Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

An outsider’s look at the contentious practice of clearfell logging ..

image
*Pic: Logging Lapoinya … industrial-scale clearfelling in a much-loved local forest … and the future veneer trundles off to Ta Ann (over a bridge with a load limit …)

image
Pic: Image from HERE

The following is an outsider’s look at the contentious practice of clearfell logging which is the harvesting model of Forest Tasmania (FT), the state owned forestry company. Where has it all gone wrong and why is this model so clearly broken?

In January 2016, FT commenced clearfell logging of coup FD053a at Lapoinya near Wynyard.

FT knew it was a small, 53-hectare, unprofitable, but highly-contested coupe, as the local community had been actively involved for years to protect their vibrant forest from clearfelling, even offering to purchase this coupe or manage it on a sustainable basis.

They were prepared to countenance selective logging as a last resort. Their entreaties met with indifference from FT who, whilst sympathetic to their cause, are driven by over-allocated contract commitments to supply peeler logs to Ta Ann. They were met with derision and hostility from an incompetent minister bereft of forestry knowledge but itching for a fight and petulant power display to test the recently-proclaimed anti-protest laws.

Within days three FT board members resigned including Chairman Bob Arnells, closely followed by the sudden resignation of minister Harriss – to leave a state government industry mired in controversy, near bankrupt, the forest peace agreement in tatters and a re-ignition of the old divisive forest wars.

As a couple of retirees residing in Hobart, we made the trip to Lapoinya to observe. Like most days since logging began, we took our turn at symbolic protest. We entered the restricted area managing to halt loading and harvesting operations for 40 minutes until the police arrived and we were politely asked to leave without a fine, but with a 90 day keep-out-or-arrest warning.

Why would we bother and what did this achieve? Talking to the brave and committed Lapoinya community and my personal observations from a life time in science, horticulture and small business has convinced me of the lunacy of the FT modus operandi. Sometimes an outsider can look dispassionately at problems and perhaps provide some perspective.

To be fair, much of the history of clearfelling in Tasmania was driven by woodchipping demands foisted on FT by the corrupt company Gunns and a succession of compliant governments, rather than policy decisions by FT

Why has FT retained this discredited model when it clearly defies the logic of economics and ecology 101?

To answer let’s wind back the clock to pre-1960’s when Tasmania still retained a magnificent working native forest estate which had been logged sustainably and could continue to be in perpetuity, providing many thousands of jobs and supporting local communities.

Because selective logging with small machinery allows retention of the different aged cohorts of trees for tomorrow’s harvest-able forests, at any one time there would always be a large cohort of mill-able trees across this estate. Then in the 60’s clearfelling was introduced and ever since FT has been systematically clearfelling vibrant mixed forest and replacing our working forest estate with plantation.

We need to describe the clearfelling process to understand its lunacy. Every single stem in the forest is harvested using industrial sized machinery and divided into sale-able categories. Sawlogs are the cream, then comes peelers and woodchips both of which are contract-driven and largely unprofitable.

The remaining understorey and juvenile cohort of eucalypts too small for woodchips is trashed. After harvest the entire coup which is covered in treetops and trash is torched by fire of such intensity that a living forest would never experience.

The entire biomass is incinerated including any remaining seed bank. Remaining nutrient, organic matter and carbon is squandered and the soil is sterilized to an extent that any remnant biodiversity is eliminated.

The coup is reseeded with single or at most several eucalypt species collected from the coup prior to burning. The resultant replacement forest is of single age, high density and bereft of biodiversity – essentially “a plantation”. FT does not use this term due to negative connotations associated with seedling-grown plantations, so they prefer the term “regrowth” forest. One type having straight lines is the only distinguishing feature between them.

Why is this clearfelling practice bankrupting FT?

Firstly the economic case is illogical.

It takes 80 years plus to grow a decent mill log in Tasmania from seedling age. It takes as little as 40 years on the mainland. Slow growing trees however, produce the best quality and highest priced timber.

So Tasmania clearly has a comparative economic advantage in producing high quality mill timber compared to elsewhere in Australia. This especially applies today given that good quality hardwood is a scarce and expensive product on the mainland.

But Tasmania went down the clearfell route driven by woodchip and more recently peeler demand, both low-price commodities. The peeler contracts to Ta Ann are fixed price and long term which has further entrenched FT into the clearfelling model, because peelers are smaller than mill logs: 700mm max. at the butt.

But, there is a huge opportunity cost involved in clearfelling which is not bought to book.

Has anyone ever tried to quantify the millions of superfeet of future mill-able timber which has been squandered since clearfelling began because tomorrow’s replacement mill logs were harvested prematurely as wood chips, or worse still, the juvenile cohort of trees trashed and burnt? Through clearfelling we have, in essence, eaten and cannibalized our forest future and are now suffering timber scarcity from 65 years of zero–sum forestry.

What few mills remain are scratching for sawlog supply and complaining of the poor log quality.

We are running out of new old-growth coups or old working coups from the pre 60’s era (like Lapoinya) to log and there is not one stem of mill log timber ready to harvest from a post 60’s clearfell coup because it takes 80 years to grow them!

Is it any wonder that FT is an economic basket case and forestry a mendicant industry costing the taxpayer 630 million dollars in subsidies over 11 years’ alone.

From an ecological viewpoint, clearfelling is a disaster. The dirth in biodiversity resulting from scorched-earth burning and single-species plantations has created a multitude of averse knock on effects.One example is leaf-eating insect attack which was never a problem pre-plantations, but now often requires insecticides applied by air … further endangering biodiversity.

This together with the use of carcinogenic herbicides like atrazine belies both the perception and reality of our “clean and green” image. Further-more, recent international research has indicated that up to 40% of the functional root system of trees is provided by mycorrhizal – fungi essential for nutrient and water uptake.

What effect does the clearfelling regime have on these microscopic and seldom studied fungi. Does FT know? Have they ever employed a mycologist? Many common forest dwelling species including mammals, birds, invertebrates and aquatics are compromised by clearfelling and some iconic Tasmanians like the devil, quoll, giant crayfish and various raptors and owls have become endangered.

Clearly, the regime is ecologically unsustainable. Forests become weaker after successive harvests. There is no nutrient input from deep-rooted understorey species or nitrogen fixation from trees such as wattles.

Plantations consume far more water than healthy mixed forest so landscapes are drying, exacerbating climate change. There is reduced runoff into hydro dams. There is increased fire risk from more frequent and intense fires.

No wonder communities surrounded by contentious forest coups like Lapoinya, Bruny Island and Derby are becoming radicalised to protect their forests from this clearfelling regime. Yet most communities can accept an industry based on sustainable selective logging.

The recently received auditors’ report into FSC certification ( HERE ), which is so vital to forest players supplied by FT for market acceptance, was scathing of continuing FT clearfelling practises.

It is clear FSC will never come until we restart the clock on native harvesting and place forestry on a long-term, profitable and ecologically sound path.

PostScript:

NSW Forestry Commission recently undertook selective harvesting in the Belmore State Forest over 902 hectares. There will be 35% overall removal of Basal Area. Nothing < 20cms with 50 metres retention from wildlife corridors and waterways. It was last harvested some 20 years ago and will be again in another 20 years. This is sustainable forestry which is equally applicable to Tasmanian conditions. So selective logging, despite what FT might assert, can and is being done successfully in Australia. About the Author: *Nicholas Gilbert, Retired, BSc AG (horticulture) Sydney Uni 1976. Worked in Tree Research at CSIRO. Established and operated successful tree nursery in NSW which is still in operation as the family business.

• Pete Godfrey in Comments: … The image I see is of someone walking down the road throwing all their loose change away, plus any banknote less than $50 because they only want big money. That is my picture of FT.

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

100 Comments

  1. Robin Charles Halton

    March 14, 2016 at 11:17 am

    #101 Vince, thanks for the insight … its obvious Evan Rolley is responsible for both the mistakes of the past and the current situation where forest sustainability management remains unclear.

    Swifties such as the TFA 2013 deal in the long term may benefit a few but not here in Tasmania as the sawmillers will find themselves eventually sold out by 2026/27.

  2. Vince Veneer

    March 12, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    Robin Charles Halton 100. There are people who try to understand what has been happening in technical forestry.
    To quote Rolley from the 1999 Max Jacobs Oration ‘Forestry is an idea, a concept resulting from human thought and experience; it has no other reality”.
    That would make issues like sustainability, harvesting rates, biological values and a myriad other variables dependent on consultation and good advice.
    Instead, forestry in Australia is a 3 ring circus with politicians, industry groups and enviros all fighting it out in the media and anywhere else they can get an audience.
    Hardwood plantations are an example. If evolution spent millions of years perfecting e.regnans and wet forests why should some boffin think he can go one better and improve on perfection? If you can’t build your house from Tasmanian native hardwood you deserve to live in a cave! But should we supply 3 billion people in Asia with Tasmanian hardwood? No, not at any price. There has to be limitation and I now know that a foresters first impulse is to conserve this valuable resource.
    I now count myself fortunate to have some forester friends. They seem to take a long term view. They tend to teach by example which makes learning more enjoyable. I agree with you on the TFA – one of the worse cases of interference and horse trading by many vested interests. Now somebody has 400,000Ha up their sleeve which will or won’t be logged until somebody gets FSC. And this has been going on since 2010? Meanwhile the remaining production forests cop a caning as a lower Australian dollar makes our woodchips and logs affordable in Asia.

  3. Robin Charles Halton

    March 12, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    #98 V Veneer: Fires, natural causes, lightening strikes yes.
    As a Tech. For. I am not a member of IFA a member did invite me once but I declined.

    Once I suggested to them back in the 1970’s not to proceed south of Farmhouse Ck, whilst I was working in the Picton the boundary was obvious but it wasnt long after I was moved to the West Coast the message became clearer Bob got a win after the damage was already done by FC and IXL’s in house arrangements when FC had to withdraw.

    Now of cause we have lost the entire Picton Block with all of its high quality silvicultural regeneration and still with a few pockets of 1934 wildfire regrowth suitable for commercial harvest all of which will end up as natural wildfire damaged as unmanaged forest as Parks allow the roading and trackwork features fall into ruination.

    In later times after pampering the remaining high quality regrowth at Loyetea, Lowanna and Kara Forest Blocks I was forced under the Rolley plantation regime to supervise the destruction the native forests and replacement with nitens, wasnt happy about that at all.

    I am yet to believe that euc plantations will produce high quality sawlogs as my old boss does not even want that sort of wood for his peelers.

    I generally dont mix in higher forestry circles but now and again for than happy to have a friendly chat with the current CEO and those forester who i allready know most of whom are doing a reasonable job in a grossly understaffed situation dealing with “complex and unwieldy poorly defined forest boundaries” in accordance with the ridiculous TFA legislation 2013 passed by the former scab Minister for Forest Bryan Green and his mix of Peace offering cronies.

    So what is really niggling you Vince, the reality that I have experienced in field forestry matters for which some can never seem to grasp!

  4. Vincent Veneer

    March 12, 2016 at 11:20 am

    Robin Charles Halton. You’ve got a great sense of humour Rob – 90 bushfires caused by climate change is ‘natural’.
    Rob, do you still look-up to jack lumber and take orders from him? Has he ever invited you over for a swim in his pool or are you too far down the food chain for somebody as influential as jack lumber?

  5. Robin Charles Halton

    March 12, 2016 at 1:12 am

    #97 Vince veneer,
    Thinking that Clive and others stuck in the north of the State had more than enough smoke by natural causes during this summer I was hoping for their sake, rapid, decisive flashpoint CBS burns that are almost smokeless owing to slash fuel dryness during this autumn.

    As a gesture of good faith you could ask Bob and his partner over for a quick skinny dip at your “poooull”, for good measure Jenny wearing her orangutan suit …

    You might have to show restraint waiting for your Lambo but could you not find other ways of scaring the daylights out of the local wildlife.

  6. Vince Veneer

    March 11, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    Robin Charles Halton 96.
    I feel sorry for you Rob. The rest of us have airstrips and olympic pools on our estates while your stuck here torturing somebody with a lung condition.
    Couldn’t you have translated more of your forestry career into liquid assets? When FT gets FSC I’m getting a Lamborghini Gallardo. A pale green one to remind me of St Bob.

    The AFS dinner will probably be serving barossa chardo again this year but PEFC headoffice in Geneva knows quality when they taste it. Southern Tasmanian reds crushed from Vitis vinifera grapes.

  7. Robin Charles Halton

    March 11, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Bad luck for the change agents, why change when change brings forth no benefits and would result in other problems such as expansion of wildfire threat, inefficient use of harvest equipment and unclear regeneration targets.

    CBS MUST remain as the main forest management tool in the Southern Australian cool temperate lowland wet eucalypt forests.

