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


Mining the last Old-Growth …

*Pic: Logging at Catamaran. Picture: Daniel Haley

First published June 10

Some comments on my earlier article entitled The Forestry Insanity ( HERE ) suggested that I estimate the dollar value of support for the forest industry in the decade following my earlier report. That is a major task but no-one doubts that it would be a large figure.

To substantiate, let me offer just four recent examples.

• Schedule A of the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (May 2013) itemises $387.4m of support.

• As Minister for Forests Guy Barnett put it in his Ministerial Statement of 26 October 2016, describing the recent activities of Forestry Tasmania, “The only way the business was able to survive was by the former Government pumping in over $100 million to enable it to continue to trade”

• The bleeding has continued under the current government – in 2015 there was a cash injection of $30m, made via TasNetworks, and in 2016 another $26.5m.

• Let’s wait and see what further cash injections will be made in 2017, but in the meantime Forestry Tasmania’s unfunded superannuation liability ($153m as at 30 June 2016) is to be foisted on the taxpayer rather than the forest industry.

Without going into further detail totting up all the other odds and ends going back over the past decade, one doesn’t require a particularly firm grasp of balance sheets or cost accounting to make the case that the forest industry has received eye-watering amounts of support in recent times.

My article wasn’t meant to imply that Minister Barnett isn’t aware of this. He is, as his ministerial statement ( HERE ) makes clear.

No doubt some of the money was meant to compensate people who had existing contractual rights which weren’t going to be honoured. Fair enough.

But what I was arguing was that, after all this money has been spent, has it achieved its objectives?

One objective was to promote regional development by means of establishing commercially viable forest-based industries.

In his comments on my earlier article, Mark Poynter argues along these lines – that money for the forest industries is good because it promotes regional development. He argues that the alternative is rising unemployment.

When the pharaohs built the pyramids it employed a great many slaves, promoted short-term regional activity and increased Egyptian GDP. But an alternative might have been to use the slaves to improve irrigated agriculture based on the Nile. Employment and GDP would rise, as with the pyramid building. But in the second alternative the slaves get more to eat on a sustainable basis.

Rather than as Mark Poynter seems to suggest, the alternative to permanent support for the forest industry is not unemployment. Support can be used for other activities.

If regional forest industries still rely for their survival, after all this support, on wood supply provided at give-away prices, then it is time for a rethink.

Minister Barnett’s forestry bill (now being considered by the legislative council) does not face up to the need for a rethink. It proposes to open up new areas for forest harvesting, with under-priced wood supply.

Mr Barnett’s regional development strategy simply perpetuates the policy of mining the last old growth forests with little likelihood of promoting sustainable growth in the regions.

At least the pharaohs left some impressive ruins to show for their regional development policy.

*Associate Professor Graeme Wells (UTAS) was formerly at the Tasmanian School of Business and Economics at UTAS.

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

The Forestry Insanity

• Gordon Bradbury in Comments: The Tasmanian Government is threatening to “seek a fresh mandate” if the Legislative Council does not pass its forestry legislation. This reminds me very much of the 1981 “No Dams” Referendum when 45% of Tasmanian voters defied the State Parliament and wrote “No Dams” on their ballot paper. That referendum was the turning point in the dams campaign … If the State Government wants to play high stakes forest politics then the community should take on the challenge. Let us send a very clear message to the Tasmanian Parliament that we want the forestry madness to end, by supporting a “No Forestry” election campaign.

Watch HERE: This documentary is now 8 years old and details an interesting time in forestry in Tasmania. Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania were given the opportunity to have their views included in the film, but refused.

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


  1. spikey

    June 18, 2017 at 1:10 am

    take a bow billy boulder
    someones still polishing turds

  2. MjF

    June 13, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    If you want to call it off over a little fib from you then so be it…………
    Goodness knows what our mutual friend thinks of your theatrics. I’ll ask him.

    What was the article about ?

  3. Mjf

    June 12, 2017 at 10:46 pm

    Nice edit spike. Refer back to RCH would your best option.

    Sorry you’ve heard enough …….you know…….. what you said. was it long coming or a quick fill ?

    Answer acceptable by picture if you desire

    will the underloaded William come clean ……….. will he or won’t he, simple enough.


    No interest in your diversionary divisions but good concept for military minds. Could be useful to j Hawkins.

