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

‘Tasmanian regional forest agreement delivers $1.3bn losses in ‘giant fraud’ on taxpayer

Forestry Tasmania’s total cash losses were $454m over 20 years, with a write-down of $751m in value of forest estate …

First published March 29

The first Tasmanian regional forest agreement, signed between the state and the commonwealth in 1997, was supposed to start an era in which forestry was both ecologically and economically sustainable.

In fact the last 20 years have been a financial disaster for forest management in Tasmania.

According to my calculations, Forestry Tasmania’s total operating cash losses over the 20 years from 1997-2017 are $454m.

The annual reports of Forestry Tasmania from 1997 to 2017 (if you can understand what the accounts don’t say) and the 2008 report of the Tasmanian auditor general, reveal that the regional forest agreement (RFA) has comprehensively failed to deliver on its “economically sustainable” promise.

Yet the state government continues to see things differently. Tasmania’s resources minister, Guy Barnett, says he believed the existing RFA had allowed the industry to operate “responsibly and competitively” and support jobs as well as having “significant environmental outcomes”.

The early RFA years were profitable – underpinned by a massive boom in industrial logging and the export of low-value woodchips – but cash operating surpluses have persistently declined since 2004. The past 10 years reveal substantial and ongoing deficits, with income not covering all operating costs …

Read more here

John Lawrence on Tasfintalk here: Forestry Tasmania and the RFA

Greens: Time for Transparency and Change in Forestry

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

85 Comments

  1. Gordon Bradbury

    April 22, 2018 at 11:35 am

    I believe this old article of mine from 2014 has some relevance here:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/forestry-tas-devoid-of-commercial-purpose/

    Definitely grounds for a Royal Commission into this disaster.

  2. Russell

    April 12, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    Re #80 … “It would be like having someone in public authority saying ‘hey Rob, we taking you to court because you are using your wood heater now on most nights during the colder months of the year.'”

    There would be more forests intact, sustainably harvested and profitable if FT/STT logged purely for home firewood supplies, than to flatten vast tracts of forest for shit paper and burn the rest.

    Re #83 … “to the best of my knowledge .. ”

    Nice try, but it seems you can only ‘guess’ there ‘may’ be tiny patches of harvestable regrowth after 68 years ago in an era when silviculture meant something completely different to the recent version of clear-fell and “burn, baby, burn”. There were also hundreds of times more workers in the timber industry back then.

    So much for sustainability, while you plunder what remains of the rest of Tasmania in the meantime.

  3. Robin Charles Halton

    April 12, 2018 at 11:53 am

    #77 … For the benefit of the curious Mr Langfield … to the best of my knowledge a large component of earlier and successful wet forest eucalypt regeneration practices that was carried out by ANM since the 1950s, mainly in the Florentine valley, most was handed over to be added as WHA as a result of the TFA legislation 2013.

    Some volumes may be within scattered blocks of Interim Reserves that will continue to be debated as time moves on as demand for future high quality timber grows!

    I am currently vague on the exact detail, but I do know from Paul Smith a former FT forester the older coupes would have been ready by now for harvest as regrowth sawlogs logs and peelers.

    The area is among the best growing conditions in the state for high quality regnans and obliqua regrowth.

    I believe that current Harvesting plans per coupe indicates origins of regen, silvicultural would be specified as such!

    I am personally aware of a coupe in Lune Forest block on the South Cape Road,that a short distance north of WHA ( which now encompasses large areas of more recent FT regeneration nearby) was an area subject to earlier silviculture treatment and according to range staff was harvested for adequate sized sawlogs and peelers plus pulp.

    At this point I cannot be specific but I suspect that a component of the older silvicultural in high quality timber areas have been classified as of HCV.
    From swift personal observation in the field driving along forestry roads from time to time it appears many of the stands show the qualities you would expect from natural regrowth forest.

    Any plans to bring the Tas RFA up to date could indicate current and forecasted status of treated stands within the system but that could be such a complex request, the Forest Minister may veto the idea.

  4. spikey

    April 12, 2018 at 11:50 am

    human induced global warming

    unlikely to be acknowledged

    by disturbingly proud pyromaniacs

    whose churlish consideration

    of respiratory difficulties

    can be eloquently summarised by

    shut the doors
    or move

    what a wally

    how’s ya imaginary gangs going robby?

  5. Wining Pom

    April 12, 2018 at 10:41 am

    [i]’climate change which in fact is a shift in climatic conditioning that has repeated itself throughout history since the beginning of time!'[/i]

    Yeah, 66 million years ago there was a shift in climatic conditioning which wiped out the dinosaurs. Couldn’t have been a meteor that changed the atmosphere over a short period of time could it? Nah, imagine that! As if adding 25% more Co2 would change anything. It’s like thinking that if you ate 25% more than the recommended calorie intake, you would put on weight. People have been fat and thin throughout time.

  6. Robin Charles Halton

    April 12, 2018 at 1:55 am

    #78 … The actions of STT has nothing to do with climate change which in fact is a shift in climatic conditioning that has repeated itself throughout history since the beginning of time!

    It would be like having someone in public authority saying ‘hey Rob, we taking you to court because you are using your wood heater now on most nights during the colder months of the year.’

  7. Teresa Maddox

    April 9, 2018 at 1:50 pm

    #73 … The premise of the RFA is to reduce the likelihood of serious environmental impacts arising from the economic activity of the forest industry! My point is that this economic activity, as the article has shown, is unsustainable and unaffordable, and if the economics don’t stack up then how can the agreement designed to protect the resource be valid?

    Your reasoning that the RFA somehow means participants have no accountability to make profits sustainably, and bludging off the government is acceptable, highlights the level of entitlement and incompetence that the deforestation industry operates at! In the ‘real world’ it wouldn’t survive.

  8. Claire Gilmour

    April 9, 2018 at 1:19 pm

    The Government and its Forestry arm, Sustainable Timbers Tasmania, should be sued for subsidising the fostering of climate change! Especially in light of points 1 and 11 in comment #71.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-10/climate-change-litigation-rising-with-the-seas-plan-b/9627870

  9. Russell

    April 9, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    Re #69 … So you can’t give an example of a ‘successfully regenerated’ forest which you can continually re-log – after how many years of trying to do so? Fail.

    Re #73 … “I’m struggling to see the goal which commits all participants to make a profit and not subsist on government generosity.”

    So you admit forestry is all about bludging off public subsidies, and nothing to do with industry profit or environmental sustainability?

    Re #75 … That’s not what I hear from sawmill operators when I try to buy local hardwood timber. They can’t even get 6 metre logs. They’ve all gone to the chipper.