    We must be approaching the time of the year with falling SDI’s, shorter days and autumn rains forthcoming when all the excitement accentuates the requirement for regen burning.

    BURN AND BURN HARD my hearties, smart is the action and quick is the deed as we dont want Clive raising smoke public alarms, do we!

    Rip into it while the window of opportunity presents itself shortly!

  8. Pat Caplice

    March 11, 2016 at 12:17 am

    What vineyard supplies the wine Vinny Veneer?

  9. Vincent Veneer

    March 10, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    Reminder. The AFS dinner is just over a week away.
    3 days to RSVP by Monday March 14.

    Attire. Nehru-style lounge suit with leather slacks and bronze endangered species lapel badge.

    Speaker. A Scotsman of Austrian descent will give a talk on beaver management in high altitude birch plantations.

    Cost: $130 p.p.
    3-course Malaysian banquet with pygmy rhinoceros steak and glazed hornbill eggs. pre-dinner drinks, wines, spirits, coffee)

    Cargo-Cult Hall, 99 Wharf Promenade, South Wharf, Melbourne.

  10. Mike Bolan

    March 10, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Jack #92 many people have real problems when various pressures force change upon them. They often feel embattled, resentful and various other emotions, many of them negative. As a consequence they can become cut off from avenues for change, creating even more apparent pressure.

    I certainly haven’t vilified you nor criticised you. However it does you no favours for me to conceal the pressures for change and the alternatives.

    We’re living in a time of exponential change – when what was true just a while ago is no longer true. It’s entirely possible for us to be ready for those pressure – even to welcome them – and to do so requires us to be more flexible and open to new options and different possibilities. We’ve moved from secure employment to insecure employment (you’ll find this if you search ‘precariat’ on Google) and those changes are sweeping Tasmania.

    Whole industries are changing or disappearing (taxis, manufacturing, forestry etc) and it’s happening quickly. Governments aren’t ready for it so we’ve got to develop our own capacities in order to do well.

    If we can learn that our world is not predictable – it’s full of surprises – and we can learn multiple skills and abilities, we’re in with a better chance of securing a place for ourselves in an uncertain future.

    If that’s something you can adapt to, then I wish you all the best.

  11. Jack lumber

    March 10, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    Re 91 I accept you premise . Forget FT as you won’t have that Albatros to beat in less than 2 years … Then what , who will be vilified next …. The plantations , agriculture . I’m for improvement but not ideological vilification .

    the discussion is about values , community and society . Agreed ? I claim no monopoly on those matters ….. Do you

  12. Mike Bolan

    March 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Mark, I’m not asking foresters to do anything except run a business that operates without needing taxpayers money, and that obeys the same laws that the rest of us do. Of course, that would mean designing your business to meet customer and community standards.

    Your industry has attempted to operate differently, with constant injections of our money and with laws biased in your favour. The result is failure.

    If you cannot recognise the failures of your industry through its constant losses, bankruptcies and all of the other indicators, that’s a problem for you, not me.

    All your techniques for diminishing objection to your clearfelling and wasteful practices have failed. Not only has a growing number of people rejected your practices, many now actively resist you. You have spawned your own enemies and your own demise. If you’re trying to operate a business that’s not smart at all.

    Others have called your industry mendicant because you don’t run a business – you needed our money to survive. You operated like a charity but one that a growing number of people do not wish to contribute to.

    What it must be like to live in a bubble of contentment created by only listening to like minded people who agree with everything you say, I don’t want to imagine, but if that’s what turns you on then go ahead. Lie in the bed that you have made.

  13. Jack Lumber

    March 10, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    re 87 Vince / Karl thank you again for trying to do more research and thanks for the hints . No idea what you are referring to .

    If i can disclose something personal , while not materialistic , i would not mind having mi$$ions but alas its not the case .

    I claim no such title re ” authority ” but knowing more than some , perhaps you , is not a great achievement more just a reflection of opportunity and maybe application but if you have such ambitious then good luck , keep trying and well who knows.

    Did you go to the TRUMP university ?

    As to Ben i recall he is from Scotland

    Kind regards
    Jack

  14. Mark Poynter

    March 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    #88 Mike… of course, two can play that game.

    You said: “Is timber/fibre giant Gunns still operating?”

    Hasn’t another company emerged to take their place?

    You said: “Did thousands of plantation investors not lose their money?”

    Didn’t thousands of investors make money out of plantation investments by getting tax breaks, selling properties or renting land? Aren’t many/most of those plantations growing into a useful future resource?

    You said: “Do plantations not catch fire?”

    Doesn’t the lack of understorey mean that plantations aren’t as flammable as native forests?

    You said: “Do they not harbour pests that attack farmers crops?”

    Don’t native forests and farmlands also harbour pests that attack farmers crops?

    You said: “Are the huge holes in Tasmania’s biomass that were clearfelled and burned just illusions?”

    Aren’t clearfelled and burned areas regrowing into new forests?

    Wasn’t a substantial area of clearfelled and regenerated forest classed as High Conservation Value and added to the World Heritage Area in 2013?

    You said: “Consider too that some of us have seen the Jaakko Poyry forestry playbook …..”

    Consider too that some of us have seen the Greenpeace playbook of how to undermine, manipulate the politics and destroy the social licence of industries.

    Consider too that most of us are aware of the policies and public utterances of environmental groups vowing to overturn sensible forest management and kill off all timber production.

    You said: “Why not recognise that the industrial forestry paradigm has led to short term gains, but long term failure?”

    Wasn’t a substantial area of multiple use managed forest classed as High Conservation Value and added to reserves nominated under the TFA Act and/or added to the World Heritage Area in 2013?

    Aren’t most Tasmanian forests in reserves or privately owned and will never be harvested?

    Hasn’t the overall area of public forest in Tasmania remained virtually the same over the past 90 years?

    You said: “You appear so committed to the ideas advanced by the pulp and paper industry ….”

    No, I am committed to ideas and management paradigms advanced by forest science based on experience, trial and error, and research over 100 years. Timber industries work within the bounds of those paradigms but they will always rise or fall on the basis of market or other factors largely outside the control of forest science.

    You said: “Life can be a lot more exciting and rewarding when you embrace change”

    Aren’t you asking foresters to accept change designed by laypersons who often don’t understand what they are complaining about and have little idea or care for the consequences?

    Isn’t this a bit like asking the medical profession to accept change designed by disaffected patients with little or no medical knowledge and no idea of the consequences?

  15. Mike Bolan

    March 10, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Mark #75. Is timber/fibre giant Gunns still operating? Did thousands of plantation investors not lose their money? Are saw mill operators and transport owners still all operating? Do plantations not catch fire? Do they not harbour pests that attack farmers crops? Are the huge holes in Tasmania’s biomass that were clearfelled and burned just illusions?

    Consider too that some of us have seen the Jaakko Poyry forestry playbook that describes, in detail, how to defeat public inspection and dominate markets through political and media manipulation. That industrial forestry ‘supporters’ repeat the same pre-written lines in predictable ways.

    You appear so committed to the ideas advanced by the pulp and paper industry, so certain that they must be right, that you don’t recognise failure when it’s all around. It’s over. Yes, there’ll be a few more bursts of cash to satisfy some forestry interests but do you really want to rely on serendipity to determine your future?

    Why not recognise that the industrial forestry paradigm has led to short term gains, but long term failure? That much damage has been done and that there were very few real winners and a hell of a lot of losers. That’s not a good springboard for ‘more of the same’. The entire ‘industrial forestry’ push was driven by pulp & paper industry heavyweights who were trying to sell mills worth billions. The profits and commission on those mills are in hundreds of millions – the sales cycle is in decades so much preparation is needed. The growth phase for their approach is over. P & P is a declining proposition, particularly in high labour and compliance cost countries like Australia. Mills are closed in Canada, pulp prices are likely to continue sinking. The world has moved on.

    Why don’t you? Life can be a lot more exciting and rewarding when you embrace change.

  16. Vincent Veneer

    March 10, 2016 at 9:49 am

    Jack lumber, the forestry authority on everything, can’t even spell the name ‘Gunneberg’. So where was Mr Gunneberg born jack?
    But what about your research papers? All I could find was an account of your holiday in the US and Canada. More a travelogue than a research paper. The hilarious thing about it was it was made under a scholarship commemorating a forester that was killed by a tree.
    You sure hate spending your own money don’t you jack?
    No wonder you are a millionaire?

  17. Robin Charles Halton

    March 10, 2016 at 3:49 am

    #68 Nicholas, its all very well to manage carbon storage in our forests, unfortunately the extensive capacity of our forests is challenged by increasing incursions of wildfire events for which we have little say over as nature strikes back.

    Drought conditions along with dry lightening strikes and accidental arson is only becoming to common an event affecting farmers, rural communities, foresters and the government pocket.

    FT despite its economic inefficiencies, attempts to strike reasonable forest management with what forest estate remains after the Tasmanian Forest Agreement legislation 2013 which in one respect targeted a reduction in sustainable native forest harvest but at the same time there was a political undertones by the Greens to destroy native forest regimes.
    This continues today with the unrelenting Greens, the Laponyia protests continues despite the area being a WPZ.

    FT needs to continue with its CBS eucalypt regeneration approach, slow decomposing unburnt logging slash spread across the country side is not only hazardous but an unacceptable and irresponsible management practice that could easily backfire as the Green element become more desperate to continue to make nuisances of themselves across the political landscape in these instances.

    Tasmania should continue with CBS within its lowland wet eucalypt regeneration regimes.

    Future Carbon storage in our forests will be and the mercy of nature and when possible by proactive fire management, Fuel reduction practices of both FT and PWS.

    Sorry Nicholas I cannot find a recommendation for alternatives that will safeguard the carbon storage of both our reserved and production forests.

    FSC certifiers used to may have to accept our practices or go back to where they came from and rethink established suitable practices applicable in the Southern states of Australia.

  18. Mike Bolan

    March 9, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Mark, #75 You seem to need to miss the point. Coming from a monstrous failure of an industry that has needed propping up by we taxpayers, I pay no credence to your claims or your challenges.

    Stand on your own feet, learn to succeed on your own without needing to leech off our hard earned taxes, and I will pay some attention to you.

    It’ll take a lot of work by you though.

    Good luck with it. Going by your unwillingness to recognise your industry’s obvious failings, you might find change quite difficult.

  19. Jack lumber

    March 9, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    Re 78 vince aka Karl …. Do you know frank strie ?
    Mr gunnerberg is not German.
    I afraid you even fail as a troll

    81 Simon I share you disappointment and wish I had your self satisfaction and superiority .

    83 mike …. Your thoughts on my attempt to look for common ground . Re forests have many uses

    Oh and William ….. Noted that you are selective who you talk too .Again good luck with your court case and if is St Bob in the high court , even better .

  20. Mike Bolan

    March 9, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    Simon, yes you are probably right. Of course my weakness is that I cannot see what in heaven’s name they have to be narcissistic about! Any group more guilty of creating its own problems is hard to find (apart from the political parties themselves).

    It’s interesting to see how, when faced with their own culpability, they devolve into barely comprehensible unreason and denial.

    Still, always worth a go as they say.

  21. TH

    March 9, 2016 at 7:42 pm

    But there are trees in the background and the size of those standing and those felled suggests they are plantation, ie new growth, Eucalypts. There are more extreme shots of clearfelling I am sure.

    Regards,

    TH

  22. Simon Warriner

    March 9, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    Mike, the exchange you are attempting to have is doomed to failure. The overly sympathetic treatment and entirely unrealistic applause for the forestry industry by those in government over its Tasmanian history has produced a narcissistic brat.

    Like all narcissists the trail of wreckage behind this industry is long, wide and bitter. Like all narcissists it has a casual relationship with the truth, no concern for its victims and is very good at presenting a shiny facade for naive new acquaintances. As with all narcissists that facade never withstands careful scrutiny.

    It is almost certain that those you are debating will never get the point you are making, because to do so would be to face the industries narcissistic nature, and it is not in the nature of narcissists to do that.

    The only hope is a government prepared to disown past applause and deliver a realistic appraisal of the industries performance. That government will certainly not contain significant elements of past governments. Getting such a government elected is where the possibility of real progress is to be found.

  23. Chris

    March 9, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Which Robin Redbreast was calling for action from the Greens, now heres a start.
    Will we get our democracy back post Harrass in the land of Abetzland as supported wholeheartedly by the Gunner’s Friend Wee Willy Winker?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/bob-brown-flags-high-court-challenge-to-workplace-protest-laws/7236124?section=tas

  24. William Boeder

    March 9, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    continued/
    Effectively forest management in Tasmania can only mean the destruction of whatever areas are next chosen for total flora annihilation.
    Considering those persons that have obtained some form of paper qualification that sets them apart from the former non-certificate holders at the same time the ‘the much more respected international accredited persons, these unpapered older qualifications as were held and previously respected I offer my personal view as begins below.