    Stop wasting your time, internet plan and vitamins. Shout out if it gets smoky again.

    You do your thing and I’ll do mine.

  4. William Boeder.

    June 12, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    Fitch- you are wasting your time now that you have finally revealed your inner being, then that I have already suggested that your time could be better directed to your – to me – inflated account of your memoirs.
    Say what you will I shall no longer be drawn into any further direct comment toward yourself.
    Long may the disputed weight of that log-truck fester in your mind, I personally have moved on from the imprecise weight of that trucks particular load of logs, no doubt the driver of that truck would like to have you desist all reference to something you had never witnessed yourself.
    I would like to further add to your inner person, that as from hereon in your credibility has been consigned to the same repository as contains a number of former pro-logging shills that have torpedoed their credibility in the like manner you are now more revealingly engaged in.

    I now propose to forward my already prepared letter to another of the atrocious governance guilty persons in this State, this time it will be directed to the State logging minister (that in my own studied opinion is) that he appears quite comfortable in that he depicts the almost identical side-winding attributes known to the specie of an “American Rattle-snake” for he often copies that method of deferring matters in a side-winding lateral fashion when the matter of Liberal ministerial probity will raise its ugly child-frightening-head.
    Of course I am referring to Mr Guy Barnett MP who will no doubt easily recognizedhis personal self as I have opined and represented so accurately in the above.
    I further propose to send a copy of this Guy Barnett MP letter on to the much respected former, yet now Shadow Federal Attorney General, to better illustrate to Mr Mark Dreyfus QC the destructive pro-logging allegiances as are held by Tasmania’s most sinister & deceptive minister Guy Barnett.

  5. spikey

    June 12, 2017 at 8:23 pm


    I think he already answered you, in depth, sorry if you have trouble keeping up.

    yet you keep waffling on about your opinion on what he saw… i tend to dismiss your opinions these days, i’ve heard enough deliberately diversionary offensive crap to last me a lifetime

    in the interests of knowledge sharing, i’m surprised nobody from the industry has enlightened us about what’s planned for bruny…unless you count george’s contribution, hilarious, or lumbers polishing, or even funnier, guy’s media releases

    RCH informs me ‘as Mark Poynter, George Harris and MJF who are well aligned on current forestry matters.’

    does your ‘brains’ trust alliance think fences are more of a threat to swift parrots than forestry apologists wanting to log bruny?

    would you like a picture yet?


  6. max

    June 12, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    # 19 MJF Two similar words with different meanings, diversion and division. Diversion is what any good soldier creates when he is losing the fight and in full retreat (diversion – redirecting, deflection )
    Division ( dividing up, breaking up ) Division is what you are trying to do,

    MJF, May i suggest that you read carefully before retaliating and honesty is what we are still waiting for you to give us.

  7. Mnf

    June 12, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    Let’s ask the man.

    Boeder – why was it necessary to include bullshit in your post #8 by stating the log truck was over-loaded when you don’t know that ?

    Why did you not say “suspected as being over-loaded but may not be because I don’t actually really know” ?

    Do you think it better to include a reference to something illegal which by inference then casts a dubious air over the legalities of the whole situation and the wider industry ?

    Is that the objective ?

    In an otherwise eloquent post according to spike who asks why I challenged a part of it which I have already explained. Sorry spike if you’re having trouble keeping up. You can always not read me and dedicate your time elsewhere.

    On the off chance you do give me another run, thks re Brunii. Pardon my curiosity but you sound in the know there.

    What are they felling there ? Any first hand knowledge such as have you been to an active coupe and seen 1st hand which trees are felled ? Have you read the felling prescriptions in use ?

  8. William Boeder.

    June 12, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    #19. So Martin you have sold your soul to the logging syndrome sufferers that are still scattered thinly on the ground in Tasmania.
    In my opinion you have revealed the inner MJF
    you have kept somewhat revealed over the years. Are you in anyway associated or attached to the pack that serve the best interests of Ta Ann in preference to the best interests of Tasmania?

    Maybe you could join the false-spieling Old Growth logging fiends or mates or whatever within this State and suggest a party among each of yourselves with sly Guy Barnett your honoured guest and possibly mentor.
    Recently a person rang and sought an opinion of personal self, unfortunately I had replied in the positive, in the belief you held to some sort of decency and strength of character, just goes to prove how I had assessed your personal self in the most inaccurate manner.

