or what has pushed them to do this, and it is the same people who drove the Risby family, Boral, North Forest Products and others out of the industry. Gunns acquired stressed assets from these former industry players, and now they have been blackmailed, greenmailed, and had their markets sabotaged to the point where they too have waved the white flag. The Greens/Wilderness Society has to accept their share of the blame for this.
    “There will a small section devoted to the few mill logs required for what is left of the hardwood sawmills, a few people looking after minor species management, the reserves will go over to Parks and Wildlife and the rest of FT will be a history lesson to teach in schools.”
    Cont …

  8. Bemused

    October 16, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Funny, I could swear that you said “I am the owner of an attractive ..” Not joint owner.

  9. Frank Strie

    October 16, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Basically FT have signed their own death knell by refusing to move with the market. Pete Godfrey #39

    Yes, that is about the most realistic scenario.
    They invented and developed their own AFS, mind you with huge amounts of public taxpayer funds provided by DAFF especially under the doing by Eric Abetz.
    The propaganda machine over the years have spend millions (imagine how many hectares of once good quality bush was converted for that), and what have they produced?
    DVDs in Japanese where the late Premier J.B. explained to potential customers that the key problem in Tasmania was the election system that provided too much power to the “green minority” the peole that would never be satisfied.
    Any well intended suggestion for real change in bush management and changing silviculture planning from ‘take away logging’ to complex system management was ignored and belittled.
    They had their chance, they had all the money they asked for but they lost the public’s support and ultimatelly they lost their biggest,their best paying customers in Japan.
    Sustainable forest management is about
    Economics (market),
    People (local community)
    and the environment
    Ignoring one of these three fundamentals will eventually end the sustainability claim.
    War against Rainforest species and simply using them as bycatch from forest mining puts off many potential clients.
    Just like that!

  10. William Boeder

    October 16, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    #38. Observer, I would like to congratulate you for bringing out the insectidae via the posting of of your comments at #25 and #38?

    I attempted something of the same when posting comments about the new wheat product paper, it also worked amazingly well.

    For soon emerged the comments by the pro-forestry push that immediately began with their usual discrediting manner, ‘wheat is poisoned,’ ‘wheat is better left as food,’ ‘all wheat-clear fell remnants need, or will, or should, be burnt after harvest?’

    This concept will bring ruin to Australia, blah blah blah!
    The resultant fusillade of anti wheat-paper comments were a vivid reminder of what happens when one pokes a stick into a bull-ants nest.

    Roiling and boiling, as on they came, all defenders erupting from their underground barracks, readying to launch their stinging attack, soon the pincer formations were all in place for a mass strategic assault upon anything that may be wheat-paper tainted.

    The command rings out from bull-ant headquarters, attack in formation, drive the wheat paper infidels back into their blasted wheat-paddocks, then we must stage the mightiest of disputations upon their claims of wheat pulp as an alternative source of feedstock ‘pulp for paper.’

    “What will we feed off if we cannot consume the Native Forests of the people,” cried all the mind-deluded bull-ants?

    The bold intrepid bull-ants were all shaking their heads and wondering what next, we have been consuming Native Forests for so many years now, their is still 74% of reserves for us to do with as we please, tis just a matter of our political allies altering some form of legislation that will then allow us to continue our consumption of the people forests.
    Grrr, was the loud angry howl of the returning warrior bull-ants!

    All of this concerted recoiling action has created much in the way of bemusement for the wheat pulp proponents and anti-Native Forest logging advocates.

    Ho Ho Ho.

  11. Whatajoke

    October 16, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    #37: “Forestry Tasmania was not a party to any such agreement.”

    But Evan Rolley and some other FT and FPA associates are completly involved, me being told.

    Watch this space.