  10. Ted Mead

    April 8, 2018 at 11:11 pm

    #70 … “The RFA is designed to protect biodiversity, manage sustainable volumes coming from both crown and private forest and ensure resource security to industry … If STT have to exist on state government funding then that has nothing to do with a federally engineered RFA designed to protect biodiversity, threatened species and resource security”.

    Why can’t STT get FSC then? – Never has there been a simpler answer. It’s because they can’t guarantee to protect biodiversity, threatened species and resource security!

    You shot yourself in the foot yet again !!

  11. John Maddock

    April 8, 2018 at 10:32 pm

    I like this one from Teresa’s list ..

    8. Employment, workforce education and training – expanding the employment opportunities and skills base of people working in forest management and forest industries.

    Job done, yes?

    JV

  12. Geoff Holloway

    April 8, 2018 at 10:30 pm

    #73, MjF … You have just proven the point of this whole article, and most of the commentators, by your myopic focus on ´make a profit´!

  13. MjF

    April 8, 2018 at 9:35 pm

    #71 … Nice copy and paste, also proves my point.
    …. your point is what ?
    I’m struggling to see the goal which commits all participants to make a profit and not subsist on government generosity.
    Please direct me to same.

  14. Geoff Holloway

    April 8, 2018 at 8:38 pm

    #71 … There is no mention in the goals of the National Forest Policy Statement of conserving wilderness, biodiversity, geological landscapes or Aboriginal heritage. The 11 goals are primarily directed towards economic ´sustainability´ (ie, exploitation).

  15. Teresa Maddox

    April 8, 2018 at 7:26 pm

    Regional Forest Agreements – an overview and history …
    National Forest Policy Statement
    The National Forest Policy Statement was signed by the Australian Government and all mainland states in 1992 and by Tasmania in 1995. It gives effect to the Global Statement of Principles on Forests and related conventions signed by Australia at the United Nations
    Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It sets out a shared vision for managing Australia’s forests and achieving ecologically sustainable forest management, and identifies 11 goals to achieve this:
    1. Conservation—maintaining an extensive and permanent native forest estate to conserve the full suite of economic, social and environmental values for current and future generations.
    2. Wood production and industry development—developing internationally competitive and sustainable forest industries, maximising value-adding and the efficient use of wood resources.
    3. Integrated and coordinated decision-making and management—reducing duplication in government land use decision-making to achieve agreed and durable land use decisions.
    4. Private native forests—ensuring that private native forests are maintained and managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, as part of the permanent native forest estate.
    5. Plantations—expanding Australia’s commercial plantations to provide an additional, economically viable wood resource and rehabilitating cleared agricultural land.
    6. Water supply and catchment management—ensuring the availability of reliable, high-quality water supplies from forested land and protecting catchment values.
    7. Tourism and other economic and social opportunities—sustainably managing Australia’s forests for a range of uses, including tourism and recreation.
    8. Employment, workforce education and training—expanding the employment opportunities and skills base of people working in forest management and forest industries.
    9. Public awareness, education and involvement—fostering community support for ecologically sustainable forest management and inviting public participation in
    decision-making.
    10. Research and development—increasing Australia’s national forest research and development effort to support forest management, conservation and product development.
    11. International responsibilities—promoting conservation and sustainable use of forests in other countries and meeting Australia’s obligations under relevant international agreements.

    #…..’So let us stop talkin’ falsely now’

  16. MjF

    April 8, 2018 at 5:28 pm

    This whole article revolves around a purely journalistic beatup by Gregg Borschmann and keenly seized upon by John Lawrence to further his criticisms of STT fiscal performance, falsely presented now as an RFA consequence.

    Rubbish.

    The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) provides a framework for the sustainable management of Tasmania’s public and privately owned forests.

    It does not mention nor purport to mean that it manages economically the state’s forest resources. This is an addition of creative thinking by Borschmann who gets his ‘e’ words mixed up.

    Where is Borschmann’s or Lawrence’s mention of private forests which are also central to the RFA ?

    His article includes the quote “economically sustainable” which is a falsehood. The Agreement states “ecologically sustainable”. It surprises me Lawrence goes along with this lie by incorporating the Borschmann piece in his own analysis.

    The RFA is designed to protect biodiversity, manage sustainable volumes coming from both crown and private forest and ensure resource security to industry.

    It is not about individual companies being economically viable as that is a matter for their own managements to determine and act upon.

    If STT have to exist on state government funding then that has nothing to do with a federally engineered RFA designed to protect biodiversity, threatened species and resource security.

  17. Robin Charles Halton

    April 8, 2018 at 4:32 pm

    #68 … Oh Russell, a period of a four day wait for answers, we are now into the fifth day and there is still no reply and I graciously note that you have already “done the nut”!
    Be patient and wait in line!

  18. Russell

    April 7, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    Re #66 … So, as you or MJF or any other pro-logger have refused to answer my same questions at #34 and #63 (over a period of four days) I can assume by default that you do NOT have any ‘successfully regenerated forests’ to log and therefore NO ‘successfully regenerated forests at all, which means your ‘silvicultural’ practices are totally flawed, wasteful and useless – typical of a totally parasitical loss-making resource-extracting government industry.

  19. Robin Charles Halton

    April 7, 2018 at 11:44 am

    Selective logging of native forests of the past led to sawmillers selecting the best logs, usually of larger diameter, straight as a gun barrel free of buttress spur with no or little center defect, free of spiral grain and easier to access in any given time.

    Selective logging of mature eucalypt forest saw the best trees removed first, “Creaming” the bush was a common practice. Head and butt waste was left in the bush, and the slash generated often led to spread of wildfires over a widespread area. Sometimes fires would generate a second crop of regrowth under the remaining cut-over areas.

    As decent sized logs became scarcer, more than often cut-over areas were subject to a second cut or even a third till the site was exhausted for sawlogs! Apart from the effect of cutting over a long period of time, standing trees did not put on an incremental growth as an old growth forest.

    Spread of wildfires was an effective tool for managing these forests. Some managed to develop new regrowth, and those that didn’t were left in an unmanaged state without contributing to the future of growing on stands for production.

    Before organised silviculture was practiced in the 1950’s, wildfires were the main source of natural events of establishment of regrowth. As far as I can recall in the south, nearly all of the 1898 and 1914 wild fire regrowth has been harvested from State forest. 1934 regrowth is still being harvested, less areas robbed by greened smeared State Labor’s TFA legislation of 2013 through the creation of Reserves which removed many areas of potentially productive eucalypt regrowth.

    At present I believe that some areas of 1967 wildfire are harvested for smaller logs in the south of the State.

    Politics, and any subsequent serious wildfires through production forest areas and those areas of State Forest now under the status of interim Reserves/ 2013 TFA legislation, will determine the future of timber production in Tasmania.