    Your attitude is not unlike that of Robin Gray and the former State’s Crown Land raping overlord of the Tasmanian Lib/Lab government being one John Gay.
    Amazing how the judiciary officials in this State of Tasmania were surreptitiously batting for John Gay team of crooked principled persons rather than the team forward thinking persons fighting to retain the World Heritage listed Ancient Forests.
    Shortly after the deceptive Tasmanian Liberals under the thumb of the controversial Senator (that had continually exposed himself to the pro-logging rodents in this State) to be decidedly anti-the-Tasmanian-citizens.
    The likes of former false-spieling logging besotted Liberal minister Paul Harriss determined he would side with the Crown Land rapists rather than honour his promise in front of the then State’s Governor “to serve the best interests of the State’s citizens” as have all of these turncoat promising persons the have faced the State Governor to receive each new State representative minister, what a shameful sham this swearing in of persons who had at that time misled the entire of Tasmania.

    So as soon as the going was clear Abetz and Harriss sought to overturn the World Heritage listed status of our Ancient forests so to enable access to the destructive forces off Forestry Tasmania. (AKA the State’s biggest losers.)

    Long may you enjoy your friendship with the disloyal, in my view, to Tasmania Forestry Tasmania destructors. MJF.

  9. Chris

    June 12, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Dont worry, shop at Barnett’s clear fell store, now with extra bargains, mineral leases on sale at Parliament House and at a bargain price too, farming land may now be cleared of those pesky trees and Gunn’s lesson recalled, you scratch my lease and I will turn my Fish farm into a lucrative source of political donation for the State’s benefit.

    Further incentive can now be taken from what Put In is now doing, following our example of arresting those dissident louts who dare to question our Ticket Wrangler’s policy of obedience at a cost of 10 grand if ya fall outa line plus a sojourn in the jug.
    No use calling for a Halton the practice because this Island is owned by the exploiters and their political mates who can make a quick buck and disappear into the Forest or on a coastal track to see whats under a midden.
    Welcome to Abetzland !

  10. spikey

    June 12, 2017 at 3:12 pm


    You didn’t see the truck.

    Why do you need to invent bullshit relating to drugs?
    If william’s eloquent posts are political rambles unworthy of challenge, why are you challenging them?

    Bruny is an island off SE tasmania. It is one of the last refuges for swift parrots, which have suffered terribly from persecution on the mainland, and fences, and sugar glider predation and from habitat and food tree destruction by an insane corrupt charity.

    I’m not sure if you read TT, but there was an article posted a couple of days ago regarding the industry’s intention to log on bruny: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/birdlife-australia-calls-for-immediate-end-to-the-tasmanian-rfa-and-logging/

    Sorry for all the long words, and no piccies, yet.

  11. MjF

    June 12, 2017 at 11:45 am

    Good point max if it were true. The weight of a load is neither here nor there, agreed.

    The question I ask is why does Border feel the need to invent bullshit to add to his mix ?

    Totally unnecessary to state the truck was overloaded when he has no evidence of such. I almost surprised he didn’t add the driver was drug effected, just for good measure and equally without foundation.

    The rest of his political ramblings in #8 are his opinion which I have no interest in but he can rightly hold. Would be hard to substantiate one way or another of someone did wish to challenge them.

    Speaking of creating divisions, I reckon your post exemplifies that objective quite well. Have a re-read of yourself and appraise it honestly.

    # 18 what’s the go with Brunii?

  12. spikey

    June 11, 2017 at 11:36 pm

    #15 mJF

    shouldn’t you be trying to answer to the accusations against you instead of trying to belittle people?

    the gangs gone a little quiet on bruny and lilydale…sheesh, used to be hard to get a comment in edgewise with all the polishing going on

  13. max

    June 11, 2017 at 10:04 pm

    # 15 MJF What the hell has a load of logs over weight, under weight or what ever got to do with any thing. I know, thats what do when you are losing the battle, create a diversion, what else can you do, you are in full retreat from a no win situation.