  12. Pete Godfrey

    October 16, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Woodie #37 whether FT are at the table or not doesn’t matter really. They will have a huge job re-inventing themselves if Gunns pull out of native forest logging. FT will most likely be dis aggregated. There will a small section devoted to the few mill logs required for what is left of the hardwood sawmills, a few people looking after minor species management, the reserves will go over to Parks and Wildlife and the rest of FT will be a history lesson to teach in schools.
    Basically FT have signed their own death knell by refusing to move with the market.

  13. Observer

    October 16, 2010 at 8:57 am

    #30. Specially for hugabooboo.

    I am actually joint owner of the land in question along with about 500 000 other people.

    The land size is about 700 000 hectares, or two million if you include in the other ’74 percent’ which is outside the grasp of the person offering the 3rd choice.

    The age is anything up to 600 years, but averages between 400 and 120.

    Several hundred thousand tourists come knocking at my door every year, but these numbers are declining. Paul Lennon once said the GST revenue alone was $2 Billion… but that was then.

    The honey income is in rapid decline.

    I would like to take the carbon cash, but that is not available and is unlikely to be while the present regime is destroying the basis of this as fast as they are able.

    The conditions associated with 4, 5 and 6, as you put it, certainly preclude getting a fair price for anything! There is a long history of this, as you are well aware.

    8. How much could I get if I subdivided it into one-acre lifestyle blocks? Absolutely nothing, as this is not allowed under the PAL Act and didn’t you know that anything under 40 hectares cannot be built on and ‘lifestyle blocks’ are not permitted as people ‘Fetter the land’.

    If you didn’t know what I was referring to in my article (#25) then all I can say is that you haven’t got the brains of an ass. I know there are others who will defend you and say that you have, but the proof of the pudding….!

  14. George Harris aka woodworker

    October 16, 2010 at 1:11 am

    Kim Booth, as the Greens spokesperson on forests and forestry, has made a right spectacle of himself here. No wonder he was never offered a ministry!
    It is time for a reality check here.
    At this moment, no agreement exists. At this moment, very few people have seen a verified copy of an agreement that some parties have said they have signed.
    Forestry Tasmania was not a party to any such agreement.
    No statutory organisation is required to observe any agreement that is alleged to be about to emerge, to which some parties may have signed, and others may not have, and which has supposedly been constructed by non-government organisations.
    Forestry Tasmania operates under an extensive and closely monitored set of regulations and legislation, and has existing and ongoing contracts that are legally sanctioned and to which substantial penalties are attached if breaches or failure to deliver are committed.
    Much of the scope of an alleged agreement is outside that which Forestry Tasmania is required to observe, and it cannot be required to observe such material unless legislation to that effect passes both houses of the Tasmanian parliament.

  15. William Boeder

    October 15, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Comment #31. Michael, Thank you for being so informative as to volume mass of public forests reserved.
    This more accurate means of reference as supplied in your #31, is the means that would vastly alter the public perceptions, opinions and attitudes toward Forestry Tasmania!

    Though I have made reference to this very issue prior to my comment #37 here, of clear and precise information being sought by all of we Tasmanians, so much the better for your own position when you strive to support all and everything to do with the actions and pursuits of Forestry Tasmania.

    Having establshed that there is the prospect of accurate replies being available, why in the past years, have F/T employed enhancement people in the likes of say Ken Jeffries, specifically to obfuscate or alter the exactitudes of most information releases to the general public?
    Now Micheal, I have difficulty in dealing with the term ‘reserves?’

    Harvestable reserves, HCV reserves, logging reserves, land reserved from logging, future logging reserves, habitat reserves, stream-side reserves, future plantation reserves,ad infinitum?
    No I am not being shallow or pedantic in my requests for these interpretations.

    Thank you.

    William Boeder.

  16. amyb

    October 15, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Or to put it another way – show us the maps.

    Show us the extent of the original public forest.
    Show us the extent of the forest at the commencement of chipping.
    Show us the forest remaining now.
    Show us the extent of “informal” vs “formal” reserves (stop lumping the two together – the former is entirely decided by FT and subject to change at its whim and without notice, the latter is protected by declaration and legislation).
    Show us the vegetation types within the reserves.