    These elder qualifications were recognized the timber industry itself from long long ago, by their careful selection of and then the felling of a specific tree without leaving an area of adjacent devastation in their so doing.

    I recall a case in Victoria concerning the clear-felling that I had witnessed some 50 years ago, that had the nincompoop loggers booted off their rainfall catchment coupe for the huge bog-hole mess they were creating then leaving in their wake.

    Professional logging surely does not qualify an industrialised broad-scale clearance of all living growth within a given area.
    If so then these qualifications can be appropriately gifted to frenzy induced lunatics.

    Now as to you reference to peeler growth or peeler anything and everything all.
    The simple fact is that the presence of Ta Ann and its veneer peeling operations were brought in to this State under a blanket of falsity and as was offered by a small number of conspiratorial individuals, they that had no care whatsoever to the antiquity of Tasmania’s one time abundant proliferation of Ancient Native Forest throughout this State.
    Given the way that Ta Ann are currently operating their ‘all forestry resource consuming activities’ then of their 457 employee base, expulsion from Tasmania would be the best outcome for all the citizens of this State.

    My having just read the update of the laws relating to all 457 introduced workers/employees, well this now becomes applicable even over here in Tasmania.
    In my opinion should there be any jiggery-pokery extant in the veneer-peeling operations in Tasmania, then these operators will soon suffer the wrath of a huge financial penalty as well as the naming and shaming consequence of any bogus purposes that introduced these workers into Tasmania.
    An online complaint letter to ASIC will soon sort out the cockroaches hidden within a veneer-peeler wood-stack.
    Now Jack I refer to that portion of your comment that refers to my participating in a dialogue with you regarding the business of enhanced devastation of Tasmania’s Crown Land forests, you are wholly mistaken in your belief.

    Your continuing commentary to modify, to dilute, to camouflage, to defend the indefensible, to attempt to legitimise the illegitimate, ad infinitum as has become the way of your serious negative comments toward the logging of Old Growth and Native Forested regions in this State Tasmania, is wasted upon myself Jack.
    Pro-forest destructors do not feature among my preferred list of communicants and or correspondents.

  25. Vincent Veneer

    March 9, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Lumber Jack 71. If you have written a paper why be shy about it? Where can people read your papers to get an understanding of your ideas?
    You want everybody to go to Melbourne to hear a German forester but you don’t want people to read an Australian forester’s paper. I thought German foresters only know about conifers?

  26. William Boeder

    March 9, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    #72. Jack Lumber, firstly my expression of the word indigenous was specific to the tree species sought by those that seek this STP’s timber for their applicable applications.
    Indigenous is the representative word I have used to collectively express the tree species that are native to and or natural occurring flora specific to one location. (EG the State of Tasmania.)

    Further that I gave no reference to selective harvesting, though one might conceive that not clear-felling all that sprouts from the Earth in Tasmania’s forested regions that certain species should be left standing.

    The 40 year history I have referred to is to emphasis ‘the cult like delinquent practice of outright clear-felling’ having no care concern nor regard to the intrinsic value and or scarcity of certain species of trees specific to Tasmania.

    The publication I sought for reference as was authored by an academic individual that had absolutely no regard for anything other than the conversion to and perpetuation of plantation forestry practices.
    If one were to dwell solely upon the content material of this book, then no other species of tree other than plantation specific Eucalyptus species and the types of soils preferred for same appear to exist.

    My user of the term ‘delinquent practice’ in the above was to express the ignorance displayed in the process of removing from the soil any visible flora species therein by the agency of outright clear-felling.
    However the word ‘maniacal’ would be better applicable to the senselessness of the processes of ‘forestry management’ in Tasmania, in times both recent and long past, within the span of 40 years.

    As an aside to this form of ‘forestry management’ their is no management principle apparent in this State, other than hunting about for forested areas that are next to be clear-felled.

    continued/

  27. Jack Lumber

    March 9, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    re 73 . Mike the term “them and us”came from you but lets move on .

    Im happy to agree to what you have said and also that there are some business practices that are not ideal ( MIS for instance . Im tempted to digress and rebutt some other points but lets keep to this new paradigm of moving forward

    forestry practices are reviewed . I sure there will be a chortle or scoff and Vince /Karl will say some crazy Ivan comment about the Illuminati but lets try and keep it real

    Is that clear enough for you .

    As to NG , i have been listening what he has said and waiting for more information .

    For the record Selective harvesting in WSF does nt work at any level .

    Will you consider that i and others have some experience and expertise , when that statement is made

    The rest of his statement re carbon and tree lifecycle is open to discussion and debate as where and how the carbon is accounted for and if the carbon is best used insitu or in a plank .AS both have stored C

    i will chase down the article in Nature that he referenced . Not to spoil but to learn .

    And then NG pehaps stayed into a little bit of socio economic commentary and i suspect NG is happy about mining or agriculture either . I could be wrong ; but hey lets try and keep to finding a common ground to build on

    I would like to start that by asking you some question(s)

    Are products from a forest still acceptable in a 21C economy ?

    If so , where do you think they should originate from ??

    My answer is YES and Tasmania

    Now if we can gain a accord on that …. then we can discuss the where , when and how and when we lose our way in the discourse of views we can always always fall back to our agreed premise .

    and finally i do listen to people , quite a lots of people and do you accept the premise , that while TT may be community based , it too is not the font of all knowledge and may not even be reflective of what the community thinks

    I hope we ca all build on this
    regards
    Jack

  28. Mark Poynter

    March 9, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    #67 and #73 Mike Bolan

    Your rant @67 raises a whole slew of contentious unsubstantiated or wrong assertions and conspiracy theories including grossly overstated impacts imparted as though they indisputable facts.

    A large part of the problem associated with Tasmanian forestry and indeed forestry elsewhere is the peddled misinformation of people (like most on TT) who simply don’t like trees being cut-down and seek to justify their view. Over time that has built exponentially and feeds the sort of over-the-top rant that you have come-out with.

    The reason for responding to Nicholas Gilbert’s article in the first place was to correct its obvious misinformation about silviculture. He then demonstrates in #68 that he is further misinformed ….. yet, in #72 you suggest that foresters should listen to laypeople people like him and that if we did, forestry would be in a better place.

    I would suggest that sidelining professional knowledge to manage forests on the basis of the the views of misinformed or uninformed laypeople, is the last thing that Tasmania or its forests need.

  29. Mark Poynter

    March 9, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    #68 Nicholas Gilbert

    I apologise to myself for re-entering this pointless discussion, but there is a need to correct your strident assertions based on the Nature Letter you have mentioned… which was also promoted on The Conversation on 17/1/14.

    The letter was in fact about old trees, not old forests, and that is an important distinction because large old trees typically occur at very low density (small tree numbers per hectare), whereas younger forests are more densely stocked and cumulatively store far more carbon in hundreds of trees on the same area of ground occupied by far fewer but larger trees.

    Your presumption that the study is about old forests leads you to draw a wrong conclusion.

    If you look through the comments to that Conversation article, you will also note that an ANU Professor of Forest Measurement, Cris Brack, and others with experience in this area cite concerns about the level of measurements taken and the algorythms used by the study to determine carbon storage and growth rate in old trees, and especially in trying to equate them to the Australian context where old trees are typically damaged by fire and senescence (dead tops and branches, etc) and are hardly growing. Certainly they are not growing faster than younger trees.

    On the question of whether standing trees are a better carbon sequestration and storage option than a cycle of wood production and regrowth, there has been a series of scientific papers asserting this, mostly since 2008 emanating from a small cohort of ANU ‘scientists’.

    Without exception they have made unwarranted assertions about closing timber industries without ever taking account of the need to then source wood from elsewhere and/or the increased use of non-wood building materials (steel, aluminium, concrete) with far greater carbon emissions associated with their production and manufacture. They have also not taken account of the recycling of stored carbon that occurs in relation to paper and other solid wood products, nor the long storage life of carbon in landfills. When these matters are considered, the option of harvesting and regenerating a portion of the forests is found to be the better carbon storage outcome.

    Aside from this, the ‘more carbon in standing forests’ theory typically relies on forests being undisturbed in perpetuity, whereas in reality forests are periodically burnt by fire and will release carbon.

    Hope this helps inform your knowledge.

  30. Mike Bolan

    March 9, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Jack, I don’t know where you got ‘them and us’ from, and you seem to have missed that I believe in leaving specialty information to those with skills in those specialties.

    Trouble is, in Tasmania, the forestry industry has comprehensively s**t in it’s own nest and utterly destroyed any trust that the public had in its ability to produce what it promised.

    So I believe that if you want to succeed in forestry in Tasmania, you need to start listening to people like Nicholas Gilbert, and you need to start realising that forestry practices here are a failure and need a total rethink.

    That’s called renewal. First appreciate there’s a problem (you appear to still be avoiding that), then start working on creating a new future without those problems.

    You don’t need me for that – it’s all down to you.

    Good luck.

  31. Jack Lumber

    March 9, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    re 69 william , you raise some interesting points and thank you for also taking the time to read some background information .

    Could you clarify the use of the term indigenous ? I ask as what you have said appears to be wrong but you may have some information that clarifies . I ask for this so that if there is to be a rebuttal of your premise i have a clear understanding

    I think you are confused as i am not aware of any selective harvesting , including that with Eucs , where STP are involved . In fact that is not the case . So what are you saying ?

    So lets move onto the CSB discussion and STP . it is true that in the CSB , the initial regrowth is essentially eucalyptus . However as the forest ages , there is evidence that the STP to restablishes . But you do raise a point that perhaps the rotation lengths of the regrowth should be reviewed . There is an argument that the current peeler regime results in immature sawlogs being taken and any STP that has been established being impacted

    One suggestion has been the establishment of STP . I have seen in North America where Cedar is extracted on a single stem basis .Are you suggesting that the whole STP resource ( included that which is an any tenure ) be managed on a whole of estate basis , to enable improved sustainability and availability ?

    Looking forward to this new dialogue
    Jack

  32. Jack Lumber

    March 9, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Dear Vince /Karl …. yes is the answer .
    and thank you for your question .

  33. Jack Lumber

    March 9, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    re 67 . Mike , there is no “us and them ” or “them or us ”

    Lets talk …about how the forests of Tasmania are managed for a range of values .

    where do you want to begin ? what forests are you talking about ?

    the floor is yousr , set the tone and coach others if they are moving into well warn paths ; which are in the end a tiresome .

  34. William Boeder

    March 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Jack Lumber, the clear-fell slash and burn system (CBS) has been identified as being the cause that has halted the ‘continuing growth’ of Speciality Timber Products, (STP’s) that this practice has been permitted to remain as the most preferred means of log-harvest for some 40 odd years, could be said to have created a huge detrimental impact upon a wide range of the partly grown STP’s, and or immature STP’s.
    This State via its logging GBE must accept that these STP’s are in fact being prevented from ever attaining a harvestable status.
    In my opinion this continuance of the CBS system is ultimately an irresponsible beast that acts against the best interests of a great many individual craftsmen, instrument makers, then those others that seek STP’s as a base for their manufactured goods for sale or for carving purposes et al.
    Thus we see an action that is delinquent in every regard but most particularly an action against the interests of a great many Tasmanian people.
    The practice of silviculture as engaged in by Forestry Tasmania has all the ingredients of a simple undisciplined ad-hoc scattering of specific Eucalypt seeds or perhaps plantlings introduced into a ground zero earth base.

    That being so I am unable to recognize that intensive Eucalyptus seeding or replanting with part grown nursery stock can give rise to the term of a regrowth forest, given that each preceding action is destined to prevent any true Indigenous species of trees, (STP’s) will ever occur.
    Therefore the industrial scale selective species Silviculture intensification programs introduced into former Native Forest growth containments or even call them selected logging zones, this somewhat raping of the word Silviculture is a practice not far removed from a continuation of the single species plantation regimens, that continue to be the cause for toxic chemical use with all of the fall-out from these toxic chemicals already catalogued, is still a condemning action upon what were once our State Crown Land Native Forests.
    My source of reference here was in book form via a published Forestry Tasmania intensive forest management program.
    What a forest life destructive publication this turned out to be.

  35. Nicholas Gilbert

    March 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Dear Robin (65)

    Since you throw down the gauntlet so nicely here’s what I really think. I agree with the inherent fire risks involved in the various SL treatments and understand the dilemma between “creaming” and its alternative – harvest doms, sub doms and runts to leave saw logs, but guess what? You forestry guys and the industry you supply that are complicit in converting over 80% of all those coups you harvested over decades to woodchips – in that stupid ecologically disastrous and economically profligate rampage, that has seen billions of precious taxpayers’ capital (including Gunns and its unwitting share holders, many Tasmanian) imploded – will be sidelined.

