old-growth forest logging

[MrWalker]

.....

Is this true? Does anyone have a link to the original quote from The Widerness Society? I looked but couldn't find it.

I wouldn't get too excited about anything from someone who uses a very biased article in the Guardian in 2004 as a source of current information.

[tasrider]

.....

Is this true? Does anyone have a link to the original quote from The Widerness Society? I looked but couldn't find it.

I wouldn't get too excited about anything from someone who uses a very biased article in the Guardian in 2004 as a source of current information.

Haha yeah be funny if it were true. Or sad.

[frenchy_84]

It's not true and throwing in sensationalist untruths doesn't help the discussion

[Strider]

Forestry is like whaling. We figured that one out eventually.

Forestry itself isn't the issue. It's how it is managed.

Several countries still whale, and are successful in maintaining a sustainable harvest. Norway is a good example of this.

[wayno]

lets not drag whaling into this, its a contentious enough subject as it is.
personally i dont think tasmania is really big enough to warrant felling native timber in the way it is
what country clear fells native timber responsibly? i can't think of any, i can think of a lot who do it irresponsibly...
careful or you might end up like borneo. palm plantations from horizon to horizon

[Miyata610]

Forestry is like whaling. We figured that one out eventually.

Forestry itself isn't the issue. It's how it is managed.

Several countries still whale, and are successful in maintaining a sustainable harvest. Norway is a good example of this.

Norway whaling... Dwindling demand for its products and an insignificant contributor to the economy. Sound familiar?

[walkinTas]

...my posts are being blocked and censored by your site admin who don't want people to be told the truth.

Do you have access to literature other than the "truth" as published by environmental groups?

I have said many times on the forum, in this thread and in others, that I think "old-growth" harvesting is an opportunistic industry. In the same way that alluvial gold panning is opportunistic. The product is there and the industry harvested it - initially without much objection. Tasmanian's do know what is going on. We had very good reason to believe that "old-growth" logging would have stopped by now. It hasn't. I not only support the idea that it should be stopped, I also believe that the narrow definitions of "old-growth" built into Tasmania forest agreements should be broadened to be more inline with International understandings and definitions.

That said, I think it is a little crazy for anyone to argue that we (western civilization) don't need forestry. What the world needs, is crying out for, is clean, sustainable, temperate forestry that does not rely on or require the destruction of high conservation value, old growth forests. My gripe with (some) environmentalists is that they get these two things badly mixed up and confused. The end result is a message that gets misinterpreted and that misses the mark.

[frenchy_84]

Oh look what a 2 min google search can come up with, "Importantly, we no longer allow for the conversion of state native forests to plantation"
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/sfm/regen ... ve-forests
This has been the case for a number of years. and yes you may say that its from FT so its biased but its no more biased then anything that comes out of the "conservation movement".
I think that most people in this discussion, even those in support of the industry, dont want to see the forest industry continue as it did 18months ago, however the pendulum has now swung too far the other way.

[ollster]

We have *&%$#! loads of forest, most of it protected. Can't really see what all the fuss is about.

[Bailiwick]

Pulpmill Watch "These old-growth forests are logged for wood chips to be exported mainly to Japan to be made into paper. When the forest is logged, only the largest trees are removed. What's left is piled up and burned."

This is the truth you don't want to hear.

Forest Agreement "Conversion of native forest to plantations on public land will cease by 2010 and clearing of native forest on private land will be phased out over ten years."

So only Forestry Tasmania will end old-growth logging. Not private companies. And despite what the say, truth is they have not stopped, they only changed the definition so it would look like they stopped. Again they trick you into believing their lies because you are easy to trick. Now you don't want to hear the truth.

In 2011 Tasmania has planted 234,000 hectares of plantations. 207,000 were Shining Gum. The only one state to plant more plantation was Western Austratlia.

Tasmania Plantations, 2010
'000 hectares established in planting period
< 1966.. Shining Gum 0.0, blue gum 0.0, Others 0.3 = Total 0.3
1966-1970 Shining Gum 0.0, blue gum 0.0, Others 0.1 = Total 0.1
1971-1975 Shining Gum 0.0, blue gum 0.0, Others 0.2 = Total 0.2
1976-1980 Shining Gum 0.0, blue gum 0.2, Others 0.3 = Total 0.5
1981-1985 Shining Gum 0.1, blue gum 0.2, Others 0.3 = Total 0.6
1986-1990 Shining Gum 1.6, blue gum 0.3, Others 1.0 = Total 3.0
1991-1995 Shining Gum 12.3, blue gum 0.3, Others 1.2 = Total 14.0
1996-2000 Shining Gum 37.3, blue gum 11.3, Others 0.2 = Total 48.9
2001-2005 Shining Gum 61.3, blue gum 4.8, Others 0.1 = Total 66.2
2006-2010 Shining Gum 93.9, blue gum 3.0, Others 0.2 = Total 97.1

TOTAL__ Shining Gum 207.2, blue gum 20.4, Others 6.8 = Total 234.4

Remember only state with more plantation is Western Australia.

These figure prove Tasmania is planting MORE not less plantation. Last five year you plant more than ever before.