    Of course if FT cannot even map the boundaries of its ridiculous and pompous “exclusion” zones correctly, I have no confidence that the cartography department could accomplish this to any degree of accuracy, anyway. However guesstimate sketch maps at the level of its usual childish mapping attempts should provide enlightening enough.

    In the past requests for such maps of our forests have been met with “these maps do not exist”. If they don’t exist, bright sparks, how on earth can you work out percentages of what’s what? Or is it that they just don’t exist for the actual forest owners’ perusal, but solely for FT’s propaganda department’s use to obfuscate and mislead?

    So once more – go on, show us the maps….

  17. Observer

    October 15, 2010 at 9:00 am

    How percentages work:-

    In a study of people who reach retirement age, of those who retire at sixty, more people stand a chance of dying in the next ten years than in that group who retire at seventy.

    The proportion of deaths in the following ten years after retirement as a fraction of the total definitely decreases with the age that the person retires.

    Of those people who retire at the age of a hundred, the percentage as a fraction of total deaths is neglible in the following ten years.

    It is therefore concluded, that the longer you stay working the less chance you have of dying.

  18. max

    October 14, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Re # 27 There is a very good reason to use percentages as I have said on previous threads, the more trees that forestry cut down the higher the percentage that magically appears in reserves. The way Forestry Tasmania are managing our forests there will soon be 100% of mill able logs in reserves and that is without increasing the reserves by even 1%.

  19. Observer

    October 14, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    ‘…. as it has already been pointed out numerous times, 74% of Tasmania’s PUBLIC forests are already under reservation.’ .. Michael department.

    As it has been constantly pointed out, these figures as percentages are meaningless. A very large part of these so called ‘forestry reserves’ are not forests, they are button grass plains, hilltops, verges etc, and the percentage is only so high because Forestry Tasmania has destroyed so much real forest that has not been reserved.

  20. Michael

    October 14, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    #27 – Ok, just for you William, the 74% equates to approx. 1,650,000 hectares of FOREST on public land is reserved.

    Simple! The greed of these fanatics astounds me.

  21. hugoagogo

    October 14, 2010 at 3:25 pm


    As the riddle stands, I suggest you sell to the guy with the three-legged dog.

    But I can give a better answer if you provide further info on the financial situation:

    1. What are your gross margins on the honey?

    2. How much are your rates?

    3. How many ha of woods do you have, what species, stocking and age is it; what’s the sawlog/pulp ratio, how steep is the slope, have you let it previously be high-graded by a paling cutter for a box of stubbies?

    4. Are the city greens lining up to pay you cash to maintain 4 wedgies, 20 freshwater crays and 40 forty-spotted (or garden variety) pardalotes on your block? Have you looked into whether its’s possible to get this cash AND get a revenue from timber cutting?

    5. How often do tourists come knocking at the door begging to give you cash for hanging around your joint?

    6. Could you take the carbon cash knowing that it’s only perpetuating the current carbon pollution regime (and of course knowing that the (potential) payment was calculated based on Still Whining’s ‘Overstating Old Growth Carbon sequestration for the Eco-credulous’ half day field course)?

    7. Will the conditions associated with any of the (putative) cash flows associated with 4, 5, and 6 extinguish your flexibility to manage your block as necessary, or sell it at the best (i.e. unencumbered) price?

    8. How much could you get if you subdivided it into one-acre lifestyle blocks?

    [Disclaimer: while this is the best information you’re likely to get around here, it is not to be regarded as ASX-endorsed financial planning advice]

  22. john hayward

    October 14, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    A scorched earth strategy seems to be what the govt is pursuing. Does anyone seriously believe that they are seeking peace in the forestry conflict?