  20. Robin Charles Halton

    April 6, 2018 at 9:55 pm

    #65 … Selective logging in today’s advanced regrowth forest on a commercial basis would be a death sentence for both the machinery operator and faller.

    Smashing their way through thick scrub and standing trees and ground debris makes it a difficult and dangerous operation only to fell and remove selected trees just for sawlogs.

    What happens to the rest of the crop of standing tree, either suffer falling or snigging damage not to mention the volumes of logging slash that dry out to create fire risk within the coupe each summer over a period of some years.

    From both a personal safety and silvicultural point of view it is not practical to selectively harvest lowland obliqua and regnans forests, particularly those in their regrowth stage on a commercial basis.

    Wet native forest regrowth is not a plantation where there is no understory, trees are in rows and the land is cleared before planting where out rows can be selected to carry out thinning operations at least twice before eventual clearfell at age 30.

  21. Ted Mead

    April 6, 2018 at 1:00 pm

    #63 … I don’t have any issues regarding selective logging if outside high conservation areas.

    Selective logging in Tasmania hasn’t occurred much for half a century.

    If selective logging practices were still operational there would be copious amounts of available timber now.

  22. Russell

    April 6, 2018 at 12:46 pm

    Re #63 … I will ask you once again … Why don’t you log those forests you have so ‘successfully regenerated’ and leave the rest alone?

    Or have you run out of ‘successfully regenerated’ high quality timber forests?

  23. Robin Charles Halton

    April 6, 2018 at 11:30 am

    #5 … Ted where do you think our high quality native timber should originate from, PNG, Solomons ,Brunei, Sarawak or Brasil where forest practices and land clearing control are zilch!

    One thing is for sure our plantations cannot provide high quality and feature grade timber that furniture makers require.

    I see nothing wrong with selective blackwood harvesting within our native forests do you!

  24. mike seabrook

    April 5, 2018 at 10:22 pm

    no accountability or reckonong whilst the feds keep the funds flowing to plant trees ( including all that lovely mis loot which kept the tassie economy afloat) and to not chop down trees

    and also should

    check out what further federal loot is involved in ripping off of the tas freight equalisation scheme for timber/forest products.

    and then there was the $50 million of federal cash to hunt the invisible tassie foxes in the forests.

  25. Emmanuel Goldstein

    April 5, 2018 at 3:00 am

  26. Geoff Holloway

    April 4, 2018 at 2:55 pm

    Well said, Ted Mead!

  27. Ted Mead

    April 4, 2018 at 2:20 pm

    #58 … “Wildfire, logging and land clearing are common change agents across our landscapes in keeping with natures balance and mans requirements” – derrrr !!!!

    Actually nature operates in harmony, albeit in a state of imbalance .. that is what ongoing evolutionary process is!

    This process, is most cases, is incredibly slow and has been since evolutionary times until the last few centuries when humans lost the plot and place a wealth system on and around natural resources.

    The longer humans exist the more warped these values have and will become! It’s called unsustainable growth, and nowhere better is a representation of this than within the native Forestry industry of Tasmania.

    Vision-less ideals, resource plundering at high cost low revenue, environmental vandalism and pure ignorance pervades right across the political spectrum of this state, which hasn’t contributed much, if anything, back to local communities.

    Where is all the financial affluence around logging towns? Zero! In fact such dying settlements struggle with employment and population retainment these days.

    It’s unfortunate there were no accurate vegetation maps done of Tasmania before European settlement otherwise we would have been able to display the loss of primeval climax forest type that existed before the pyro’s set flames across many regions throughout the island.

    I can think of numerous example of where climax forest types, thousands of years old, have been destroyed through careless and ignorant fire activity in the last half-century or so.

    What once was ecological paradise is rapidly becoming a fragment of its former glory, and the impacts of climate change are set to exacerbate those impacts.

    Unfortunately, Robin continues to live with 19th century ideology.

  28. Robin Charles Halton

    April 4, 2018 at 11:51 am

    #57, Wining Pom … I suppose the best way to figure it all out .. working forests revolve a 70-100 year rotation for production native forests (state forest), 30 years for plantations and “forever” for forest types representation in national parks and permanent reserves, many of which are interspersed with State Forest.

    Wildfire, logging and land clearing are common change agents across our landscapes in keeping with natures balance and mans requirements. There are many mountainous areas in Western and South West Tasmania that have not been burnt for hundreds, if not thousands of years .. forests around Mt Read, Mt Dundas and Precipitous Bluff come to mind where climax forests still exist.

  29. Wining Pom

    April 4, 2018 at 10:55 am

    #53 … Like I keep saying, vegetation wise, yes. Ready for logging again after a few decades and certainly much better than plantations, but it is not as it was before being cleared.

  30. Robin Charles Halton

    April 4, 2018 at 2:26 am

    #53 Mike … Thousands of acres of dry grass across farmlands interspersed with pockets of forest and scattered settlements are the flash fuels that little can be done about once a fire is raging on a hot, strong windy day.

    Grass fires are so quick that there is little chance of preventing spread when suitable fire weather conditions takes control.

    Grass fires create large perimeters in a short space of time and are the main cause for rapid spread across the Australian landscape.

    #55, Wining pom … Your perception of forest is unusual, are you into field trips over a wide range of regenerated eucalypt forests? With plantation understory what is obvious understory is absent.

    With regenerated native forest many species, natural ground seed stored acacias emerge after being triggered by fire often in proliferation, silver wattles for example.

    Myrtle and sassafras originate from wind blown standing seed trees nearby to the regenerated coupes. For this reason coupes should be planned in such a way as mosaic pattern is interspersed with other vegetation types.

    Have you not been in the bush and observed the phenomenon of a seed fall of myrtle in summer, where the winged seed can propel itself considerable distance from its source to drop onto bare earth where it has the potential to produce seedlings of the species thus assisting with the restoration the natural order of native forests?

    Native forest silviculture attempts to replicate the natural wildfire induced regeneration as applied to Lowland native forests of obliqua and regnans as our two most important commercial eucalypt, as well as delegatensis at higher altitude where shelter wood regeneration practices that often involve light burning and retention of preexisting blocks of regeneration often including standing seed trees.

  31. Wining Pom

    April 3, 2018 at 10:17 pm

    Yes OK MJF, strictly speaking plantations need to be planted. Is there any difference between farmers seeding a paddock or planting seedlings? What’s the difference between a broccoli paddock and a canola paddock?

    The difference between a plantation of E nitens and a regenerated forest of E regnans and E obliqua is that the E nitens are in straight lines. But it’s so good to learn that the forest industry is run by upright, ethical people whose main concern is for the environment. Is that why it needs to be subsidised?

