January 18, 2020 at 2:17 pm #108060Chief Editor TTKeymaster
STT practices, FSC certification, STT finances, personnel, contracts, partners, etc.January 21, 2020 at 11:18 am #108186JohnParticipantFebruary 8, 2020 at 9:36 pm #109298William BoederParticipant
Minister Guy Barnett has proven himself disingenuous, preferring lies and denials over truth as to the sustainability of the ongoing logging of Tasmania’s old-growth forests and HCV native forests, as well as having dabbled into Tasmania’s Heritage Listed Gondwanaland National Park.
I have requested the requisite information from minister Barnett to prove the sustainability of logging each form of Tasmania’s native forests, but not surprisingly there has been no response. Accordingly, this leaves considerable doubt that ‘Sustainable Timber Tasmania’ has been correctly named as a sustainable alternative logging arm, this being the complete opposite to its predecessor Forestry Tasmania with losses totaling in excess of a billion dollars. It is yet to be proven worthy as a sustainable forest logging entity.
The forests being logged do not belong to the Tasmanian government, yet legislation is the multi-function tool employed to alter the boundaries between right and wrong.
If a person enter the forests to gather armloads of deadwood, he risks this action being found a criminal offence.
One can safely assume that the specious intent of this State government to become the lord over Tasmania’s native old-growth forests, HCV forests, special-species zoned forests et al, harks back to the Gunns monopoly era with the permission of the Bacon/Lennon State government while subservient (or should the word be complicit?) to Gunns Ltd, with public opinion being steamrollered inconsequentially.
If one were to believe the State’s mainstream media news publishers nowadays, then the conservation of Tasmania’s forests is generally met with scorn and derision by this same minister despite the fact that he is unable to furnish the means to identify and to quantify the regeneration of logged forests with its former indigenous species-specific to each zone or coup logged across the state.
Rather feeble attempts to convince the people of the sustainability of the ramped-up logging currently underway can be found in the two links appearing below.
Where no active replanting programs had been conducted, nor prior long term programs of regenerating Tasmania’s variously zoned clear-fell logged multi-species native forests, we find that these are now scarcely ever found in Tasmania’s former forested regions. Early attempts at natural regeneration by Forestry Tasmania had later been entered and plundered by this same Forestry Tasmania for conversion into peeler billets for the unwelcome predator profiteers trading as Ta Ann Berhad.
One must keep foremost in one’s mind that Tasmania’s state government has been the irresponsible entity over all the long years of rash, unconscionable logging schemes, plots, and secretive logging transgressions, et al, along with it being responsible for the magnitude of Tasmania’s slaughtered indigenous wildlife, perhaps for the past 30 plus years.
Rosebery.May 21, 2020 at 12:04 pm #114879mjfParticipant
For the life of me I cannot determine where ” Tasmania’s Heritage Listed Gondwanaland National Park” lies. Is it perhaps known by an alternate name ?
Can I suggest the ‘Sustainable’ moniker is more in relation to re-establishing native forests cover and plantations post harvesting thus insuring an ongoing forested presence for future generations uses (whatever they might be) ?
Otherwise simply known as sustainable harvesting. As opposed to “fiscal” sustainability which appears to be not quite there yet but improving incrementally.
I also assure Mr Boeder that upon his entering production State Forest to steal a wheel barrow load of firewood, he will not be criminally convicted. Unless his transgression occurs on formally protected land (of which any amount exists under present Tasmanian legislation)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.