    This will come from the reality of climate change mitigation and the acceptance by Tas Govt, if it is to achieve zero net emissions by 2050, which it will be obliged to do to comply with COP21, that mature native forests are far more precious in the ground as carbon sinks.

    Now before you wax lyrical over how much more carbon is absorbed in all those lovely young plantations and regrowth coups, let me just remind you that’s crap.

    If you want the evidence refer to Nature, 15th Jan 2014 where international research (inc on Eucalyptus Regnans) has pointed out that older forests are far more important as carbon sinks than immature forests and that’s not including the carbon lost in the harvesting process.

    So mature native forest is far more valuable left as carbon offset. Any forestry that is done will involve long rotations to benefit from the older trees. The idea that trees slow down and stop growing in senescence has been superseded – the reality is they never stop growing, and by more, in carbon terms. And that, old chap, is the reality.

  36. Mike Bolan

    March 9, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    #63 & 65. I’m not pissed off – I’m tired of listening to immature whining. I was attempting to tell you in clear terms why your abusive disdain for people who are not foresters is not in your

  37. Vincent Veneer

    March 9, 2016 at 10:46 am

    jack lumber 60 says ‘from one uni graduate to another’. The difference is she contributes to academic papers while you mostly fail to compose an intelligible comment.
    You’ve never had a paper published have you jack? All those years exploiting forests with no academic credibility?

  38. Robin Charles Halton

    March 8, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    # 59 Mike Bolan The last thing we want in Tasmania is extensive pro non burning selective harvest just to obtain points score to suit global FSC interests and not ours.

    You should be aware of selective thinning, creaming the forest for the best sawlogs from the best trees leaving co doms and sub doms to grow on.
    or
    Select the co doms, sub doms and runts for the initial harvest leaving behind the select trees for sawlog.

    At this point I dont want to give away too many trade secrets on punting for those below or above selection regimes but I could see a possible pattern if FT are foolhardy enough to agree to experiment with the sawlog and peeler production seperately both providing pulpwood as well from head and butt waste as well as damaged trees.

    In both cases FT would run the risk of leaving fire risk with an increase of slash fuels which decay slowly, in fact too slow to return the forest floor to a state of equalibrium.

    We already know that regionally wildfire risk is on the rise the current method usually only involves one to two years post harvest till CBS takes place and lowers the risk significantly on burnt ground as well as a new crop of eucalypts.

    Partial harvest would involving roaming through extensive areas of forest throughout the State to seek out primarily sawlogs and peelers at the same time spreading the fire risk over areas harvested.

    This is where the Eurocentric FSC operators clash with the time hardened locals like myself who realise, should we deviate to far to the left we wont have a quality native forest regrowth estate left to manage.

    I dont want to see the word fire damaged as f/d common to our height class and density regrowth forest type maps throughout the State

    There are a few trade secrets that I can think of that may help the FSC cause but I would talk to FT first before committing to the hollow tree concern post logging, site prep pre Burn and Sow.

    So Nick. I hope you dont mind me calling you Nick, I am friendly enough to encourage you to know exactly what I think!
    Where are you son of a gun, lets hear your side of the equation!

  39. Stu

    March 8, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    Still waiting for a response Frank. For those that don’t know, Frank’s contribution was basically to invoice his time for zero practical silvicultural input!

  40. Jack lumber

    March 8, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    Re 62 and with the inference of any dissenting voice bring a paid lobbyist , do,you realise you fall into the special group that contains now two (or three ) ; you vince and Karl .

    And yet # 62 also promises Insight into 59 viz you too seem to be a both frustrated and intelligent but claim so…. Our laws … Really , pLnnimg scheems really … Agricultural land … Really ….. Please provide evidence or even an argument not whining

    , I take umbridge as William , vince and Karl are not halfwits , just not understood the questions they ask ?
    .
    Oh it’s billions of public money ….. Please,talk,to,JL re that .

    Sorry mike , I think you are a little pissed off and need to take a chill pill . But that’s just my opinion

    Now back to the silviculture

  41. Jack lumber

    March 8, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Re 58 .. Vince/ Karl it would be a honour and frankly I could not be more flattered by your suggestion ( but the Ed has final say but I can only dream )

    I had thought about the possibilities deeply as you have but “hey two names are better than one “.

    But those pesky questions and the discussion on silviculture can you address those ?

    Re 57 from one uni graduate to another …. No worries and perhaps your views on self interest and entitlement in your profession , as mentioned by vince/Karl

    Re 56 sorry you can’t make it ?i have heard mr gunneberg speak and maybe you should be open minded or have you listed to him and formed an opinion , which is of course your right . Or are you just closed minded
    Which is it ?

    And back to the silviculture …… We seemed to have a chance to have a discussion thanks to Gibert and looks like it will be squanders

  42. Mike Bolan

    March 8, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    #44 and other frustrated sylviculturalists.

    TT is not a sylvicultural site, it’s a community site. While I can appreciate your frustrations with we ‘half-wits who have no idea of forest practices’, you might consider our (half wits) frustration at listening to constant justfications of the form the operation was a success but the patient died.

    From the point of view of taxpayers, forestry has been a constant drain on the public purse while key portfolios like health and education are cut back. The bloviated claims of forestry become wearing from an industry that has failed comprehensively over many years despite injections of billions of dollars in public monies (MIS schemes, direct subsidies, legal distortions etc).

    It’s as if you are saying that because you know forest practices and we clueless ‘buggers’ do not, you are therefore beyond criticism. Perhaps some straight talking might help.

    You need to learn to make it on your own as an industry without constantly raiding our wallets and interfering with our laws then before you can claim success and sustainability.

    And if our ignorance is SO frustrating for you, why not ask Lindsay to publish sylviculture articles in a special section? Or maybe set up your own blog and keep the address to yourselves.

    Seriously, you’re supposed to be mature people. Your industry has failed abysmally despite billions of public dollars flowing to you. You have mismanaged and destroyed much of our forests, pissed large numbers of people off, smoked out otherwise healthy neighborhoods, stuffed up huge areas of agricultural land, distorted our planning systems and now you are calling us ‘half-wits’ because we don’t understand the syvicultural methods you employed.

    Are you trying to distance yourselves further from the people whose money you appear to need, or are you just sweet talking us?

  43. Vincent Veneer

    March 8, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    Interesting jack lumber is now suggesting the editorial policy at Tasmanian Times by proposing ‘a special TT edition on 21 march’ to coincide with the AFS chainsaw sharpeners convention and waist-expansion night?
    Maybe he could call it ‘Jack Lumber Times’?

    I guess it was inevitable given lumbers capacity for extreme entitlement and self-interest.

  44. Alison Bleaney

    March 8, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    Leunig stills seems to be doing better at explaining what is happening in Tas than any of the above self declared professional ‘foresters’ (I use that term very lightly). We so badly need Leunig to shine a light on this dark messs called Foresty Tasmania…… only a stone throw away from a group called the Tazmanian Gunnerment….

  45. Ted Mead

    March 8, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    #51 Jack
    Why would anyone seriously interested in sustainable forest management go to a dinner/talk on PEFC???

    FT already has PEFC and it means nothing to the their expansion of forestry exports.

    What a junket anyway – both you and I know that the only people attending the night will be those from the industry and government, which neither will be paying for it out of their own pockets.

    The dress requirement is for a Lounge Suit – Quite frankly the whole suit and tie (Death Sack) thing is cloaked by some of the greatest corporate criminals around.

    Mind you, free dinner, wine and coffee is tempting if you can arrange a free reservation for me.

    I promise to be not over overt with interjection, and I can just claim at the door that the dog ate my tie!!!!!!

  46. Jack Lumber

    March 8, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    re 53 … Do i take that as a ” No ” , you wont be attending ?

  47. Vince Veneer

    March 8, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Jack Lumber. Why is the AFS dinner in Victoria when Tasmania exports twice as much native forest hardwood as Victoria, but not as much as WA or Queensland? Why isn’t the dinner in WA?
    Paying $130 pp plus travel is just small change to the corporate silvertails but why are you promoting an event in Victoria? Will you also be promoting logging events in Malaysia as well?

  48. William Boeder

    March 8, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Dear Jack, this event you speak of will give you the opportunity to meet the former engineers and architects of Forestry Tasmania’s failure to work with the people of Tasmania, they foolishly employing a sort of pernicious stealth-like attitude to one and all in this State that would not in anyway encourage any aspect of a harmonious accord between this failing GBE and the majority of this State’s citizens.
    Still that is the way of Forestry Tasmania and its profitless logging undertakings and failing marketing strategies up to this very day.
    There is every opportunity for you to mix among the executive members of the Institute of Foresters of Australia.
    Though this may not provide with the stimulus you may be seeking with your attending this exclusive gala event get-together of many of the persons responsible for the crude denudation of a greater volume of Australia’s Native Forests.
    Perhaps you could offer yourself to speak on behalf the people that are opposed to the small number of overseas-owned business entities that doggedly pursue their amassing of their huge profits, yet it is ever at the expense of the many State’s citizens right across Australia.

    Could you on your return please advise this forum of the ongoing predations and any new planned predatory strategies that will likely be discussed by all the notables attending this woodman’s get-together over on the mainland.

    Thank you.

    William.

  49. Jack Lumber

    March 8, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    re 49 I appreciate that my typing is a times sloppy and at worst disorganized . But just letting you know there was a typo with what you said .. I ( well my avatar) has no middle initial , the ” S” is of your making .

    so back to questions
    1 what forest type where you discussing in #42

    2 bridge overload issue . Can you clarify ??

    It hard to answer when its unclear what is being asked

    re 50 William if there is a case , good luck , God speed and heaven help the legal fraternity because that would be a court record to read

    Will either Vince ( and Karl ) and yourself be attending the dinner posted above . If Vince went it could be a case of two for the price of one … maybe

    and finally we should maybe have a special TT edition on 21 march … just focusing on Forestry for a change.

  50. Jack Lumber

    March 8, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Dear ed could you pls post this in this thread

    As Im sure many on TT would be keen to attend given their keen interest in forest management

    I noted that in this thread there has been refereence to the silvicultural work done in NSW . This estate is in fact AFS certified .

    I have no financial or management or director role in AFS .

    Maybe we should also circ FSC notices to ensure balance in information and awareness

    World Forest Day AFS Dinner 21 March

    This special dinner will feature a presentation by Geneva-based Ben Gunneberg, CEO and Secretary-General of the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certi cation (PEFC), the world’s largest forest certification system.
    Dinner: 7 pm for 7.30 pm.
    Dress: Lounge suit.
    Cost: $130 p.p. (inc GST) (includes 3-course dinner, pre-dinner drinks, wines and coffee)
    Cargo Hall, 39 S Wharf Promenade, South Wharf, Melbourne
    R.S.V.P. by March 14, 2016 to: Tracey Schoemaker. Tel: 07 3254 4518. Email: tracey.schoemaker@forestrystandard.org.au

  51. William Boeder

    March 8, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Fast falls the day when this entire pettifoggery of rampant statute breaching by the this State’s GBE’s, (specifically the boldest defaulters among them) whereby the directors of same will be able to explain their inadequate directorship standards and inadequate ‘director specific compliances that by law they are bound to implement as appointed executive or even as non executive directors.’
    Notwithstanding that this State Liberal government en toto will be the primary defendant in the ensuing case matter, the GBE director representative’s being ancillary to the breaches of such statutes and as have been so far identified ‘aa having no redeeming characteristic or concessional reason’ for their being breached.

    Then that this matter will be held in a Federal court of law as opposed to a Tas Inc court of law to be defended by a group of State judicature rooted acolytes.
    The seeking of a Federal jurisdiction as distinct from Tasmanian State jurisdiction is considered to be vital to the plaintiffs being successful in their litigation.

    Of further incidental interest will be the fact that there will be no Tasmanian instructing solicitor, rather that in this action it is proposed to source an external to this State, impeccable credentialed cleanskin law practitioner of notable integrity toward the most exacting carriage of Australia’s constitutional laws and system of justice.

    Further updates will be posted (subject to confidentiality) as they come to hand.

  52. Vincent Veneer

    March 8, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Jack Slumber. The idea you don’t work in the Tasmanian timber industry in any capacity at all is just ludicrous. Have you declared your many corporate interests here? No.
    Nobody spends years defending every peeler billet and pulp log to come out of places like Lapoinya without having an ulterior motive or a vested interest.
    I think you should declare your real identity on Tas Times before somebody does it for you*. You also need to explain why a ‘mainlander’ has made so much money from selling Tasmanian forests into the Asian markets.

    *Ed: that won’t happen

  53. MJF

    March 8, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    Strie @ #43

    A slight tangent here but lets see the Slovenian cost model.

    Anything’s possible if the end user is prepared to pay.