    Sorry, just being silly there. The science argument. How long for a cleared forest to be like it was before being cleared? You say a few decades, and like I mentioned earlier on another post, vegetation wise, yes. But if you wipe out a natural forest and reseed it, you have a plantation in my eyes. It takes hundreds of years for a forest to return to it’s original state after being wiped out. In a really simple analogy, you can wipe out a 1,000 year old village and then rebuild it with the same amount of houses and shops. Will it be the same?

  32. Geoff Holloway

    April 3, 2018 at 9:41 pm

    There is an enormous cognitive gap and astonishing failure to understand how much humanity is dependent on ecological systems and biodiversity.

    I suggest that people read the report referenced here. Human well-being is directly connected to a healthy biodiversity. Just as the world cannot afford climate change deniers, the world cannot afford people who somehow think humanity is the only important species on this planet ~ https://www.ipbes.net/news/media-release-biodiversity-nature’s-contributions-continue- dangerous-decline-scientists-warn

  33. mike seabrook

    April 3, 2018 at 9:27 pm

    trees are fire risks etc. – who pays for the fire risk management and insurance bills especially all the consequential risks and costs – burnt houses, fences, injured and killed wild life and farm animals etc.

  34. Ted Mead

    April 3, 2018 at 2:18 pm

    #50 … Actually I was wrong – TWFF claimed figure was 62 million hectares –

    I’d reckon the back of the envelope calculations by Peter Godfrey, which were based on the amount of mixed forest logged and the likely percentage of rainforest understory of such, exceeds that by a mile and is still a conservative estimation.

    As for the blue gums that host all these swift parrots on the West coast, huh – the trees are there but the mysterious summer flowering sounds like an old wives tale. I still haven’t found any evidence of such. Maybe it’s true, and hope it is.

  35. abs

    April 3, 2018 at 2:13 pm

    So the whole “it’s not your money, it’s Government money so stop whinging” is nothing but a distraction, MJF.

    PS: Are you inferring that a clinical psychologist is behaving unethically by referring to a blog poster as ‘tiger’? Seems like a real stretch, lol

  36. MjF

    April 3, 2018 at 1:07 pm

    &47;
    Hi abs, couldn’t resist could ya, Had to slip one tiger in. How very clinical phsycologist of you. I hope my spelling’s correct. Expect you’ll advise otherwise.

    &48;
    Hi mr T, how’s your fave lie re 60 mill tonnes of burnt special timbers rolling along ? And the incinerated swift parrot foraging habitat in the tarkine that really isn’t ?

    I wonder who actually receives the brown paper bags amongst all this ?

    $49
    Basic problem for you WP.
    Spreading seed over a cut area does not a plantation make. Hand planting seedlings into a cultivated clearfelled area is a plantation. You can leave a plantation for 100 years if you want, it’s still a plantation.
    A regenerated native forest is exactly that. A cut native forest reseeded and allowed to grow/develop naturally with little human management apart from fire protection.Because as you know , a fire will kill standing wet schlerophyll forest and we don’t want that. Such a waste.

    Those are the facts, recognised by science. Please do your own thing if you wish.

    Re chipped sawlogs, I’ve been in this business for 35 years, never yet seen a split unbranded sawlog go into a chipyard without being rejected. Have you ?
    Equally there would not be a pulplog chipped that couldn’t have sawn at least the tiniest of boards between the rot, holes knots, bends and twists. Of course no one could wear the cost of milling up a complete pulplog to recover a garden stakes worth of timber.

    Simply not practical which is why specifications were invented.

    So one needs to retain some sense of proportion in the argument where economics dictate what can be achieved and what can’t.

    Common knowledge ? Old wives tale held and promulgated by and for, the great unwashed.

  37. Wining Pom

    April 3, 2018 at 3:12 am

    #36 & #37 … Ecology. It seems to me that the meaning of ecology to both of you is all about vegetation. It’s more than that. If you wipe out an old growth forest, and reseed it, you will have a plantation. And of course there will be various regrowth of understory if it’s left long enough as there would be in an E nitens plantation if it was left for 50 years. But of course it would not be, so it’s a good example of saying that reseeded E regnans and E obliqua plantations are fully ecologically sound. But foresters do not want trees with holes in them to house native fauna – they want flora, by the truckload. And if it takes 1080 to make that possible, so be it.

    So, we have foresters who are subsidised to wipe out forests ridiculing Parks and Wildlife because they think they don’t know about ecology. And just to get some honesty into this debate, can both of you, who obviously know lots about the forest industry, please admit that sawlogs were smashed to go to woodchips? It’s well known that that was a common practice.

  38. Ted Mead

    April 3, 2018 at 12:40 am

    #44 … Absolute waffle and incomprehensible tit for tat.

    You are obviously getting paid by the word, it seems.

    As in #45’s query – you don’t even know who you are responding to, but that doesn’t matter as long at the cheques keep rolling in!

  39. abs

    April 3, 2018 at 12:20 am

    slow down and re-read MJF, I was simply building from your inference to TM, that being that as taxpayers we should be silent on how it is spent. If you hold that position, then hold yourself alone to it (ie, sit down and be quiet if you infer that TM has no right to whinge). If I am in no position to tell you to sit down, then you are in no position to tell TM not to whinge. Don’t take it too personally, tiger!

    Now, what is this article about? Hh right. John Lawrence skillfully detailing how forestry in Tasmania has been a financial disaster over the past 20 years with taxpayers dollars being used to hold up a dinosaur approach to forestry.

    That is the real issue!

  40. Teresa Maddox

    April 3, 2018 at 12:20 am

    #39 … Struck a nerve did I? Must be very trying defending the indefensible? ‘It’s not the taxpayers’ loot, it’s the government’s money.’ Really! You can accuse me of not being sensible, but you’re the one not making any sense!
    #42 … Go for it! Time to stand up to this nonsense.

  41. Geoff Holloway

    April 3, 2018 at 12:01 am

    #44 … Why are you referring to me as ‘geoffrey’ (my name is Geoff)? As for the last election – I was not involved! It is interesting how abusive anonymous commentators can become on this site!

  42. MjF

    April 2, 2018 at 11:31 pm

    #40 .. Lucky then I’m not right wing or liberal geoffrey.
    Raise a class action if not happy. Or drnand a royal commIssion. God knows, we hear that bandied about often enough. You had your chance at the last election to clear the decks. How did that go ? Did you do your bit ?

    !41
    Abs you’re in no position to direct people to sit down. Suggests a condescending attitude in assuming a preaching role, if I’m not mistaken. You’re not condescending are you abs, very much ?
    I recall you like to call people ‘tiger’ if memory serves. If not condescending then certainly a patronising trait. Why do you assume a position of superiority over others abs ? Are you better than me ?