  14. William Boeder

    June 11, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    #15. Given your long term career associated with the insidious long term logging affiliation and or be it association with this State’s, World’s Best Practices famed log-supplier to the wood-chipping-mill owners, the Chinese log importation agencies then your invoices sent to the now bankrupt and busted former Gunns Ltd anarchy that once ruled the State of Tasmania you have enjoyed a long successful career as a forestry aiding authority-wielding professional, who could possibly interfere or doubt your assessment of what can and cannot be logged wildlife-habitats and environmental sensitivity realms could then be put to the chainsaw.
    Obviously you ranked high in the eyes of the State government logging aficionado’s they fervently intent on wasting taxpayer revenues to satisfy the blind and ridicuous urges of a former dubious Premier and succession of incompetent forests ministers you may soon become the recipient of an Australian medal for services to the destructive logging propensity of Tasmania, so well done mJF (or Martin.)
    Furthermore you would not have been troubled by the invoice paying desk-jockey who would not and could not challenge any of your requests for payment for your highly authorised logging plans and services you have rendered.
    You must have felt comforted by the fact that the paymaster knowing your invoice was never going to be questioned nor your ability to prepare same.

    Given the fact also, that nobody in government would ever call upon you for an invoice “request for clarification” as there never existed anyone in this State (in being governed by an ongoing interbred cluster of disinterested in reality State ministers) thus your integrity could never be questioned.
    Therefore I believe it is time to revisit your non-opaque method and means of obtaining a favourable 5% eucalyptus species population in a small boxed in area configuration.
    For it is my contention that this method of assessing what forest logging plans were said to contain more than a miniscule 5% of eucalyptus species trees therein is not at all comprehendible.

    One must try to accept with firm belief and the understanding of how a high elevated photographic imaging device could provide you with the accuracy of fact and the validation “based on a canopy cover and colour variegation used to calculate the mythical 5%” as a legally acceptable tried and tested regimen to authorise the many tracts of whole mountain-sides of Old Growth Gondwanaland era ancient tree species to be put to the saw without any further regard.

    So for now I must return to my search for facts that can validate or verify this above-described wishful 5% calculation.

    You may have established your superior weight estimation mechanisms but you were erroneously convincing yourself that my comment was as you exaggerated it to be of an unsubstantiated low blow attack regarding truck loading weights, back in my day there were no sophisticated electronic weight gauging devices known to be installed in those former times.
    However I not able to accept that every log-truck driver would severely restrict their load weight to be within the weight parameters set for this
    regulation log-loaded safety weight carrying capacity.
    For example an interior located clearly viewable weighing instrument does not prevent further weight being added to one’s load when travelling along the State’s highways in the dark of night or by driver intentional avoidance of that which this sophisticated instrument does simply display.
    So for now I leave you with the freedom to continue writing your memoirs of your many exhaustive deeds and unforgiving exploitations into the steep and rugged wildernesses of Tasmania.
    Please be advised that I remain undaunted by your derisive and wholesome disregard to the substance of my comments, for that is the basis of most all responses by all the many characters that have attached themselves to the insidious profitless logging campaigns across this State.

  15. mJF

    June 11, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    So at least we now have “out in the field load-based estimations” underpinning your critique, William

    Your biased comment re truck overloading is based not on any science of measurement but simply your choice to stretch the truth a little by launching an unbsubstantiated low blow.

    Did you happen to glimpse the onboard scales while arriving at your “estimations? ”

    I also didn’t sieve through your entire #11 comment. Haven’t as yet perused paragraphs 2,3 & 4 as para. 1 was enough (as it usually is).

    During your career operating large capacity articulated fork lift tractors(?)presumably loading logs (but you didn’t confirm the actual commodity loaded), you may have observed different species of logs possess different densities and therefore no two species are the same weight/m3.

    You would also know that weight loss in logs commences immediately trees are felled so eyeballed load estimations would be a flawed method of determining legal weights and could be regarded as a basic guide only at best.

    Nothing of substance here from W Boeder.