    How much to estate manage, annually maintain, single stem harvest, process, cart, saw, dry, dress and retail ? MillDoorPrice ? stumpage ?

    In Slov tolar or euros per tonne or M3 will be fine.

  54. MJF

    March 8, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    Godfrey @ #27/28

    Its pretty clear Pete what the author is saying – it’s a cheap shot against planted areas by attempting to tie the water uptake of plantations in with ever reducing hydro storage levels. There is no mention of or reference to CBS within this particular paragraph.

    The author should withdraw this ridiculous claim from the article as I have debunked it @ #21. There is no correlation.

    Further to your # 28, I agree the author does wax lyrical over the CBS and conversion (plantation) similarities but does this elsewhere in the story. I disagree with this analogy though as the only similarities I see are 3 elements – a clearfell treatment, some degree of burning and single age replacement. Beyond that nothing is on par.

    I.e. a plantation is usually site selective, is mechanically cleared by de-stumping/deep ripping/mound ploughing, hand planted with non-native species, planting stock is grown from selective seed in nurseries, normally use pesticides, normally use pre-emergents, is planted in an even format, can alter site drainage in terms of cultivation, totally obliterates any remnant habitat following harvest, is managed for a shorter rotation, can be pruned, high planting densities, dense canopy cover prevents re-establishment of native understorey species, is expensive to establish, requires game control, new conversions no longer implemented, etc etc

    None of the above factors apply to CBS which vary immenseley in stocking levels and self thin over time as dominants, co-dominants and sub-dominants emerge.

    Gilbert @ #34

    Thank you for providing a version of sustainability, I prefer and can align with yours much more than Lindenmayers which in my opinion is pure ideaology and largely unquantitative. I do like this bit though – “within the bounds of normal disturbance regimes” ??. May as well give up NF harvesting period if Prof L was to have his way in setting the criteria

    Your article overall I found interesting and thought provoking although inaccurate in places.

    You’ve fallen for the old misconception with your historical description of Tasmania’s forest activities pre 1960. The state was, in fact, in the grip of a sawmilling frenzy and the resources, while still still being magnificent in places, were being plundered at an unsustainable rate and rapidly in decline. Please read the history of Risbys Timber Company book “Against the Odds”. This gives you a detailed account of how the best forests were being targeted for high ending logging designed only to get the best logs and leave the rest, allowed by the old EFP system that was legislated and gazetted under the Forestry Act. These mini-concessions gave samilling companies exclusive and unrestricted access to sawlog stands within geographical areas but with no obligation to improve stands by tree selection, spacing or regeneration.

    This was the modus operandi of the logging industry since the first days of Hobart Town when convicts used to rat around above the Cascades first selecting splitting trees for building and fence timber, then going back and felling all the millable trees for pit sawing when the splitters ran out quickly ran out.

    To dress up high ending as selective harvesting and “at any time there would be a large co-hort of millable trees across this estate” is nonsense.

    Risbys history will reveal how whole forest areas were slaughtered for sawlog to the point where the mills would be packed up, the harvested area abandoned and then operations relocated to the next patch for targeting. No regeneration commitment, no residue disposal, no assessments, no re-seeding, no nothing other than a smash and grab raid.

    This was how forestry ran pre 1960’s style until some Forestry Commission visionaries then realised the declining quality and quantity of the States forests and embarked on dedicated regeneration research and implementation.

    To do nothing would have been much worse.

  55. Robin Charles Halton

    March 8, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Nicholas Gilbert #35. Diversity in Tas. CBS forests emerges naturally as the Forest Practices Code implies that streamside reserves, non eucalypt rich land and steepness within surrounding lands is protected hence the reason for mosaic planning of coupes. Natural seed fall from nearby lands usually fills in the diversity gap within the WPZs.

    Now Nicholas or shall I call you Nick, you never know with me we could be on friendly terms, please bear with me but I am curious on the management strategy for future “sawlog” resource to be grown from what looks like below thinning in coupes South of Eden glaringly noticable from the main highway!

    No burning post logging its looks as if a scattering of sub dominants from the previous stand make up the new forest, not very impressive in fact seriously looks like a disaster until a big bushfire goes through and natural seeding takes place to create a decent regenerated forest.

    So how could you justify similar forest management process for Tasmania in terms of a growing future high quality native forest driven timber resource based on eucalypt.

    By the way our non burning management is mainly on higher altitude delegatensis forest along the Central plateau where shelterwood management is practiced.

    Have you ever been to Tasmania and actually observed our silviculturally created forests, you would need to do that before outlining changes in forest management behavior.

  56. Jack Lumber

    March 8, 2016 at 10:39 am

    re 42 VV . Yes it is you Karl and frankly it is kinda funny that you are so open in you display of breaching TT rules

    why dont you just make a statement to clarify . hell just send it to the editor . Its their call in the end .

    No one else could have a thought that the use botanical names show some insight . In fact it has been your undoing

    So lets not confuse Eucalyptus with Myrtaceae; as all Eucs are Myrtaceae .But not all Myrts are Eucalypts .see below .

    ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrtaceae

    I used Wiki just because it was on top of the search

    So Karl , before we progress

    1 can you confirm what forest type you are talking about

    2 I’v re read the string and apart from a suggestion re prosilva , NO ONE is advocating any silvic system they are just saying there are a range of options

    3 as to the rest of your stuff … RCH summed it up and having you on twice is too much

    look forward to your clarification of forest type . happy to use plain English but if you which to use latin or Linnaean binomial nomenclature .

    Frank nice to see you back …. funny thing i respect both you and mark and have watched you both present your points of view .

  57. Robin Charles Halton

    March 8, 2016 at 2:46 am

    #38 Mark Poynter, I am also becoming fed up with the half wits who have absolutely no idea of forest practices and management of the commercial wet forests of Tasmania and S. Victoria.
    The buggers wont listen and I bet thay have never practiced real forestry as we have, they havent a damn clue.

    Vince Veneer who ever the hell you are you are a real shocker, you are really off the planet man, either get with it or get lost!

    #32 Stu, dont even mention the Warra trials, FT Geeveston staff dont even want to know about the stupid gobbely gook involving impractically complex, unsafe in fact dangerous and uneconomical alternatives in the management of our forests.

  58. Just frank again

    March 8, 2016 at 1:05 am

    Regarding #38 M.P.: “Unfortunately I have to make a living and will be making no more posts on here, and will probably revert back to my previous avoidance of TT.”
    Posted by Mark Poynter on 08/03/16 at 04:25 PM

    Thanks for that decision Mr. Poynter, you seem to be so deeply stuck in the old and failed paradigm that you may be just better off to stick with your likeminded mates and look elsewhere if that is satisfying you.

    Surely after these 4 decades involvement in ‘take away’ = forest mining / forest conversion (mainly) clearfell and (some)selective logging you would have made plenty of dollars to retire sooner or later with a great super package cushion.

    However, just in case that you would eventually like the idea of real change, and would become keen and able to explore truly alternative and very positive forest management scenarios, you may choose to visit the contrasting examples beyond Australia, you may try to explore some of the various Forest Guild enterprises in the United States or even extra special forestry classrooms in the ‘Pahernik forest estate’ near Radlje in Slovenia.
    During our tour last July my expectations were well surpassed by the reality of responsible restoration management since 1903!
    The outride positive attitude, intergenerational objectives and respecting drive to improve the quality and quantity of healthy, productive forests was mirrored by the respect for inheritances from nature and thoughtful past management.
    They (these forest managers) not only have the well documented numbers and statistics to show, but they also have the actual living forests to show you, realities in 2016 the founding owner-managers well over a century ago would and could be very proud of today!

    It would be possible in Australia – but it would require a paradigm shift in attitude and long term whole quality focus.
    Clearfell and partial logging / forest mining is simply outride dumb, stupid and irresponsible – in my opinion.

  59. Vince Veneer

    March 8, 2016 at 12:29 am

    Clearfell advocates here have re-confirmed that academic forestry in Australia was created and implemented by the state logging authorities.

    Whether Creswick or the ANU, the state logging authorities set-up the forestry schools in Australia. Because academic forestry was built on a massive conflict of interest, I think it’s polluted forestry thinking in Australia ever since.

    Nobody trusts anything the professional foresters say and they know it.

    Can Mark Poynter explain why river red gums on the Murray are not clearfelled, but Tasmanian forest must be clearfelled? Does he have to google it or did he misplace the manual again?

    And would anyone believe him anyway, knowing forestry qualifications only serves the VicForests cash register?

    Who cares what foresters think about clearfelling because they often get very rich from it and could not possibly have an objective view?

    Jack lumber says ‘harvesting is an option’ but he knows better than anyone else that in Tasmania ‘harvesting is a legislated requirement’.

    Some homework questions for Jack Lumber: Before European settlement, before Aborigines, how did Myrtaceae forests clear-fell themselves to improve their silvicultural values? Are they like your ‘self-licking icecreams’?

    Are Myrtaceae forests trying to export themselves to Asia at the continental drift rate of 5cm per year? Is the Institute of Foresters speeding up this natural migration by shipping forests to Asia as woodchips at a net loss to the states but as a profit to their own members?

  60. Jack lumber

    March 8, 2016 at 12:08 am

    Re 37 Simon …. Seriously …..

  61. Stu

    March 8, 2016 at 12:05 am

    RE #32 While we’re discussing silviculture, need I provide a link to your wonderful and insightful contribution to the Warra Silvicultural Trials?

  62. Jack lumber

    March 7, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Re 36 mike I’m sorry .. The reference to rocket science is why why they failed …..it’s just that taxation and fx is complex

    I agree re charities and that’s why I don’t give to the TWS

    I’m not blaming anyone on TT for the demise of either entity
    . 1 because it not true . 2 that would suggest anyone on TT has such power and that’s not true either .

    Ypu will find few on TT support Gunns .

    But this discussion is about silviculture I thought ?

    Hope that clarifies ?

    Jack

  63. Mark Poynter

    March 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm

    #34, 35 Nicholas Gilbert

    Your fundamental misconception and that of virtually the whole environmental movement (inc Lindenmayer), is to refuse to accept that forestry is a landscape-scale activity concerned with the management of production and biodiversity at a broad scale rather than on a coupe by coupe basis.

    The IFA policy which you have quoted makes this clear, and largely this has been achieved by greatly increasing the areas of parks and reserves so that wood production is less dominant than it was 30 years ago when the native forests were the country’s primary wood source.

    I would add that in my view this has now gone too far and has clouded the future of hardwood timber production. In my view, this is morally outrageous for a country which ranks sixth in the world for per capita forest cover and yet is increasingly outsourcing its demand for hardwood to developing countries with burgeoning populations, endemic corruption and far less regulatory control over its forests.

    In addition to this, the introduction of forest practices codes over the past 25-years has put far greater emphasis on minimising environmental impacts, whereas if the only aim was to maximise wood production there would be no stream buffers/ habitat trees etc which are rightly aimed minimising environmental impacts but come at the expense of reduced timber yields.

    Your friend Professor Lindenmayer has formerly extolled the biodiversity benefits of maintaining production forestry because it creates a mosaic of different habitat types across the landscape which favoured a greater range of species compared to otherwise.

    Your comment about CF locking up the ‘working forest estate’ is perplexing — are you denying that forests regrow and will one day be harvestable again? The fundamental imperative to maintaining a working forest is to be able to regenerate it and this is problematic if the silvicultural requirements of the forest are ignored.

    I don’t know how often it has to be said that selectively logging wet forests is a recipe for disaster because it eventually leads to depauperate forests that lack a regrowth class, so you cannot go on harvesting it in perpetuity as you seem to think. As these wet forests rely on sunlight and intense fire to regenerate they are unsuited to selective logging which shades the seedbed and retaining trees is incompatible with high intensity burning.

    Your talk about “one more ridge and one more valley to convert” suggests you are ignorant of the limits placed on timber production. For the record, the proportion of public forest available for timber production in Tas comprised just 12% of the state’s total forest area following the 2013 peace deal.

    If the mooted reserves that are now in limbo are returned to the public working forest estate in 2020 as planned, it will still comprise only around 24% of the total forest area. Given this reality, claims that timber production is ruining the state’s ecological sustainability are far fetched when given the context of most forests not being used for this purpose.

    You talk about the variable retention system as though it is still a proposal — are you aware that it has been in use in Tas since, I think, 2007, and is currently being introduced into Victoria. Even though Lindenmayer had a hand in developing it, he has recently denounced it (as have other Greens who have called it clear-felling by another name). Obviously they don’t want less intensive harvesting methods if it gets in the way creating the next national park.

    But Hey, I’m only an inbred-educated forester who has been trained on the basis of a century of experience, trial and error, and research – how would I know more than the comfortable retired folks of Hobart who’ve never had to manage the competing demands of forest conservation and use and have inordinate amounts of time on their hands to slap each other on the back on TT.