    Are you exercising your democratic right to hold the government accountable ? How so ?

    If the government wants to invest more of their money in supporting Forestry what are you going to do about it abs ?

    Long on rhetoric, short on action you, I imagine.

    I hope they do and millions more of it. Please give freely to the government coffers to help facilitate this.

    Perhaps you and $40 have an answer to how to manage sawmillers with crown contracts should native Forestry fold altogether through nonsensical dark green intervention. I ask that on the basis of both of your johnny-come-lately arrivals and obvious keeness to engage me.

    Let’s not be distracted from the real issue I first raised (to use your choice of phrase if that’s ok)

  43. Geoff Holloway

    April 2, 2018 at 11:31 pm

    John Hawkins #42 … Arraigning a Minister is a legal question. What I would add is that the GBE model (Government Business Enterprise model) has been a failure with respect to forestry, but also with Hydro Tasmania. The GBE model is a farcical disaster and the families and the children of Tasmania will suffer the consequences.

  44. John Hawkins

    April 2, 2018 at 10:49 pm

    Tasmania’s resources minister Guy Barnett said: “The Tasmanian RFA provides a balanced framework for sustainable management of production forests. Over 20 years of operation so far, the RFA has the runs on the board – enabling forest industries to operate responsibly and competitively in global markets and supporting thousands of jobs in regional communities.

    This is a lie.

    “Over the same period there have been significant environmental outcomes. The State of the Forests report 2017 shows that in 1996 just 55% of Tasmania’s old-growth forests were protected in reserves. Today that figure has grown by more 300,000 hectares to 87%, or more than one million hectares in total.

    This is a smoke and mirrors lie it is not all forested land a lot is above the tree line and button grass plains.

    Importantly Barnett never answers questions over the losses.

    I ask John Lawrence is it possible to arraign a Minister of the Crown sitting on the board of a GBE over derilection of duty to the public he is supposed to represent?

    It certainly would be in the private arena under trading whilst insolvent.

    If so it would certainly sharpen theodd pencil in our favour.

    If so I may be interested in taking up this avenue.

    Do the readers of TT have any thoughts on such a course of action?

  45. abs

    April 2, 2018 at 9:15 pm

    “Its not the taxpayers’ loot, its the government’s money. Once you hand it over it ceases to be yours any longer. You have no say in how it’s spent. End of story.”

    Taxpayers loot or governments money? This is the use of semantics to attempt to distract!

    No point whinging about how governments spend money? Sit down and be quiet then, MJF, if that is how you feel. I like to think we live in a democracy that allows for many forms of action and expression when Governments fail the people by wasting ‘taxpayers’ dollars’ (see how absurd this little distraction was)

    Talk about responses becoming sillier and more farcical (farcical and silly, being synonyms, present with some redundancy, BTW)

  46. Geoff Holloway

    April 2, 2018 at 9:04 pm

    What! Sorry #39 (MjF) but even the most right-wing of Liberals acknowledge that it IS taxpayers money!

    All governments have a responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money wisely and [i]be accountable[/i] for such spending! In the case of the forestry industry in Tasmania, an exorbitant $1.3 billion of taxpayers´ money has been wasted!

  47. MjF

    April 2, 2018 at 8:36 pm

    #38 … So you can’t come up with any valid reason to “stop clearfelling native forests now” ?

    You could at least attempt to mount an argument based on .. silviculture or sustainable yield or habitat conservation or HCV management or catchment management or landscape protection or .. anything rather than nothing.

    In the absence of anything plausible, I can only presume you think it warm and fuzzy not to clearfell.

    I have a standard answer to the “taxpayer funded it” rhetoric. Its not the taxpayers’ loot, its the government’s money. Once you hand it over it ceases to be yours any longer. You have no say in how it’s spent. End of story.

    When governments of the day choose to spend their money on whatever purpose there’s no point whinging about it. Remember, it’s not your money. It’s long gone assuming you class yourself a taxpayer. So the “taxpayer hasn’t spent millions of dollars propping up this industry”.

    The “taxpayer has spent millions filling government coffers” would be much closer to fact.

    If you can’t be sensible about things TM, then don’t bother replying. Your responses are becoming sillier and more farcical. I believe you are well out of your depth right about now.

  48. Teresa Maddox

    April 2, 2018 at 3:51 pm

    #36 … Hahaha, howz your science working at fixing all the industry problems then? Why is it our concern what happens to the sawmillers? Sook about it to the managers in charge who have completely stuffed it up!

    Like you said ‘it has nothing to do with taxpayers’. Then how is it that taxpayers have spent millions of dollars propping up this industry? You can’t answer that because you don’t want to accept what needs to be done.

    Maybe stopping clearfelling now is a rash idea … but it’s a hell of a lot better than business as usual!

  49. Robin Charles Halton

    April 2, 2018 at 2:57 pm

    # 34, Winning pom, You just dont get it at all, for gods sake go to some of the regenerated bush areas of differing ages and observe the ecological progress over time up till next harvest of the resultant regrowth forest.

    Open your eyes a bit wider and you will notice there is absolutely no ecological progress within eucalypt plantations.

    There is plenty of old growth remaining, some on State forest most is now locked up in false reserves including some of the WHA and National parks awaiting wildfires to kill off the special species understory and convert the old growth forest into am mixed age forest as regrowth emerges from the seed fall of the standing veterans, all is dependent of the severity of the wildfire and time of the year!

    A series of seasonal lightening strikes will do the trick as the fire authorities edge away from spending money fighting forest fires in rough heavily timbered country, where there is no value to save stands that support our timber industry over time.

    We coexist in an idiot State when it comes to forestry, we have to make the best of what we have left.

    The forest industry has come to grips with reality, its been a slow process but the Greens remain confused and have no real plan except they say we should exit native forests and only harvest from plantations!

    Im afraid that you and your Green mates havent a clue about sawmilling and future forest management in general.

  50. MjF

    April 2, 2018 at 1:38 pm

    #31 … Parks and wildlife service as a reference to understand forest ecology ? You are yanking my chain WP aren’t you ?

    The statement you choose to use is partially true. For example there is no such thing as a ‘dry eucalypt species’. What Parks should describe is ‘dry schlerophyll forest eucalypt species’. Also true is that dry schlerophyll forest eucalypts will readily germinate after any disturbance event which can include fire, but also includes mechanical disturbance such as logging without fire. Even single trees falling over can give rise to euc germination in the immediate vicinity.