  16. mike seabrook

    June 11, 2017 at 1:49 am

    if the forests had been sold off earlier, would have got rid of a lot of problems especially if land tax is paid on the forest lands, and also hit up the fish farmers on land tax on the sea farm resources effectively gifted to them

  17. William Boeder

    June 11, 2017 at 12:54 am

    #12. MjF, or may I call you Martin?
    I note how you have sieved the entire of my comment for the smallest imperfection and have then chosen to lampoon myself in the same manner as the cohort of yours Jack Lumber.
    No I do not disrespect you, I just cannot understand you.
    How you can choose to lecture me about units of measure, (no I did not mention the infamous fallacious inaccuracy of Mark (your mate) Poynter’s obfuscating percentages, just the same as I had challenged the 5% factor that you so often quoted, and at times so frequently erroneous.
    This percentile system you have often quoted of 5%is a misnomer that is based on the high canopy colour of the Eucalyptus tree canopy-spread-within in a small boxed in area of Crown Land native forest, or be they ancient native species with a huge lateral spreading canopy.
    Thus the reality is that one huge eucalyptus species can spread laterally and over-extend its flora identifying accuracy.
    Per another of your responding comments to my claims, you tell me I am no gentleman, even stating that I am a bully.
    If I may respond to that other referred to claim from you, yes indeed you are correct in regard to my not being a gentleman, so no Martin, no I am not a gentleman as I much prefer to be an advocate of the truth to events so frequently blown out of all sensible proportion.
    I refer to the types of events that only the State politicos and Tas Inc members would be foolhardy enough to believe.
    So you at least have got the diminutive character descriptive minutiae somewhere close to the facts.

    In my former working years I have loaded many trucks using large capacity articulated fork-lift tractors, so by way of an “in the field, eye line sight of the full length of the line of the specific straightness or level view of the trailer itself,a Road train truck (2 full length trailers) would identify its load capacity and or very close legal weight carrying limitations. This same in the field eyeball test applies to the restrictive shock absorber effectiveness and the axle-spring distension limitations of these particular trailers.
    I hope I have been able to aid your thinking mechanisms with the above “out in the field load-weight estimations.”
    As to demand, tis you that had claimed in your comment that log-truck drivers do not create a demand for logs, I did not state that in my comment.
    It is the next-stage processing facility that can and will often alter the rate of log demand.
    I hope that this little tip will further aid your knowledge of the flexibility available as transportation optional specifics peculiar to the loss creating Crown Land logging phenomenon that you are obviously most unaware of.
    (The word phenomenon I have chosen is far more accurate to that which is so often incorrectly claimed as ‘a viable’ industry.)

  18. mJf

    June 10, 2017 at 9:42 pm

    William, William….the question man. How was it determined to be overloaded ?

    Straightish close packed logs to very top of bolsters is not unit of measurement. That observation only demonstrates an ability to follow correct loading procedures.

    Demand I don’t believe is determined by enterprising drivers but a humorous angle by you none-the-less.

  19. William Boeder

    June 10, 2017 at 6:03 pm

    #10 MJF, the truck was loaded with quite recent felled heavy hardwood logs with a width of some (bark already removed) 45-50 centimetres and both trailers were loaded with close packed straight-ish trailer length logs to the very top of their bolsters.
    When you mention demand, is the demand you’ve claim based on the driver-owners trying to make a little extra loot.

    I prefer to speak up with the truism of simple fact here MJF, I make the claims that the State’s revenue raiding Ta Ann shonkyism should be pissed-off out of Tasmania, yet we have a blind-brained logging minister (the same as his past 3-4 predecessors) being supported by expensively installed legislative council members that also refuse to recognize the increasing bare landscapes of Tasmania.
    The latest non-qualified addition to these long-term surviving species known as MLC’s are, in my very own opinion, nothing more than blind-eyed and fact-ignoring legislating “traitors to our Tasmanian economy, I refer to a non-realist bigoted non-academic slight-in-intellect dubious nodding yes-man, bearing the sobriquet of Robert Armstrong.

    Tis a rotten shame wrought upon the people of Tasmania by this present State government that Blind Freddy is not allowed to testify his knowledge of the oft repeated claims by insider people in the know, that as well as Ta Ann demanding and consuming all the available hardwood peeler logs that have been negligently classed as peeler logs, that has become the brute cause of many tens of millions in operational losses per this State government’s spuriously detrimental claims.
    Have you ever tallied up the hundreds of million dollars amount of the wasted Forestry Tasmania logging dollars spent on satisfying an out-of-Tasmania internationally known corrupt-recognized-Sarawak -opportunistic-logging-outfit?
    Then add the losses accrued for consigning some 90-95% of native forest trees to the wood-chippers (spuriously claimed as forest residues.)