    John Hayward

  23. Russell

    October 14, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    Re #25
    Why accept any of them? You can keep your very attractive piece of land with many rare and beautiful trees which is admired by all, especially if there are animals and rare species of flora and birds, as well as some honey producing trees on it. And, you can do this for free and maybe even make a little money from it in carbon storage, tourism or honey production. Or you can just enjoy it as was intended.

    Re #26
    FT’s and Gunns’ posted losses means you are either not selling it at all, or you are getting stuff all for it. Simple.

  24. William Boeder

    October 14, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Michael, always ever some inaccurate % reference never the given mass in a measurable volume?
    Why do the pro-forestry push persist in this vague and inaccurate volume assessment?

  25. Michael

    October 14, 2010 at 11:49 am

    Yep, once again we must bae witness to the ‘wholesale destruction’ of some said blah, blah, blah… Wow, as it has already been pointed out numerous times, 74% of Tasmania’s PUBLIC forests are already under reservation.

    But this isn’t enough for these fanatics… There greed drives them to attempt to reserve more and more forest. Loonies…

    #20 – Umm I’d say the reason whould be if they are selling a product then this product needs to be delivered to a processing facility. Simple.

  26. Observer

    October 14, 2010 at 7:31 am

    I own a very attractive piece of land with many rare and beautiful trees and it is admired by all. There are animals and rare species of flora and birds, as well as some honey producing trees on it.

    One day, three people came knocking at my door.

    The first said, “I would like to buy your timber. I will pay you well for it and I will cut it down for you at no cost.”

    The second said, “I will buy your timber for a low price but you must cut it down and transport it to me”.

    The third said, “I want your timber and I am going to charge you for cutting it down and transporting it but you will also have to pay me for taking it off your hands.”

    Which option should I accept?

  27. Mike Adams

    October 14, 2010 at 2:22 am

    Frankly, Mr Poynter, I find your traffic figures with the degree of accuracy you claim, to be suspect. As a member of the Dilston Road Safety Committee I also did traffic counts on the East Tamar Highway, not from a moving vehicle but from the roadside. One half hour period in the morning of a working day showed over 200 light vehicles travelling southwards which made observation over how many in a vehicle, whether farm operated etc. near impossible especially as northbound vehicles also needed to be counted. Evidently your figures would only have applied to traffic coming towards you and the few that were in close proximity to your vehicle going the same way.
    And I also doubt that were I to be driving and concentrating so hard on other vehicles’ characteristics, both coming and going, I would be deemed unsafe: there are enough hazards on that road already.

  28. max

    October 13, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    19 # Mark Poynter, The claim that more than half of Tasmanian timber harvesting is not clearfall means in my mind sustained managed harvesting in perpetuity, but what I gather from your articles is that you advocate select every thing, clear burn and regenerate and wait for 90 years for the next total harvest. From what I understand of your ideas, a 50 year old tree that will be a saw log in 40 years must be chipped. This style of forestry is good for the woodchip industry but a disaster for sawlogs.

  29. Steve

    October 13, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    16; I’m not the same Steve as posted above at 12, the problem with choosing a common name as an identity, but I feel I should respond regardless.
    You are attempting to ridicule some genuine figures. 35 log trucks in 40 kms is worthy of comment when the public perception is of starving contractors dependent on the taxpayer for salvation.
    Your figures are total BS. Possibly you were attempting to be humorous but to those who do not travel the East Tamar highway, the joke would be lost.
    You could probably walk from Launceston to Georgetown and not count 3568 cars. During the day there’s not much difference between the number of cars and the number of log trucks. Farm vehicles are seldom seen.
    At the commuting times of day, the numbers of small vehicles increases but for the most part, it’s the log truck highway.
    Interesting that huge money has been spent in recent times on the East Tamar highway whilst the West Tamar highway, which carries far more taxpayers, school buses, etc, has been left to languish with the occasional band-aid applied. Not hard to see where the political priorities lie is it?