    A hot fire will kill standing unlogged wet schlerophyll, mixed and even rainforests in extreme events. Equally a hot burn over logged wet forest which reduces woody waste and exposes mineral soil creates a seed bed for germination provided a seed source is available. That seed source may be naturally occurring or artificially applied. These are the certain conditions I previously referred to.

    I expect Parks and Wildlife explain all that somewhere else.

    Recommend you follow up Halton’s suggestion that you read the technical bulletin no. 8.

    I agree re ta Ann logs coming from certain coupes. Not all their wood is generated from C/F wet forest coupes however.

    Correction – TAT does not ‘harvest them’. STT harvests them and TAT buys the product delivered to their mills.

    #33 … A rash statement – clearfelling native forest must stop now. Why ? What science do you base this claim on ? Is it illegal ?

    It also isn’t an answer to my question of what happens to sawmillers if native forest logging is closed down. Can you see how your ‘answer’ does not address the problem ?

  51. Wining Pom

    April 2, 2018 at 12:28 pm

    #31 … ‘Do you understand the difference between plantation forestry and native forestry?’

    Yes, I do. A native forest is what develops naturally whereas plantations are created by us by clear felling, burning and reseeding. After 80 years it can be harvested again which is nowhere near long enough to become a ‘native forest’ with the original ecosystem.
    And there’s a difference between whinging and wining. You seem to know about whinging and although wining is a made-up word, most people can see the meaning.

  52. Russell

    April 2, 2018 at 11:53 am

    Re #30 & #31
    “I dont think that you quite understand the process of silvicultural commercial native forest practices in Tasmania by STT/FT/F^C that has been carried out since the mid 1950’s to successfully regenerate predominently Obliqua and Regnans wet eucalypt forests after intensive logging”

    Well, why don’t you log those forests you have so ‘successfully regenerated’ and leave the rest alone?

    Or have you run out of ‘successfully regenerated’ timber forests?

  53. Teresa Maddox

    April 2, 2018 at 3:02 am

    #30 … Yes, I do have an answer, clear-felling native forests has to stop now! Or your ‘it’s about here and now’ means nothing! They are just weasel words that suggest things have changed within the industry. Clearly they have not!
    Sawmillers contracts should have been adjusted when supply was limited – supply and demand.

    You had better enlighten me as to why family sawmillers disappeared if it wasn’t for the woodchip industry, and I’m not at all surprised that ‘most saw-milling companies are family based and operated’ .. where did I say that they weren’t?

    If the focus had always been about quality and not quantity, and operated on a selective logging base instead of woodchip driven, then the taxpayer might not have been defrauded of millions of dollars.

    Hang on, could selective logging verses clearfelling be the solution?

  54. Robin Charles Halton

    April 2, 2018 at 12:59 am

    #31 Whinging Pom ,I dont think that you quite understand the process of silvicultural commercial native forest practices in Tasmania by STT/FT/F^C that has been carried out since the mid 1950’s to successfully regenerate predominently Obliqua and Regnans wet eucalypt forests after intensive logging for Sawlogs as well as for Pulpwood!

    How long have you been in Tasmania, do you ever visit the bush and observe nature at work after wildfires and / or native forest areas that have been regenerated per prescriptive silviculture!

    There is no substitute for Working forests field knowledge beyond the National Parks!
    spectrum of permanent conservation!

    Do you understand the difference between plantation forestry and native forestry especially as a field observer and the absolute importance of native forests fto maintain the balance of conservation, timber production and as a recreational amenity.!
    I would recommend that you study Native Forests Silvicultural Technical Bulletin No8, 2009 edition, its readliy available on the Internet and clearly lays out the silvicultural process for maintaining our native forests.

  55. Wining Pom

    April 2, 2018 at 12:15 am

    #30 … ‘Most dry eucalypt species germinate readily following a fire, while wet eucalypt forest species and rainforest species are killed by fires.’ — Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania.

    There won’t be any sawlogs in the future as Ta Ann harvests them at Hydro pole size.

  56. MjF

    April 2, 2018 at 12:01 am

    #26 … Because that’s my question, it has nothing necessarily to do with taxpayers. Perhaps you have an answer. You probably don’t though. Same as Mr T never has.

    The millers have commercial contracts in place to purchase resource over varying periods of time. Whether you consider wood had been wasted in the past is immaterial. It’s about the here and now. If the green left succeed in closing down native forest logging in the near to medium future, then outcomes for this industry need to be determined if there are no longer any logs forthcoming. Commercial contracts will demand that discussion.

    You clearly have little understanding of saw-milling history, and why ‘family sawmillers disappeared’ You would obviously be surprised to learn most saw-milling companies current are still family based and operated.

    #29 … Burning a wet forest site also regenerates a new forest under certain conditions.

  57. Wining Pom

    April 1, 2018 at 7:26 pm

    #28 … ‘produce high quality wet forest eucalypt where the natural cycle of the forest is restored post burn’

    Burnibg kills wet eucalypt forest.

  58. Robin Charles Halton

    April 1, 2018 at 4:50 pm

    Greens Cassie O’Connor has made a huge error of judgement by suggesting “Tasmania’s future is plantations and not native forest logging!

    Anyone who respects environment as I do would be more inclined to promote native forest establishment to produce high quality wet forest eucalypt where the natural cycle of the forest is restored post burn for up to a period of 70-100 years until harvest is ready again by focusing on the attention on producing high quality first grade timber.

    Eucalypt plantations in my opinion are somewhat the bane of the forests, with a doubtful future of producing timber for general purposes when compared to radiata from SWP’s which has a wide range of uses!
    As an export pulpwood product, HWP wood is fine but it is a worry some forest management strategy for the future of having sufficient native forests being available to sustain a natural forest environment as well as reliable sawn timber supplies for the generations to come.

    If O’Connor had a responsible approach to Tasmanian forestry management then it would be to return a component of eucalypt plantations back to native forests either/ or farmlands as well as watershed and species protection where applicable!

    For me O’Connors remarks demonstrate she is a dreamer with little or no realistic environment ethic, no wonder voters are leaving the Greens in droves!

    Greens have no idea of encouraging what I would consider in this day and age, a more balanced approach for guiding commercial forestry in Tasmania.
    (edited)

  59. Teresa Maddox

    April 1, 2018 at 4:24 pm

    #26 … Then why are you asking “those that toll the death knell of native logging, what to do with sawmillers first”

    Perhaps the ‘sawmillers’ should have stood up to the woodchippers’ reckless mismanagement of our native forests over decades. You know, the ones who wiped out most of the family sawmillers. Isn’t that where the RFA compensation money supposedly went?

    The forest industry, including native forest sawmillers, survive because of the taxpayer .. at great cost.

