The protection of Tasmania’s globally unique wilderness assets is taking a distant second place to the desires of a selected handful of developers under the Liberal Government.
While Matthew Groom’s secretive Expressions of Interest process takes place behind closed doors, the Parks and Wildlife Service is being politicised by the Liberal agenda to exploit the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.
In its submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission in response to more than 7500 public representations, the Parks and Wildlife Service makes it clear the Liberals’ political decision to remove the Wilderness zoning from the TWWHA was a mistake.
That said, the recognition and consideration of wilderness values in assessing development proposals in the TWWHA continues to be downplayed in the PWS submission.
Worryingly, the PWS submission also proposes that the new TWWHA management plan will be a vehicle for inappropriate commercial infrastructure in wilderness areas, reflecting Minister Groom’s plan to exploit the wilderness for the profit of a few.
As an example, the PWS submission proposes to set ‘a cap’ of six huts along the wild and unspoiled South Coast Track, where there is currently no built accommodation and where, conveniently, an EOI proponent wishes to build up to five huts.
As another example, the PWS submission proposes to cap the number of private huts on the Overland Track at twelve, doubling the number of huts currently on the Track and dovetailing nicely with a selected proponent’s plans.
This is a clear corruption of process.
The objective of the World Heritage Management Plan cannot be to facilitate inappropriate development that damages wilderness values.
It is alarming that the World Heritage Area Management Plan continues to be drafted in a manner that will enable increased commercial development in the TWWHA.
There is clear need for the Tasmanian Planning Commission to hold public hearings in to future management of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.
The Tasmanian people are entitled to have a say on the Liberals’ plans to exploit the wilderness for the profit of a few favoured developers.
*A copy of the Parks and Wildlife Service submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission can be found here:
http://www.iplan.tas.gov.au/Temp/TrimDownload_774627.PDF
• Vica Bayley: Wilderness protection underdone in TWWHA Management Plan response …
Claire Gilmour
April 17, 2016 at 02:09
Supporting plantations, especially e.niten plantations is a precursor to many of the ills you suggest need fixing.
So if you want to be ‘wild’ and really want to be environmentally sustainable … go natural …
George Harris
April 18, 2016 at 02:00
Geez, Claire, are you advocating for the harvesting of native forests? Have you made the link that the sustainable management, harvesting and regeneration of native forests is actually better than plantations? I hope this attitude catches on!
Jack Lumber
April 18, 2016 at 14:14
re 2 hello George .. welcome back
There is a place for both plantations and native forest . Both produce different products and currently the chance of substitution is limited BUT it will come but there will still be a need for both
Your observation re Ms Gilmour sentiment is a good one
I wonder how she and others feel re the impending DD and election . Hopefully McKim will be rightfully relegated back to the village he came from and it will be intrsting to see what policies the Australian Green post
George Harris
April 19, 2016 at 15:57
Hi Jack, (#3), I’m not really back, I just broke my self-imposed exile because a friend mentioned a post on another thread, and I just happened to notice Claire’s comment.
I agree there is a place for plantations, but I prefer timber from native forests, it is better to work with from my point of view. Also, native forests provide natural habitat between rotations, which is something Radiata Pine plantations cannot do. It is against the law to harvest public native forest and then turn it into plantations, which is as it should be. No problem with establishing plantations of any variety on redundant agricultural land.
Meanwhile, the following link shows how important and valuable timber can be, and why more so-called conservationists and climate-worriers should support it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/305966160/Why-Timber Cheers, George the woodworker…
Claire Gilmour
April 19, 2016 at 16:30
Yep, I’d much rather small scale selective native forest harvesting than the e.niten debacle. No poisons, no burning, no trashed waterways, no Forestry Tasmania and political minions selling the state short. Preferably on private land and never in world heritage areas. Encourage people to grow native forests on marginal farm land … many a long term benefit there. I have said this from day dot, so no amazing revelation there.