    Unfortunately I have to make a living and will be making no more posts on here, and will probably revert back to my previous avoidance of TT.

  64. Simon Warriner

    March 7, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Ladies and gentlemen, the winner is Mike Bolan.

    The last time I saw a finish that good, the loser was lying on the floor with seconds attending.

  65. Mike Bolan

    March 7, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Jack, a viable business (one that can endure without requiring external controls) uses practices that support its business. That’s the job of management and governance. Forestry Tasmania failed to do that – as did Gunns. No-one on this site created that situation – they did it all on their own.

    You say Gunns and FT failed due to MIS & FX – then you say it’s not rocket science. Given that, how did Gunns miss it? Why did they go bust? They had well paid accountants and financial people on their Board – how did they miss something so obvious?

    I don’t have thoughts on forestry practices. I expect those skilled in forestry to think their own business and forestry practices through and produce income that exceeds costs otherwise its not a business at all, it’s a charity. I don’t want to give anything to charities that aren’t doing anything positive for the people of Tasmania.

    Similarly, I don’t have thoughts about surgery – I expect surgeons to do that, and to offer good service when needed. I don’t expect to learn how to resect a bowel any more than I expect to learn how to fell trees.

    Forestry in Tasmania fails the sanity test – arguments for forest practices that lose money, drive companies broke and keep demanding monies better spent on vital activities (education, health, energy etc) to keep a loss making enterprise like Forestry Tasmania afloat; are pointless.

    Hope that clarifies.

  66. Nicholas Gilbert

    March 7, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Again, how can CF satisfy these stated policy aims of the foresters own Institute when it’s results are diametrically opposed to these objectives? R. Halton boasts that diversity issues only relate to Reserves, not production forests and that “the aim is not unreasonable to provide coups of an even aged forest for timber production purpose.” Might I suggest that modern forestry requires a somewhat more holistic approach, which is the point of my argument, and your own IFA policy doco.

    There are many other harvesting techniques including variable retention silviculture currently being trialed by FT and single tree selection would have been more applicable to Lapoinya Coup.

    Mark Pointer defends CF of Ash Forests in Tasmania which is interesting given Lindenmayer, (Proff, Ferrer School of Environment and Science ANU) comes to a somewhat different conclusion from studying Victorian mountain ash forests. “There is no longer a place for CF operations in mountain ash forests. Retention harvesting is a safe and feasible alternative to CF and should be adopted.”

  67. Nicholas Gilbert

    March 7, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    Thank you for comments and especially those of opposing viewpoint, several of which require reply.

    To Mark Pointer, I find it somewhat disingenuous that you can assert that loss of future resource is attributable to areas “ locked up in reserves”. My whole argument which you fail to address is that CF itself locks up the working forest estate by removing future harvest-able cohorts in one fell swoop. I guess when there is always one more ridge and valley to convert, CF could continue, but it is inevitably a zero sum model.

    To MJF, I would define “sustainable” as to be logged in perpetuity, maximizing merchandise-able product whilst not compromising biodiversity or hydrology and respecting community needs. Lindenmayer defines it as “perpetuating ecosystem integrity while continuing to provide wood and non wood values, where ecosystem integrity means the maintenance of forest structure, species composition and the rate of ecological functions within the bounds of normal disturbance regimes”.

    And here in lies the rub. How can anybody seriously contend that CF harvesting satisfies either definition? I also would refer to Silviculture in Australian Native Forests ( IFA policy statement 2.9) which is a policy document from the foresters own Institute and from which I quote “Native forest silviculture is no longer concerned simply with traditional sustained yield forestry for wood production. Society’s expectations are now much broader, requiring an integrated ecosystem based or “new forestry” approach. Native forests are now managed at multiple scales: trees, stands, and landscapes. Silviculturists are required to develop and apply approaches that produce landscapes with stand structural diversity, very different from an ordered sequence of stand ages.

    The production of timber, although a common objective, is neither the only objective nor necessarily the dominant one. Conservation of wildlife and timber production may be co-equal objectives in many forests. Biodiversity takes precedence in forest with high conservation values, and water yield and quality are pre-eminent in dedicated water supply catchments” – end of quote.

    Cont …

  68. William Boeder

    March 7, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    #29. Mark Poynter, can you under your inappropriately named Foresters of Australia Association status, please provide this forum with the need for Forestry Tasmania to continue with its twice or thrice revamped log-supply contracts, that to this day are yet to reveal any profitability after all costs have been deducted, in having Ta Ann Berhad conducting its operations in Tasmania?
    (This same question is addressed to each and all other logging proponents.)

    What is patently obvious in this State is that providing Tasmanian forest logs to Ta Ann’s operations can only proceed with ongoing State government funding to illogically continue to reduce our forested regions much faster than they can regenerate.
    Bear in mind that I have not yet brought into this discussion the volume loss of wildlife habitats and the severe reductions in this State’s indigenous wildlife population.
    The truth is that both the Victorian and Tasmanian State’s pro-logging proponents do not give a rat’s arse about either State’s indigenous wildlife.
    Again I will remind you of the ingoing contentious issue regarding the demise and the now almost extinction of the Victorian Faunal Emblem, The Leadbeater’s Possum,

    Given the above facts each of you and your cluster of ex-forestry overlords really cannot honestly subscribe to the Australian Institute of Foresters.
    The title itself is false as it does not yield to the successful care and management of all that is contained in the forested realms in Australia.
    Then there is the knowledge that your institute is more-so just a gathering of former State forests plunder chiefs and dodgy timber contract designators.
    The fact that the fanciful title of ‘The Australian Institute of Foresters’ is a false and misleading terminology, thus I suggest that it may as well be scrubbed from the list of actual practical true to the term, Institute.
    Were you to form an association as Australia’s Association of State Forest Larcenous Actuators, this would be a far more identifying term for your rag-tag of associates.

    I now refer to the newly termed wood production zones, this new designation is something invented that suits only those that desire to profit from a resource that belongs to the people of Tasmania. EG: Tasmania’s Crown Land Forests.

    Furthermore what sort of logic is employed that gives the right to Ta Ann to continue profiting from that which provides nothing in the way of profits to Tasmania?

  69. Frank Strie, Terra-Preta Developments

    March 7, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Here we go again…

    Over 4 decades now I have experienced, watched and learned about forestry practices on 3 continents (Europe, North America and Australia)

    I do understand the historic developments and scenarios be that in private forestry(be that family owned and large scale corporate, and community forest estates in Europe and State owned forestry, it is not hard to clearly point to where we can nowadays find healthy forests, engaged and happily rewarded communities surrounding such forests and can name successfully integrate, viable forest enterprises that are commercially successful and widely supported obviously by their customers and neighbors alike.

    As Pete Godfrey pointed out in comment #1,
    “I am still hopeful that one day we will win and we will be able to fly over and drive around Tasmania and see well managed forests.”

    I still hope that I one day my children’s children will be able to see a positive future and get experienced in responsible forest management practices, as such presenting commercially viable, community supported and environmentally positive restoration management practices.

    In short, doing well by doing good, intergenerational vision and commitments.
    Tasmania may have still not reached the point of paradigm shift, but time will be judge.

    It will be interesting to get into the technical issues again when the call for real change is loud and clear.
    Thanks to Mike and Pete and the author of the leading article.

    Just to point to some common terms:

    Logging, both clearfell logging and partial logging stand for Harvesting =’Take Away’, equal to Mining and Exploiting.
    Site specific forest management in contrast is about integrating the short, medium and long term expectations and values.
    Anyone interested can still visit http://www.twff.org.au and the Forest Guild and ProSilva.

    Have a good day
    Frank

  70. Jack Lumber

    March 7, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    re 30 Dear Mike i offer my opinion …. you make some interesting points….

    But you mistake business practices for forestry practices . They are not the same .. never have been and never will be ?

    As examples

    What on your thoughts on

    1 CF v selective harvesting as a silvicultural system

    2 If when the forest is DSF and what selection criteria will you use for retained stems ???

    3 should you sell a log for less than it cost to produce and should fire management be factored into the costings ?

    re Gunns and FT …… MIS and FX and inability to collect fair rent for products ; its not rocket science

  71. Mike Bolan

    March 7, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    #26 Mark, there is little point in your constant challenges and cries of unfair regarding forestry practice and management in Tasmania. No-one writing on this site can save forestry if they won’t save themselves.

    Mr Gilbert argues that Forestry Tasmania’s practices and policies have driven them to the wall. In the same way that Gunns own decisions drove them to the wall. Yet you continue to argue minuteae and demand ‘proofs’ despite the fact that the proof of the pudding is in the utter failure of ‘industrial forestry’ to show any profits, instead needing constant injections of taxpayer monies to keep them afloat.

    You seem to know a lot about the details – how do you explain Gunns conversion from ‘timber giant’ to bankrupt in such a short period? How do you explain Forestry Tasmania’s constant need for additional public funds when they virtually control the industry? Was it Cassie O’Connor, Bob Brown, Peg Putt – brought down such an unimpeachable and sustainable (according to Gunns) industry? And why couldn’t they get any finance for their pulp milll?

    Please enlighten us.

  72. Mark Poynter

    March 7, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    #16 Lyndall

    “Do you mean an unharvested forest will return to its previous state after being harvested, burnt and reseeded?”

    Yes, if given time, of course it will. The wet ash forests naturally regenerate on a burnt ashbed in full sunlight following a severe bushfire, and eucalypts regrow from seed fall (or artificial seeding) with the understorey species quickly recolonising from stored seed.

    This was essentially confirmed by the research instigated in the late 1950s and 60s in response to failed regeneration after selective logging in these forest types in Victoria and Tasmania.

    That is why current calls to selectively log these wettest forests would be revisiting a past disaster. Having said that, it would be possible and desirable (and is certainly being done in parts of Victoria) to thin the advanced regrowth of these forests part way through the rotation (as that is a form of selective harvesting where no regeneration is required).

    But as a final harvest of the mature forest where there is a need to regenerate, clear falling and burning is required. The alternative of selective harvesting mature forest would typically result in scattered retained trees with gaps regenerated by understorey scrub and small trees, that would eventually take-over as the older trees progressively died. There may be exceptions to this at times where eucalypts do regenerate in gaps if big enough, but that is not the general rule.

    Undoubtedly, many on TT wouldn’t see any problem with this, but I am talking here about the minor sub-set of the estate that is being managed for wood production in perpetuity, and accordingly there is a need to maintain a vigorously growing younger forest.

    The majority of wet ash-type forest in southern Australia that already sits in national parks and reserves will essentially follow the course of decline and replacement with understorey species if there is a long term absence of bushfires, so the biodiversity associated with that is already well catered for at the landscape scale.

    If you want to see evidence of how clearfelled and burned forests regenerate, you can drive through the Styx Valley and see the 70 yo regrowth from early harvesting that was meant to be a significant part of the future wood resource but was added to the parks and reserves estate (I think added to the World Heritage Area?) in 2013.

    It would be a substantial job to unearth academic papers supporting all this, and I haven’t got time to do so, but I expect some of the early work would be cited in the Florence book mentioned by JL in other posts.

    An important point to remember is that studies of animal recolonisation are based on a landscape context including adjacent unlogged areas and stream buffers, and other reserves. Obviously taking out the trees for wood means that their is little expectation of arboreal (tree hollow dwelling) mammals being present on a coupe soon after harvesting. Undoubtedly this reality will be pointed to as a shortcoming by critics of this post, but the reality is that a situation where arboreal mammals are completely unaffected by timber harvesting essentially equates to there being no harvesting — which is undoubtedly the aim of the anti-forestry crowd.

  73. Pete Godfrey

    March 7, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    #21 MJF to save you re reading the article here are the authors words on CBS coupes and plantations

    “The coup is reseeded with single or at most several eucalypt species collected from the coup prior to burning. The resultant replacement forest is of single age, high density and bereft of biodiversity – essentially “a plantation”. FT does not use this term due to negative connotations associated with seedling-grown plantations, so they prefer the term “regrowth” forest. One type having straight lines is the only distinguishing feature between them.”

  74. Pete Godfrey

    March 7, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    #21 MJF, I believe that the author is saying that CBS coupes are on a par with plantations.
    When we look at it from a hydrology point of view the amount of water sucked up by a CBS coupe that has been seeded and a CB then plantation coupe that has been planted in rows would not be much different, if at all.

  75. Mark Poynter

    March 7, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    #2

    Oh dear Vince (aka Karl?), you have perfectly exemplified why I cautioned in #6 against uncritically accepting all that appears on this site.

    Just to correct the record for the sake of those few on here that may still have an open mind on Tasmanian forestry (hopefully Nicholas and Lyndall Rowley).