    The best way forward for the industry is to manage what resources it already has without trashing any more, and without the government allowing any cheap imports with fake FSC stamps in. That might sort out some of blatant waste that this industry is renowned for!

  60. MjF

    April 1, 2018 at 12:41 pm

    #24 … I’m not wrong, Gilmore. Your Guardian link refers to an old story about Hodgo &Co; wanting to access the deferred FPPF areas which come back online in 2026 (or thereabouts from memory). This is a separate and unrelated issue to my original question. The millers’ collective vetoed the option to buy any of this wood (had it happened) on the basis that it was politically too provocative and probably would end up compromising their chains of custody processes.

    That is not to say they still didn’t want wood, just not from that 400,000 ha at this time – an important factor ignored by the reporter in pursuit of a beat up.

    Another annoying aspect of this little story is that it’s headed up by a photo of a truck carting plantation pulp logs. Totally irrelevant and highlights mainstream media’s lack of concern for detail or relevance.

    Of course feed a part story to the mugs (you et al) and they all rise up in unison with collective voices of derision.

    #25 … I don’t recall stating taxpayers are responsible.

  61. Teresa Maddox

    March 31, 2018 at 2:21 pm

    #9 … Why exactly, are taxpayers responsible for the fate of saw-millers? What is it about their distorted worth that they should receive exorbitant public funds to save their livelihoods when others are losing theirs without any support? Wouldn’t it be great if the rest of us had access to public resources to use as we wish regardless of mismanagement, corruption and cost, financially and environmentally. I’d love a bit of that action !!

  62. john hayward

    March 29, 2018 at 4:53 pm

    #21, Spikey, sorry for the error at #19 which was meant to be “discreet”, which would have been more accurately expressed as “cowed civil servants below the top echelon”. Not a few of these are mortified by their top management.

    John Hayward

  63. spikey

    March 29, 2018 at 3:14 pm

    #19 …

    not all public servants are discrete
    some are curiously enthusiastic
    serving the public the same super science
    that industry dictated
    and our industrious government parroted
    regarding such things as
    forestry, salmon farming, super-trawlers and foxes

    fish n chip scientists
    greasy

  64. Wining Pom

    March 29, 2018 at 2:23 pm

    Yes TGC, politicians and saving !!! That’s an oxymoron.

  65. Russell

    March 29, 2018 at 1:16 pm

    Re #6
    “Green politicians – will now be saying ‘we told you so’”

    Green politicians were part of the problem under Nick McKim’s leadership as they breathed new life into the forestry zombie.

    Re #9
    As long as native forest and FT or STT exists, native forest will continue to be clearfelled in Tasmania for zero profit to the owners, the Tasmanian public, and to the total detriment of our environment.

    No-one blames the family saw-millers, most of them were wiped out by FT and Gunns along with thousands of timber worker jobs in favour of zero-profit practices.

    Re #12
    More to the point “What are you doing with the current sawmillers ?”

  66. john hayward

    March 29, 2018 at 12:35 pm

    #18 … TGC has a point. If the $1.3b hadn’t been stolen, it might still be rotting away in Treasury or pinched for other, less destructive, scams.

    The Tas distinction is having perhaps the best two-party perpetual pseudo democratic kleptocracy in the developed world. Here’s thanks to all the dozing regulatory agencies and other discrete public servants who keep the hemorrhage flowing smoothly over the years.

    John Hayward

  67. TGC

    March 29, 2018 at 10:48 am

    #13 “… I can think of many areas where this ‘loss’ money could be/would be better spent …”
    The contributor means ‘otherwise spent’ – money available for one thing isn’t necessarily available for something else.

  68. philll Parsons

    March 29, 2018 at 10:01 am

    #4 Asks why this ‘fraud’ has not gone before the Courts. There is no law that allows declared and approved expenditure to be treated as criminal although in civil law may allow some redress but the lack of bottomless pockets, unlike Government, somewhat restrict the capacity of anyone who might so act.

    The judges for Government incompetence and waste are claimed to be the voters but in the complex of policy decisions made at an election the litany of mistakes that appears as normal can be overlooked when the hospital system is failing and there is an apparent housing crises along with endemic poverty.

    The industry body could see that forestry needed reform but all the pollies could see was a Green wedge which may have saved the Lieberals bacon by saving them from defeat by the narrowest of margins, delivered by the forestry seats.

    After all, what’s a billion bucks when it comes to looking after special mates and vested interests.

  69. Ted Mead

    March 29, 2018 at 9:53 am

    #12 – I don’t advocate the closing of small saw mills, never have!

    You know, I know, and they know that any mill closures have been due to the lack of quality, profitable saw logs.

    This has nothing to do with forest areas being protected, it’s about political supply and wastage in the production forests.

    It’s a sure bet nothing has changed much, and that Cat 2 logs are still going to the chipper, whilst the future Cat 1 logs are being stolen for an overseas ply company.

    John in this article says that is why STT will never cover costs in the future!

    ““We can argue all we like about whether there’s enough timber there, or whether the logging is ecologically sustainable. The reality is Tasmania won’t make money at the contracted prices, and the state will continue clear-felling forests for ply, pulp and chip that could be producing sawlogs for decades to come”.

    It is as clear and simple as that – so go tell it to your masters!

  70. Wining Pom

    March 29, 2018 at 8:08 am

    MJF, the saw millers that I know who have shut down did so because of the lack of saw logs. They were smashed so they could be chipped. Wood chipping is killing forestry, not the Greens.

  71. Robert Middleton

    March 29, 2018 at 6:29 am

    Re #12 … MjF’er: Your outrageous, offensive rant aimed at Ted Mead has a familiar ring to it, sounding, as it does, much like the hateful, menacing nonsense heard from the National Rifle Association members, those “my guns are more important than your kids” people.

    They’re up to their elbows in blood, but you can’t reason with them because they are brain-dead. They are on the wrong side of history but can’t see it. F’er, you use words like “myopic,” “clueless,” “ignorance” and “stupidity” in your tirade against Ted. You must have been looking in the mirror when you chose them because they describe you perfectly and apply equally well to the gun fanatics in the US. You would feel right at home in the NRA.

  72. Clive Stott

    March 29, 2018 at 3:24 am

    TGC, I can think of many areas where this ‘loss’ money could be/would be better spent.

    I will cut you a bit of slack and ask if you can come up with just one?

  73. MjF

    March 28, 2018 at 11:31 pm

    What a myopic clueless green mantra tosser response mixed with old wives tales, ignorance and a good dash of stupidity.

    What are you doing with the current sawmillers ?

    We can do without a distorted & perverted tree hugger fairytale wish history of sawmilling in Tasmania. The reality is many have survived and they continue to need supply, both from crown and private.