  30. Russell

    October 13, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    Re #19
    “We’ve been over this so many times before on other threads on TT. Í can’t afford the time to go back over old ground only to have the mob disbelieve the facts.”

    We have, Poynter, and you lot can’t admit the mistakes you have made and continue to make which sees your industry in crisis.

    More Gunns closures in Smithton, did I read today? Buy ’em up, run or shut ’em down.

  31. Mark Poynter

    October 13, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    #16 Mark W

    The Tas reservation figures are 74% of the public forests, and ~50% of the total (public + private) forest area.

    The article I read about the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement does not stipulate whether the 50% boreal forest reservation refers to public forest only, or to total (public + private) forest area.

    #17 Max

    We’ve been over this so many times before on other threads on TT. Í can’t afford the time to go back over old ground only to have the mob disbelieve the facts. Perhaps you can go back over some earlier threads.

  32. max

    October 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    16# Mark Wybourne have you run out of sensible replies and reverted to childish inane replies.

  33. max

    October 13, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    15 # Mark Poynter. You say that Tas in in the more fortunate position where more than half of Tasmanian timber harvesting is not clear fall. What I am interested in is the half that is not clear fall. Would you please explain the non clear fall practice and how it is carried out in a sustainable way.

  34. MArk Wybourne

    October 13, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Re 15: ONLY 50%, they should be ashamed of themselves, and aim higher … like 74%.

    Also, I out of interest I travelled the East Tamar highway the other day … and COUNTED 3,568 cars, which included 49 real estate vehicles, 80% with one person, 4 goats, 2 cows, 31 trucks associated with vineyards, and 73 trucks associated with farms (as if they don’t get enough subsidies already!!).

  35. Mark Poynter

    October 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    #4 Factfinder

    Re: Canada and FSC certification

    Recently Canadian conservation groups and 21 forest products companies signed the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. This will put 50% of the country’s boreal forests permanently into parks and reserves and allow sustainable wood production in the rest in accordance with FSC certification requirements. These permit a continuation of clearfelling as the most appropriate silvicultural technique for the majority of the forest types.

    Canadian environmentalists are celebrating this as a historic agreement and a landmark event in forest conservation. Yet this is already the situation in Tasmania except Tas in in the more fortunate position where more than half of Tasmanian timber harvesting is not clearfall.

    The fact that Australia’s ENGO’s cannot accept the sort of balance between conservation and forest use that exists in Tasmania illustrates how badly out-of-step they are with the international environmental movement which respects wood production as integral to combatting climate change.

    Also, the fact that FSC in Australia cannot countenance clearfelling where it is the appropriate silvicultual technique, shows it is way out of step with FSC elsewhere in the world. Something which I am told was noted by FSC international auditors who were in Tas recently.

    Anyway, comparing Tas with Canada hardly serves your cause.

  36. kim carsons

    October 13, 2010 at 3:47 am

    These talks are similar to the masquarade under the banner of “peace talks” that goes on while Palestinians are being forcefully removed from their land and Israel continues their illegal settlements.
    Meanwhile like the Israeli “land with no people” claim, Tasmanian forests are essentially deemed “terra nullius” which need to be fixed to the yoke of capital, the wilderness felled and its inhabitants poisoned – profligate waste, continued cycles of violence, no serious concern with true negotiations, with Greed and stupidity still holding centre court.

  37. max

    October 12, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    12 # Steve. I was wondering the same thing, full and empty returning log trucks roaring through Launceston and a trip to the lakes on the Poatena Road was the same thing. The amount of logs going to the chippers appears to be in full swing, but even flat out the industry has been subsidised, they have always wanted tax payers money and they always will. God gave us these trees for nothing but we have to pay to have them cut down and carted away, even though as carbon sinks they are worth more to us standing. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

  38. Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Yes Kim Booth Needs our total support.Travelling the East Tamar Highway on a regular basis, last week we counted 35 log trucks , over a distance of 40ks almost one every minute. Is this the same industry that needs taxpayer funds due to no contracts,?it doesn;t add up.
    Fair go.