    You said: “VicForests setup a smaller forest school at Creswick that still operates today”

    In fact, VicForests has only existed since 2004. The Victorian Government established the Victorian School of Forestry in 1910 so it predates the AFS. The School was operated by the Forests Commission Victoria from 1919 until the early 1980s when it became part of the University of Melbourne.

    You said: “This extremely ‘interbred’ academic lineage of IFA-ANU gave birth to all current native forestry harvesting techniques such as clearfell”

    Untrue as per above. Also, the research done into the silvicultural needs of wet ash forests in large part also emanated from Victorian trained forest scientists and a Melbourne University botanist, Dr David Ashton. Started in the late 1950s, some research into aspects of ash silviculture was done under the auspices of the CSIRO, but in those days it was commonplace for state land management agencies to have their own research divisions that undertook applied research to inform their management practices. Accordingly much of this research was in Tasmania in the Florentine Valley and in Victoria.

    By your reasoning in regard to foresters, all of Australia’s medical doctors and specialists must also be academically in-bred as they stem from a few medical schools. Perhaps you are suggesting that nurses should be managing forests and foresters should be responsible for our health … that’s how nutty your reasoning is.

    You said: “In a nutshell, the textbook on managing native forests in Australia is less than 100 years old in forests with a rotation of 100 years!”

    Perhaps you could lay your hand on this ‘textbook’ and give me a copy. In reality, forest management has evolved over the past 100 – 120 years through practical experience and targeted research over the past 70 – 80 years, and is still evolving as problems arise and are addressed.

    Probably the closest thing to a textbook is the Florence book referred to by JL #8, but it was only published in the mid-1990s and refers to the silviculture and ecology that informs the management practices.

    You said: “They made it all up because only the state forestry commissions had the legal authority to destroy public forests and they needed a textbook to give them legitimacy”

    Again, perhaps you could show us this ‘text book” and while you’re at it, please show us the legislation that gave the authority to ‘destroy forests’.

    You said: “Interestingly, when the pressure is on, the Institute allows selective harvesting as they have just done with river red gums in NSW.”

    Red gum forests in NSW and Victoria have been selectively harvested for around a 100 years, this is not something new as you are suggesting.

    You said: “They don’t have to in Tasmania because they can getaway with whatever they like here”

    You are either ignorant or pretending to be by suggesting there is no selective harvesting in Tasmania.

    I know it suits anti-logging campaigns to portray all timber harvesting as clearfall, but traditionally around 60% of the Tasmanian harvest was selective logging, largely the shelterwood system. This may have changed in recent years as a large slice of the drier alpine ash and other forests which are best suited to this technique and can regenerate without fire, was either bought by Cameron/Wood or put into reserves.

    There is not much point in responding to the rest of your conspiracy theories/claims.

  76. Jack Lumber

    March 7, 2016 at 11:34 am

    re 24 No john ….im not a disinterested party and nor are you

    Pseudonyms are under TT rules

    Posting under two names or switching between two is not and being the same person is not .
    What is your position on that ?

    re typos ( sometimes i use an IPAD and the spell checking is not so good ) I can understand you frustration and i will take more care

  77. john Hayward

    March 7, 2016 at 11:13 am

    #14, Lumber. Having looked down your nose at the ethics of pseudonyms, we are awaiting your disclosure of just who you are and why a disinterested observer would be so strenuously partisan on the side of a pernicious parasite such as Tas logging.

    John Hayward

  78. Jack Lumber

    March 7, 2016 at 11:00 am

    Dear Nicholas

    Before we progess discussions i hope you will understand i have to deal with some distractions

    re 2 and 13
    Dear “KaNeer” ( is hip to blend names these days ) are you the KAney of SILvAKulture ?

    I only ask as you “both” , (well i think its “three” of you ) as you all seem to follow a similar line of logic regarding secret groups ,making statements which at first reading seem well strange and then with further review actually make no sense . This of course is just my opinion .

    Does KaNey know anything about bridge limits as KaNeer is strangely silent on this very small point ; and yet it keeps getting raided by others .

    re 18 Wiliam of the West , yes a levy on discussions , do you you think “KaNeer ” has to contribute twice ????

    thank you for that Nicholas .. look forward to more sensible discussions . Found this on the web and , part of a good discussions is sometimes making sure we are speaking the same language . There are of course heaps more resources available . At yes someone will i am sure make a redherring comment re contributors but its just noise , in my opinion

    http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/438404/forests-nsw-native-forest-silviculture-manual.pdf

    regards
    Jack

  79. Robin Charles Halton

    March 7, 2016 at 9:38 am

    It is becoming pointless to argue about the continuation of native forest harvesting, like it or not Ta Ann is here to stay having invested further in a value adding ply mill at Smithton.

    A review of their operations will occur in 2026/27 when theirs and saw milling contracts will be reviewed, methods of sale of higher value forest produce could change by then too!

    Ta Anns aim is to capture at least 15% of the Australian market for industrial ply, the grizzlers have to accept that they are a part of the forestry scene.

    Despite shortcoming of the FSC scene for FT, we are at least 90% of the way there.

    Stiff poo poos about CBS method, that is the way it is the regeneration outcome is necessary and is successful as one has to realize we are talking about PRODUCTION FORESTRY by retaining native forests on a rotational basis, however I would have liked to have seen that being closer to the 90 year rotation and not 60 year as is the recent case at Lapoinya.

    FSC basically is a European standard that is based on overseas methods of forestry, the Australian standard that applies across our vast southern continent has varied methods of forestry that apply here to suit our particular conditions many are the fire dependent eucalypt stands to maintain forest health and reproduction.

    As I have repeated before the idealistic Greens and their supporters want to see the end of native forest logging, ask them about plantations and they will baulk on the spot.

  80. MJF

    March 7, 2016 at 2:32 am

    Here’s a cracker:

    “Plantations consume far more water than healthy mixed forest so landscapes are drying, exacerbating climate change. There is reduced runoff into hydro dams.”

    Not ‘possibly’ or ‘potentially’…….but there is ……!!

    Lets examine this. Out of 26 dedicated and purpose managed Hydro Tasmania water storage bodies, I can think of just 6 that may be affected by plantation water uptake in associated catchments (up to 5 in Mersey Forth system + Lake Trevallyn as a rank outsider which has very limited storage capacity anyway)

    Tragically some of those plantations that could have affected the 5 Mersey Forth storages may actually be toast now.

    Surely FT will make an insurance claim and re-establish ?

    I expect the demise of any former plantation areas will also be viewed negatively as (now) causation for accelerated runoff, associated soil erosion with downstream turbidity and siltation.

    Look out GFC if any still persist in those barely wet hydro dams or their inflowing tributaries.

    I’m not aware of plantations around Lake Pedder as yet and pretty sure Lake Margaret remains E nitens free.

  81. Vincent Veneer

    March 7, 2016 at 12:49 am

    Comment number 14 highlights serious ongoing problems Tasmanians have with the logging industry in general.
    This commenter quite possibly benefits directly from clear-felling, is unable to prove otherwise, and tries to intimidate other commentators on a regular basis.
    Comment 14 also verges on being unintelligible. For example “I suspect this as both related any article on for try to”.
    What is that supposed to mean in the English language? It’s just incoherent gibberish in my book, and yet this same anon claims to be a ‘scientist’?
    Comment 14 then names a member of the public for no apparent reason.
    This is the same person who claims Forestry Tasmania will gain FSC certification by December 2016 allowing him to go on a well-earned holiday.
    To me that appears to be one of the worst cases of ‘entitlement’ I have ever encountered.
    Why should the exploitation of Tasmanian forests always be to the benefit of a few seemingly arrogant, unstable, incoherent, entitled, secretive, systematic propaganda merchants?
    If people knew the real identity of commentator 14 they would be shocked.

  82. Robin Charles Halton

    March 7, 2016 at 12:45 am

    Absolute rubbish by a number of anti native forestry respondents who purposely fail to see that we are clearly talking about Production Forests and not Reserves where diversity is the management strategy.

    WPZ’s are managed for timber by CSB being most suitable post logging regeneration treatment method to maintain the high quality ash species ( obliqua, regnans and gigantia) of the cool temperate forests of Tasmania used primarily for timber production and the aim is not unreasonable to provide coupes of even aged forests for future timber production purposes.

    Talk of the replacement of burning by above or below thinning of our forests would be a disasterous step in management to adopt as our prime timber species are slower growing, there is slower decomposition of forest floor residues compared to NSW forestry practices leaving FT with the greater risk of wildfire spread within our WPZ’s.

    FSC supporters should not be deluded by non realistic forest management targets here in Tasmania. CBS should remain as the essential ingredient for reliable and proven timber production model for forest regeneration.

  83. William Boeder

    March 6, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    #6. 7. 8. One wonders if a levy or an impost must be placed upon those persons whereby their comments are contributing to the ongoing denudation of all Natural or Native Forests anywhere within Australia.
    The ‘knock ’em down clear-fell bash and burn process’ has yet to produce a replica forest to that which has in the past 60 plus years since been replicated to the equal of that which once stood, but does not now stand visible, to any convincing or substantial degree.

    Were this to be so in Tasmania for example, the management of Ta Ann Berhad, (one member being a former Forestry Tasmania insider, would be clamouring for this timber (if not this tender aged forest regrowth already had to suffer the agony of being clear-felled once again) to be placed into the peeling machines of the plundering Sarawak-owned Ta Ann Berhad.

    Furthermore would either of these 3 encyclopaedic minded and knowledgeable veteran logging undertakers, (or be they just erroneous supporters thereof) offer the viability in this so doing, bearing in mind that in Tasmania this practice or process appears to add only debt monies to this State’s treasury.

    This is not to say that the Ta Ann Berhad infestation in this State is not at all profitless, as the actual owners of Ta Ann Berhad are ecstatic with the ease in which the profitability in their Tasmanian undertakings has since displayed them driving their little trips around their cities in the latest tailored model Rolls Royce.
    Somewhere amongst these facts I note that the logging undertakings by this State’s government institutional GBE of Forestry Tasmania does not provide for any tailored Rolls Royce motor vehicle for persons to go tripping around in any of our State’s cities.
    Given that the stealth art of selling Snake Oil has largely disappeared from its once wide-spread practicing in Tasmania, then also from the mainland of Australia itself, I am left to wonder how the intermittent offerings of same occasionally raise their ugly practice and presence, especially here in our backwater State of Tasmania.
    I note that whatever Native or Natural Forest remained for the plunder in the State of Victoria, has finally been given a protection order against such trespass by wood or log hookers as were once running rampant and riot across the State of Victoria.

    Perhaps you Mr Mark Poynter can advise this forum of the location of any 60 plus year aged naturally regenerated Natural or Native Forests in your State of Victoria that have escaped the same fate as that of Tasmania’s ‘once sacred’ Natural Natural regrowth forests, in your case I refer to the mighty Mountain Ash forests in Victoria?

    Thank you.

    William.

  84. Alison Bleaney

    March 6, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    cont. from my previous comment

    It should be noted that the above list is far from exhaustive!

    In order to ensure stakeholders have the opportunity to have their say on key issues in the standard to the final point regarding the number of times stakeholders have had a chance to digest and provide feedback on key topics the SDG has decided to break up consultation on Draft 3into two parts, meaning that stakeholders will have two more opportunities to provide feedback. The current timeline for release of the 3rd Draft is 4th of April.

    Draft 3 will also undergo forest testing so that stakeholders will have the opportunity to see the results of that process and its impact on Draft 4.

    We are very mindful of the need to assist people in providing feedback and focusing on the key issues. In order to address this the engagement will focus on:
    • Assisting stakeholders to focus on key aspects of the standard where there is new and/or altered content.
    • Encouraging more open discussion across interests and chambers so that feedback from stakeholders can consider other views regarding draft outcomes and the compromises required.
    The FSC Australia website will be updated in the next fortnight to inform people how they can participate.

  85. Lyndall Rowley

    March 6, 2016 at 8:39 pm

    Mark Poynter #6: Your experience with forestry shows; and I’m just a lay-person in this field. So I’d be interested to read more about your statement that: “burnt and reseeded harvested native forests develop all the previous characteristics of pre-harvesting … “.

    Do you mean an unharvested forest will return to its previous state after being harvested, burnt and reseeded?

    If so, please provide some evidence for this. I need some serious convincing. It would be useful if you could provide some case study information regarding pre- and post-harvesting native (animal and plant) species diversity as well as habitat characteristics (vegetation classification, structure, age etc).
    Thanks.

  86. Alison Bleaney

    March 6, 2016 at 8:35 pm

    FYI
    Thank you for your participation to date in the development of the FSC Australia – Forest Stewardship Standard (FSCA-FSS) to date.

    As you know Draft 2 of the Standard was released on 3 August 2015 for consultation and concluded at the end of September 2015. However, a number of stakeholders requested extensions and therefore the consultation period was extended until 13 October 2015.