    When after your careful researching then you being able to confirm my fiscal claim to same, if you could please then ask the timid little bunny State Premier and his head shaven spokesperson if they would engage in this same exercise I would be grateful in your so doing.

    Thank you. William.

  20. MjF

    June 10, 2017 at 1:34 pm


    The answer to your night shift quandary is demand. Pretty odd turn of events I know since the woodchip industry is cactus……

    Curious to know how you determined the offending truck was overloaded ?

    Must have looked like it. Compelling enough case.

  21. William Boeder

    June 10, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    #75. Pete Godfrey, In this present State and the World in general there is an increasing trend that financial gain by deception and dishonest, or call it by way of criminal purpose, that vastly exceeds the rate of wealth creation and wealth accumulation as opposed to the slower rate of “honest endeavour through and by honest legal undertakings.”
    Even governments seek to engage in the desperate pursuit for higher or increaseed State and Federal revenues. One just has to think of Centrelink and their Robo benefit chopping persecutions. Albeit revenues retained, reduced and at times false brazen recovery.
    Look out if you haven’t retained your payment history of the time you did a bit of casual work.

    The flip-side of this revenue lust is not based on any propensity to spend Federal revenues any the wiser, but for a Federal Liberal government it will be to piss up against the wall.
    For example; the creation of rorts to further incentivise their party ministers to entertain and or to enlist new major corporate donors to their list, or for even higher donor sponsorship subscriptions.
    This is not unlike the US of A Clinton Foundation “pay to play” to access and or to better qualify the entry into already budgeted government funded programs.
    #74. Ian M, I read into your comment that the Gunns Ltd Chairman and or CEO as of that particular era had requested “the assumed assets belonging to a number of other persons” (known as registered covenant holders) that amount money then later being secreted into the general Gunns Ltd Bank trading account.
    The question now arises, were the assets seized and held in a Gunns Ltd Bank account by default being thereby became available to the Ferrets of Korda Mentha, “then were these new covenant assets falsely acquired?
    The answer here lays in the restrictions attached to the registered positive or negative covenants themselves.
    Once again the sly calculating bastardry of financial meddlers and pedlars (CFO’S) in this World, had already created a number of varying covenants.
    But of primary interest here is that the “Trustees or investment managers” that were obliged to invest these accumulating monies had actually invested portions of their ongoing superannuation fund member accumulations of their superannuation funds that were soon being directed into Forestry MIS schemes, (also there were commissions given to the investment persons) many of these over-promoted investment managers were never really interested in the security protection of such-like invested fund member investments and or covenants.
    One must forever consider that a Trustee is merely a go-between, not to be confused with a trusted person or a person someone is expected to trust. Consider the situation of an aggregation of accumulating superannuation moneys held by many superannation hosting fund entities that belongs to the many hundreds and thousands of working individuals,
    By the way

  22. William Boeder

    June 10, 2017 at 3:35 am

    There is little said about the volume of this State’s Old Growth Native Forests that travel by night and early morning along the Murchison highway, why so late in the dark hours if all is above board?
    An over-loaded log truck was stranded and blocking traffic on the road leading from the Bass Highway intersection heading up the road leading to upper Burnie.

    Wow, the size of those logs in width would please the Hampshire wood-chippers but then they only chip their own plantation timber as one is expected to believe.
    As for Guy Barnett, he would not know the difference between a woodchip and a fletch of wood, as long as they are from Native Forest logs rapidly plucked from their diminishing. presence in our now mostly former Crown Land Forests.
    Just how a person can be so unprincipled as I claim is this Logger-loving loud-mouth and rogue individual toward all of Tasmania, one may as well do A Guy Fawkes upon Tasmania’s quite useless house for sensible and reasoned discussion.
    Tis obvious that he be a close alley of A Ratfink Senator found loitering close to Highbury house down and around Davy Street in Hobart.
    Birds of a feather………….