    You don’t do reality very well do you Mr T ?

    So, what are you gunna do with them if you close down native logging in 10, 20, 40 or is it 80 years time now ?

    Pick any number teddy, it seems to always be just a lottery with you.

    Does a moving target sound familiar ?

  74. Ted Mead

    March 28, 2018 at 10:59 pm

    #9 … What an absolutely clueless response – bereft of knowledge and internal industry/ government politics.

    Ask yourself the question why there are only remnants of the once broad saw mill operators throughout the state.

    As back as the 1980’s the Forestry Commission and governments had a policy to weed out and eliminate small millers throughout the state.

    Gunns was the buzz-word then and they wanted the monopoly of forest resource within the state. They achieved this through political mateship and cronyism, probably corruption, and without doubt political donations.

    For small saw millers, easy access to public forests was difficult, and FC cum FT were deliberately supplying them with 3rd grade logs which were difficult to mill into profitable timber.

    If the small saw millers had access to the millions of tonnes of Cat 1 logs that went to the chippers at Triabunna they may have been able to stay in business.

    Only a complete fool or a paid stooge would think or believe otherwise!!!

  75. john hayward

    March 28, 2018 at 9:51 pm

    I’m hoping everyone is taking the link to Newton’s full article in the Guardian which calls Tas forestry a “giant fraud” on the Tasmanian taxpayer, and provides the statistical proof. On the facts, the charge seems hard to refute.

    Accusing our pollies of merely being obtuse and obstinate on the issue clearly has had no effect. Multiple charges of a $1.3b fraud might at least erase some of the sneers they traditionally direct at critics, but the immunity and other privileges the industry has long enjoyed indicate a successful prosecution will need to happen in a higher jurisdiction.

    John Hayward

  76. MjF

    March 28, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    As long as native forest sawmillers exist, native forest will continue to be harvested.

    Those that toll the death knell of native logging need to decide what they’re going to do with the sawmillers first.

    So what are you ?

    Demand for native sawlog has never been greater. Regrowth sawlog over OG is now widely accepted as the principal resource, with tooling adjusted accordingly.

    First it’s 10 years, now 20, maybe 50 years tomorrow when it’s all over,

    Fantasy-land.

    Perhaps those of the blinkered, myopic and ideological green persuasion with morning mist in the eyes would be happy for us to import even more internationally sourced timber resplendent with faked FSC stamps and the source land giving way to palm oil.

    All to save our own renewable resource

    Clever way forward.

  77. Geoff Holloway

    March 28, 2018 at 8:46 pm

    Excellent article!

    Corruption with respect to the forestry industry goes back decades. In 1948 Labor Premier Robert Cosgrove was charged with ‘bribery, corruption and conspiracy’ involving the forestry industry. The Labor and Liberal Parties have always supported propping up this drain on the public purse, and continue to do so despite the continuing decline in employment in this industry. To paraphrase the old Tasmanian adage ´If it flows, dam it; if it flies, shoot it; if it stands tall and still, cut it down’.

  78. Ted Mead

    March 28, 2018 at 7:33 pm

    Here’s an unedited extract from the article that all the pro-Forestry dumbo trolls should digest and ponder before they desperately stand in the defence of such malicious shenanigans of STT.

    “The tragedy for Tasmanians is that long-term industrial timber contracts have locked the state into commercial arrangements that are not profitable.

    “We can argue all we like about whether there’s enough timber there, or whether the logging is ecologically sustainable. The reality is Tasmania won’t make money at the contracted prices, and the state will continue clear-felling forests for ply, pulp and chip that could be producing sawlogs for decades to come.

    “Over the next 20 years – no matter what the extended RFA promises – history clearly tells us that we will see a continuing contraction of the native forest industry in Tasmania”.

    Does the adage flogging a dead horse ring a bell?

  79. Ted Mead

    March 28, 2018 at 6:31 pm

    This is nothing new! –

    John Lawrence – has been indicating this is where it was all going years ago.

    Conservationists – have been crying foul play and environmental disaster for decades.

    Green politicians – will now be saying ‘we told you so’

    All the graphs in this article are plummeting apart from one temporary blip where Harris propped up FT with a $30 million fund shuffle from Tas Networks.

    What other evidence is needed to show what an encumbrance Forestry is on this state?

    The only concluding certainty is that nothing will change over the next few years!

  80. spikey

    March 28, 2018 at 6:29 pm

    #4 … Are you offering to chip in again, Trev?

  81. TGC

    March 28, 2018 at 5:44 pm

    It’s well past time for enthusiastic TT’ers – with others – to organise a court challenge against forestry – in its various guises – because ‘fraud’.on the scale TT contributors allege, needs to be terminated and those responsible punished – perhaps the same enthusiastic TTers who allege electoral corruption could be persuaded to initiate a case.

  82. john hayward

    March 28, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    ven Putin hasn’t been as successful as the two major Tasmanian parties in normalising kleptocracy to the point of virtual invisibility. The present government continues to present the ongoing plunder as a vital industry.

    The profits of the early RFA days were achieved only by allowing a few big logging concerns to grade well over 90% their prodigious public land native forest harvests, as shippable waste, for which they paid peanuts.Native fore that has been clear felled and replaced by pulpwood plantation continues to be portrayed as part of the forest estate.Large quantities of timber are presently being sold at a loss to a large and notorious logging firm based in Sarawak, represented in Tas by the former head of Forestry Tasmania.

    Not much of Tasmanian logging can be plausibly described as merely merely incompetence. nearly 78,000 ha of mainly State Forest plantation was covertly transferred from Crown Land to freehold in the name of Forestry Tasmania, supposedly a management GBE, before being largely leased to mainland companies.

    FT was also caught including the land value of Crown land forest as part of its own assets by an overseas forestry auditor. It also routinely licensed the 1080 poisoning of native wildlife to protect its new plantations without consulting neighbouring landholders,a chronic breach of the Judicial Review Act and the Federal EPBC.

    There has been some cosmetic acknowledgement of irregularities in Tas governance, such as the creation of an Integrity Commission, but it has vet to show signs of life. In the meanwhile, our lawmakers seem more inspired by the examples of Trump and Putin.

    John Hayward

  83. Luigi Brown

    March 28, 2018 at 4:58 pm

    This is where our health budget is going. What a waste.

  84. TV Resident

    March 28, 2018 at 4:08 pm

    So does this mean that Forestry Tasmania, or the latest farce Sustainable Timber Tasmania, have been operating while insolvent? Why should the taxpayers keep propping up this mess? In my opinion it is time for Barnett to have a ‘reality check’ and pull the pin on this farcical nightmare.

Leave a Reply

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

To Top