    A number of issues and themes came out of consultation on Draft 2 of the FSCA-FSS, concerning both content of the standard and process:

    1. Several industry submissions raised concerns about the status of the different annexes and the risk of undue complexity on forest managers.
    2. Similarly on the industry side a consistent theme was a desire to see more recognition of existing Australia laws and codes of practice.
    3. Industry feedback also expressed a strong desire to see a better differentiation between requirements for large, medium and small foresters.
    4. A number of submissions from environmental and social stakeholders raised concerns about differential treatment for native versus plantation forestry in different parts of the standard as well.
    5. Stakeholder engagement requirements and the interests of local stakeholders, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, were raised as important issues for a number of submitters.
    6. At a more general level considerable concerns were raised about the outstanding ‘red box’ issues where items in the standard such as old growth HCVs, riparian protection and worker’s rights. A number of stakeholders noted the potential that such important issues would only been open to comment once.

  87. Jack lumber

    March 6, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Dear ed

    I have had my suspicions that vine veneer and Karl Stevens are one and the same and he is chasing not to post on the same tread . M
    I suspect this as both related any article on for try to
    1 Sarawak
    2 references to IFA
    3 the tone and stay,r has the same signature

    This is a serious matter I am raising and normally one would let it through but VV post today on this thread is just gold

    Leave it with you and look at the evidence

  88. Vince Veneer

    March 6, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    Another comment here has referred to ‘Ecology and Silviculture of Eucalypt Forests’ by R.G. Florence.

    R.G. Florence was a lecturer at the ANU School of Forestry and a winner of the ‘NW Jolly Medal’ and a member of the Institute of Foresters.

    Thanks very much for confirming the veracity of comment 2.

  89. Alison Bleaney

    March 6, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    And in Victoria:
    The latest updates from FSC certified operations in the Strzelecki Ranges.

    http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/16mar.htm

    NB the FSC auditors have just been through 2 months ago, to properly audit the breaches highlighted on the webpage, and they won’t be back for another 10 months!!

    Is this the standard Tassie is desperate to achieve, but can’t quite get there..yet?
    Really?

  90. Mike Bolan

    March 6, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    #6 Still arguing for forestry as it is practiced Mark? Mr Gilbert points out some of the reasons (i.e. logically connected) that Forestry Tasmania is effectively insolvent, and why it’s own choices are the cause.

    Given your self proclaimed deep knowledge of forestry in Tasmania, why do you think Forestry Tasmania needs constant infusions of public monies to keep it afloat?

  91. john Hayward

    March 6, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    You have to remember that FT doesn’t own the trees it sells for faint songs to outfits such as Ta Ann. For some reason neither Libs nor Labs seem to care about FT’s losses either, possibly for the same reasons.

    What is harder to work out is why the Tas electorate, which ends up with the bill, plus the environmental costs, is likewise indifferent.

    John Hayward

  92. Chris

    March 6, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Great true article, will the NEW minister for Forestry read it, not if he can help it and if he does will he and Will have the intestinal fortitude to do something about it.

    Why are we waiting?

    Since the 1960’s we have paid out $630 million to the corrupt systems and the lovely lovely lovely people who took part in this rort and continue to be free, they should be deprived of their liberty (and seats where applicable) alongside those who do protest too much.

    Will we wait again, Peter eat up your brekky and show us some honesty and do something.

    Why are we waiting?

  93. Jack Lumber

    March 6, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    Dear Nicholas
    Thank you for the article and a couple of points and questions

    1 . There is a subscript on the photo that makes reference to a load limit a bridge . This may be true . Is it a fact or an inference that the limit on the bridge is not being observed ? There have bee a few references to this in previous posts and yest no evidence to back it up . Nicholas , if you didn’t provide the label , then it is possibly an example of poor editorial practice

    2 Choice of Silviculture You have described a system used in NSW . What was the forest type ?and the outcome the forest owner was seeking .? The point you appears to be making is about selective harvesting systems V clearfell .

    There are indeed situations where CF is not appropriate , but your observation lacks enough information to be able to make a fair assessment of your comment . Can you provide more information

    Have you read Ecology and Silviculture of Eucalypt Forests by R.G. Florence ?

    ( I would recommend it as a excellent reference and i have a copy which i refer to regularly )

    Who else on TT has read it ??

    3 As to the other observations , I did not see any objective observations just opinions . Well that is my opinion .

    4 Where is Atrazine being used at Flowerdale ?

    I look forward to the information you provide and then we can continue the discussion .

    It is good to see that for once the discussion on TT has progressed passed ideological myopia to acknowledging forest management , which can include harvesting as an option(or not) , is considered. That is not saying harvesting is the only option , in fact doing nothing can also be a valid decision .

    Others will post and suggest i am pro logging . Not at all. As i said it may make sense not to harvest in a forest .

    To date , there have not been a coherent narrative based on facts .

    Speculation and sensationalization have been the MO of many on any aspect of the Flowerdale coupe .

    Lets keep it simple and get back to the bridge ….. what are the facts

    regards
    Jack

  94. MJF

    March 6, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    The author clearly thinks all clearfelling is unsustainable while selective logging automatically becomes sustainable.

    Please define ‘sustainable’ in terms of current forestry

    Is it not what kind of harvest but how much harvesting is the key factor in any harvesting being sustainable or not ?

    I say you can have a clearfelled aggregate (shock, horror, no good, thats not on, lets invade a worksite) or a much larger selective logged area (yes….nice, feels much cosier, very western European) but still fail the sustainability test in either case.

    Please advise how much volume is added via annual growth across Tasmania’s production native forests and how much is removed via harvesting.

    Clearfelling and achieving sustainablity are not mutually exclusive, the punters are simply coerced on every TT forestry related article into believing they are, bar none.

    I don’t know one way or the other as I don’t have the statistical data but then again I’m not making sweeping statements about it either.

  95. Mark Poynter

    March 6, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    Hi Nicholas

    No doubt you will be patted on the back for this effort ….. such is the Tas Times anti-forestry group think.

    A trap for laypersons in relation to Tasmanian forestry is to come out with strong opinions and assertions that are disproportionate to your actual knowledge, and to simply accept without question a whole heap of other presumptions regularly made by the anti-forestry crowd which may not be right.

    With all due respect, despite your qualifications and life experience you seem to have fallen for this trap.

    Chief amongst these seems to be your mistaken presumption that every harvested native forest will become a plantation rather than being reseeded to regrow as a native forest.

    There is a huge difference – the former involves soil cultivation, planting in rows, fertilising, and herbicide use; while the latter does not. In addition, burnt and reseeded harvested native forests develop all the previous characteristics of pre-harvesting, including abundant wattles and ferns which you seem to be suggesting will be absent.

    You have made much of the lack of future resource without reflecting that perhaps, just perhaps, that the over-reservation of huge areas of forests in parks reserves may have played a large part in this.

    You have also made many other highly contestable assertions, but like most foresters who used to read this site more often, there is little point in me wasting any more time in trying to give you another perspective on the rationale of forest management.

    I could suggest though that if you are genuinely interested in the topic the last thing you should do is believe everything you read on TT, and go and look at some areas logged and regenerated (not plantations) perhaps 5, 10, or 20 years previously …. you may be surprised.

  96. Mike Bolan

    March 6, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    Nicely described. Over an extended period, Bob McMahon and I surveyed how forestry impacted Tasmanian communities over to determine how the proposed Gunns pulp mill might affect Tasmania. It emerged that Jaakko Poyry and other ‘consultants’ were pushing Australian governments to ‘go plantations’ in the 50/60s presumably to line them up for selling pulp and paper mills. The messages at the time appeared to be all about ‘sustainability, profits from pulp and paper, and apppealing to conservationists’. The entire line of argument led to an ‘industrial forestry’ model in which everything was cut down (for reasons of efficiency) and replaced with plantations (efficiency again – no ground space wasted on unnecessary trees!).

    Whatever, no thought appeared to be given to the time taken for quality timber to grow, because regrowth times were reduced because the timber would be used as fibre – uses for whole timber were minimised. Gunns began calling itself a fibre supplier rather than a timber giant (!?). Again no consideration was given to the risks of becoming a low-price/high-volume commodity (fibre) compared to a supplier of high-price/low-volume specialty products (fine timbers) presumably because there was no significant difference in fibre.

    It emerged that to make ‘industrial forestry’ work (i.e. justify the purchase of pulp and paper mills), Gunns would pretty much have to convert much of Northern Tasmania to plantations and so placed consideration of impacts of their ‘wood supply’ areas beyond consideration in their misnamed Environmental Impact Statement.

    So the pulp/paper mill suppliers persuaded governments of the benefits of ‘industrial forestry’ by leaving out any consideration of risks or negative impacts (denialism), while our study indicated that the entire proposition was dominated by negative factors.

    So exciting were the ‘benefits only’ descriptions of wealth and fame from ‘industrial forestry’ that the Tasmanian Labor government ‘approved’ the mill after paying $A 1/2million to a pulp mill supplier for a benefits only ‘assessment’ of the project. As soon as the government was given ‘approval to proceed’, Gunns began the process of going seriously broke. Whether they even understood that there actually were risks was unclear as at one AGM, when John Gay was asked about risks he said “there aren’t any risks”, so how deeply into self-delusion the various parties were is unknown.

    Suffice to say that reason, logic and common sense had been comprehensively overturned by fantasy, denial and greed. It’s not a pretty story is it?

  97. Ted Mead

    March 6, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    I think the average citizen is light years away from understanding what broad-scale commercial logging and its associated insidious activities have upon the impact of the natural environment, and its repercussions to human physical and mental health.

    Of course big business, corruption, and the greed of the almighty $ is the driving factor, so as long as that thinking remains the problems will only exacerbate.

    Inevitably FT will succumb to its own demise of questionable ethics and myopic ideology, but there is little indication that the exploitative power brokers will err in their ways whilst they see virtually free resource extraction of nature as a means to a wealthy end.

    It will take an enormous shift in human thinking on a global scale to understand the inherent thread of what we do to nature we do to ourselves.

  98. Derbytas

    March 6, 2016 at 11:27 am

    Eloquently put Nicholas

  99. Vince Veneer

    March 6, 2016 at 11:15 am

    The so-called ‘science’ behind clearfell is actually very limited indeed.
    The Australian Forestry School was established by the state forestry commissions in Canberra in 1927. VicForests setup a smaller forest school at Creswick that still operates today. The Australian Forestry School was eventually merged into the ANU when that university was created. John Hawkins rightly pointed-out on Tasmanian Times that all of the Forestry Tasmanian foresters were graduates of the ANU School of Forestry:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/the-anu-graduates-of-1975-forestry-tasmania-ta-ann-tasmania-and-captain-rol

    Nearly all are also members of the Institute of Foresters AU.

    This extremely ‘interbred’ academic lineage of IFA-ANU gave birth to all current native forestry harvesting techniques such as clearfell.

    In a nutshell, the textbook on managing native forests in Australia is less than 100 years old in forests with a rotation of 100 years!

    They made it all up because only the state forestry commissions had the legal authority to destroy public forests and they needed a textbook to give them legitimacy.

    The only thing that has changed today is that Southern Cross University now has a forestry course.

    The current CEO of Forestry Tasmania is ex-Southern Cross. Australian foresters all work from the same textbook because they wrote the textbook.

    The traditional career path is: Graduate from the ANU, spend decades destroying public forests and public ecosystems often at a loss, degrade the climate, ecology and biodiversity of Australia and then get awarded the ‘NW Jolly Medal’ from the Institute of Foresters Au.

    Interestingly, when the pressure is on, the Institute allows selective harvesting as they have just done with river red gums in NSW. They don’t have to in Tasmania because they can getaway with whatever they like here. It seems many foresters were sent here by the ANU to exploit Tasmanian forests. Some Tasmanian foresters that attended the ANU walked away in disgust as their mainland colleagues were relocated here to destroy Tasmanian forests.

    IFA foresters all claim the harvesting is ‘sustainable’. The problem is climate change has made each rotation much longer and more unpredictable.
    I’m guessing the IFA-ANU are not factoring-in climate change to their rotation times, although they are causing climate change.

    So the ‘science’ of forestry in Australia was developed by the same agencies that were exploiting forests and the main career option for graduates was to join an agency exploiting forests.

  100. Pete Godfrey

    March 6, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Welcome to the TT Nicholas Gilbert. Thankyou for your contribution, many folk have been saying the same thing now here for decades, the more the merrier.

    I am still hopeful that one day we will win and we will be able to fly over and drive around Tasmania and see well managed forests. As you say it is going to take decades to undo the damage done by the woodchippers and peeler log driven lunacy.

    The image I see is of someone walking down the road throwing all their loose change away, plus any banknote less than $50 because they only want big money. That is my picture of FT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top