  39. Justa Bloke

    October 12, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    Mary (#7) the vast majority of Tasmanians can manage to earn a living, pay off mortgages or rent, buy food and pay for all they need without having to fell old growth forests.

    Why should we all suffer just for a tiny handful of shareholders who are not only ripping off the taxpayers, but their own employees and contractors as well? Gunns, for example, had laid off hundreds of workers long before these talks started. Beats me why you keep on supporting them.

  40. Factfinder

    October 12, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    You could try these links if you like mary #7:


    It may help to answer some questions and it provides you with the option to get in touch with the international Certification Team

  41. Chad C Mulligan

    October 12, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    ‘These talks could take years before a resolution in reached, if ever’.

    It is in industrial forestry’s interests to be able to log while these talks are continuing. An immediate halt to ALL logging would concentrate their minds perhaps.

    And mary, if you’ve made a bad business decision you’ll just have to live with it. It’s the way capitalism works after all.

  42. ookpik

    October 12, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Seems like the forest contractors are already on this path, Mary (#7) due to a completely intransigent mindset that has them on the horns of a dilemma of their own making.
    People (not just Greens) have been warning them for YEARS that their industry is unsustainable, the products basically unwanted and unsellable, but they have refused to listen to reasoned argument in their pig-headed and arrogant belief that things would go on as they always did. How wrong they were! How I bet they now wish they had listened!

  43. mary

    October 12, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    #6 how about we put a moratorium on you earning a living during these talks? No income, no job, but still have to pay mortgage/rent/loans/food etc in the mean time. Do you actually think about what you write? It is not that simple to “place a moratorium” whilst talks with no definitive timeline are undertaken. These talks could take years before a resolution in reached, if ever.

    Can someone please refer me to where these HCV forests are defined? Not a coupe list but the criteria to determine what is HCV?

  44. barry

    October 12, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    What do you expect from the other Greens? The deadly duo have sold out and the new guy is a little out of his depth.The Greens opposition has been reduced to one

  45. Factfinder

    October 12, 2010 at 11:15 am

    It looks like Gordon & Drielsma & Ass. are on the final pathway to a golden retirement.
    They are in the final run and these coupes may be named after these two Executives.

    In contrast here another example, this time from eastern Manitoba, Canada:

    … An HCVF
    assessment is part of one of the requirements for certifying forest areas under the
    Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards. Tembec has certified all of its forest
    tenures, under sole management, in Canada to FSC standards, including FML 01.
    FSC is an international, non-profit organization that facilitates the development of
    environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable standards
    for forest certification purposes. FSC standards are the most rigorous forestry
    standards in the world. Part of the certification requirements includes a mandatory
    assessment of the forest for the presence of outstanding or critical environmental,
    social or economic values and the areas of forest where these values are located.
    The designation of a value or area as a HCV means that a higher degree of care
    than is usually exercised in forest management planning and operations may be
    required to protect or conserve ecosystem values. A higher degree of care may
    include permanent protection, but can also include special management strategies
    that ensure the maintenance of the value into the future. …
    http://www.tembec-frm-manitoba.ca/New/PDF/HCVF Report May 2009.pdf

  46. salamander

    October 12, 2010 at 10:57 am

    #1 Only in Tasmania are that percentage of the population, who want our forests saved, still prepared to vote for the two parties who approve of this destruction!

    There are still not enough people who can make the connection between destruction of our environment leading to less life support, in food, water, etc, for our communities.

  47. Russell

    October 12, 2010 at 10:13 am

    These ‘talks’ are bullshit.

    Get out ET, TWS and ACF and let the industry collapse if this is their attitude.

  48. Karl Stevens

    October 12, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Poor old Kim Booth. The sole opposition spokesperson representing the opinions of 80% of Australians. Only in Tasmania!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top