  23. spikey

    June 9, 2017 at 8:32 pm

    misleading headings and contributions?

    like worlds best practice? fertile ash beds? mixed forest?

    or your own valuable contributions trev?

    tell me, in 90 year rotation how much harvestable myrtle do you get?

    actually it doesn’t matter, 90 year rotations have been chucked out the window like the joke they were

    we’re in the matchstick game these days

    maybe they are what Halton saw down on the wharf

  24. TGC

    June 9, 2017 at 5:55 pm

    There’s no end to it, is there?- misleading ‘headings’ or contributions.
    “Mining the last Old Growth’ suggests that -‘never again will there be ‘old growth’on that site.
    Now, granted it may take many years – a great many years- before there can again be ‘old growth’ on that site- but it is entirely possible- and can be achieved. A current TT’er wouldn’t see the result -although many can now see – and harvest- the end result of the regrowth on previous ‘mine’ sites of substantial timber.
    Most definitions of mining- indeed all of them- confine to the extraction from within the ground of products- ores,coal etc. -usually resulting in a bloody great hole in the ground. Harvesting trees by almost any methods creates a space in which new trees can grow- and be made to grow,
    Mine coal etc- it’s a long, long, long wait for the next lot.

  25. spikey

    June 9, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    Slow down Graeme,

    We’re still waiting for George’s eloquent response to your last stupid article, with pictures.

    The rest of the gang sure did a great job of refuting your claims.

    I’d hate to feel like a dickhead for waiting.

    I would really like to know why the spokesperson for industry has such a different view to your good self.

    I’ve heard there are two sides to the forestry debate. Are you a lying greeny?

  26. Gordon Bradbury

    June 9, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    The Tasmanian Government is threatening to “seek a fresh mandate” if the Legislative Council does not pass its forestry legislation. This reminds me very much of the 1981 “No Dams” Referendum when 45% of Tasmanian voters defied the State Parliament and wrote “No Dams” on their ballot paper. That referendum was the turning point in the dams campaign.


    If Hodgman & Co wish to seek a “fresh mandate” I would be very happy to support an alternative mandate to shut down public native forestry and end the madness once and for all, with a “No Forestry” campaign.

    Just like the 1981 Referendum, a State election will not offer the Tasmanian community any real forest policy alternatives.

    If the State Government wants to play high stakes forest politics then the community should take on the challenge.

    Let us send a very clear message to the Tasmanian Parliament that we want the forestry madness to end, by supporting a “No Forestry” election campaign.

  27. john Hayward

    June 9, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    I am wondering if Prof Wells’ calculations of FT subsidies include the value of the 77,809ha of State Forest plantation surreptitiously transferred as freehold to FT under the deed provided by the Tas Parliament requiring that FT surrender land of equal value to the Crown, which everyone presumed would be State Forest Crown land …


    Given the appalling chronic damage to water catchments, public health, tourist amenity, public finances, how much longer do Tasmanians have to put up with political pretences that the logging industry is being subsidised in the public interest?

    The Auditor-General’s reluctant report on the matter conceded that he was unable to locate any of this surrendered freehold land, which FT should not logically have possessed in any case, and whose area would have exceeded that of the plantation they received. Nonetheless, he officially concluded that the transaction was in order.

    Conservatively, the plantation land handed to FT would have been worth at least $200m at the time

    John Hayward

  28. Andrew Denman

    June 9, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    Nice picture of the TWWHA.

  29. Gordon Bradbury

    June 9, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Thankyou Graeme.

    As a point of historical context, when I was doing my Forestry degree at ANU in the late 1970s the course was pretty much entirely focused on the “science” of growing trees and managing forests. Forestry as a commercial activity was never mentioned.

    There was just one unit in the course called Forest Economics. It was an optional unit, not compulsory, and very few students bothered with it. I did it and it opened my eyes to basic economic theory.

    Remember this was before the days of the Hawke/Keating economic reforms when all sorts of Government activity was classed as “community service” including wood production.

    That heritage of Government run community service forestry, plus the low level of basic economic training and understanding, goes a long way to explaining why we are in the mess we are in. Never mind the fact that rent seeking sawmillers have pretty much dictated forest policy in this country from day 1.

    And so now we have foresters coming out and demanding taxpayer subsidies as their God given right.

    As Graeme points out, there are jobs that earn a living (by making a profit. This is what farmers do, they earn a living) and jobs that cost a living (by making a loss. This is what forestry workers do). As the New Zealanders show us every day, trees can be grown profitably, but in Australia we chose the loss making model.

    I believe that forestry education and training in Australia still lacks basic commercial/economic content. So things wont improve anytime soon.

Leave a Reply

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

To Top