It is good that stepbystep and photohiker tell you the truth is ugly. It is sad the others just shut your eyes and say no no it does not happen. Now Ollster say it just doesn't matter. Do people in Tasmania really not see how much it matters? I've asked you many questions and you have given me no anwsers, you just give me BS it doesn't matter or it doesn't happen. Why do you let greedy men kill your forest and animals, and why do you let them poison your land and your water? Your state gets no benefits, so why do you let it happen?

When the French discovered Tasmania it was a beautiful place. Now most French would not go there because you have made it so ugly.

French-84: Those movies are not just from the Internet, they are on French TV. I just showed you English versions. But, you shut your eyes to this truth too.

Alright, watch your own news and see how your government tricks you into believing their lies.

[Son of a Beach]

Where do you live? When was the last time you visited Tasmania?

These are genuine questions. I'm just curious as to where your perspective and opinions come from.

[pazzar]

When the French discovered Tasmania it was a beautiful place. Now most French would not go there because you have made it so ugly.

Obviously you aren't telling them about the many more parts that are incredibly beautiful!

Maybe it is time you started speaking positively about Tasmania. The more money we can make through other avenues, such as tourism and other industry, we could maybe afford to scale back forestry. As it stands, it is one of our biggest sources of money. Encouraging people and speaking in positive light is just a small start in getting things headed in the right direction.

I don't think being negative is going to help the problem, as has been said before, we need to make the best of a bad situation.

[ollster]

Bailiwick, those Youtube videos are so out of date it's not funny. A lot has changed in the last 6-10 years. I think you really need to come here and see for yourself, rather than believing what you read/watch on the internet. There really is actually a very, very large amount of protected forest. Trust me, I walk in it a lot. Yes, forest practise has been pretty nasty in the past, but the rules have changed. Yes, there's lots of plantation. But that's better than the hack and slash of yesteryear, and it's a renewable resource.

And yes, as SoaB has asked, which country are you from exactly? A country with a spotless environmental record, obviously, otherwise you'd be spending your time and effort lobbying there?

[doogs]

When the French discovered Tasmania it was a beautiful place. Now most French would not go there because you have made it so ugly.

I grew up in Scotland, have spent roughly a year of my life in France and I can assure you that there are far greater wilderness areas in Tasmania than the two of those combine. I would also like to point out that at present Tasmania has a Greens/Labor coalition government. Would the French prefer it if we stuck a nuclear power plant on each street corner as seems to be de rigueur in France, I doubt it.
Why highlight Tasmanias plantation forestry when Europe descimated the majority of their native trees many years ago and replaced them with pine plantations?
Here's a good up to date article which is worth a read too;
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/08/21/tas ... -the-dole/

[Ent]

Dear Bailiwick

When the French discovered Tasmania it was a beautiful place. Now most French would not go there because you have made it so ugly.

Ignoring the typical European arrogance of neglecting the people that "discovered" the place probably fifteen thousand years or more ago it was the Dutch not the French as the name Tasmania is from Abel Tasman who arrived in 1642. If you have any idea of the history of the place you will understand that when one French expedition arrived it was greeted by the British.

To steal from http://trove.nla.gov.au/forum/showthrea ... n-Tasmania

Today, the 23rd of January in 1788 the French explorer La Perouse arrived at Botany Bay, days after our first fleet arrived.

La Perouses’ story after he left Sydney becomes a mystery adventure, with neither ships La Boussole and L'Astrolabe being seen again.
This map shows the route taken by La Perouse. An extract from the papers shows some insight to their fate.

However, it is the search party sent to find La Perouse that captures my attention. Bruni d’Entrecasteaux with the ships Esperance and the Recherche spent four weeks at was is now known as Recherche Bay, Tasmania after failing to find any sign of La Perouse and in desperate need of fresh water and ship repairs.

I am not sure on the current relationship between France and England at that stage but would not surprise to find a wreck of two with cannon ball holes in it.

The Dutch were the great early European explorers, not the French, and it has been argued that Captain Cook was following Dutch maps in 1770. Please when lecturing to us poor Taswegians at least get your historical facts right

Regards

[ILUVSWTAS]

i see Gunns has gone into administration.

Also, regardless of some of the inaccurate comments made here, it's a bit alarming to think that some of the other countrys around the world view us like this.

[Son of a Beach]

There's actually good reason to believe that the Portuguese mapped much of Australia long before others got here (200 years before Cook). Some even believe that James Cook was using a Portuguese map when he did his own mapping voyage.

See The Secret Discovery of Autralia - a good read, by the way.

Fact is nobody really knows who got here first (at least 'first' after the aboriginal peoples). We have a bunch of records from some expeditions which we assume were the first. There are bound to be some which didn't have such good records, and others for which records were lot.

But I don't know of any historians who think that it was the French who got here first.

[Ent]

Hi SOB

It would not surprise me if it was the Portuguese from the European side. Also given the maritime history of the Maoris, Taiwanese not to mention the Pacific peoples reasonable chance visits, either planned or unplanned happened. The "ancients" got around more than school history gives credit.

ILUVSWTAS

Such views expressed are not uncommon as a lot of campaigning for hearts and minds has gone on by elements of the conservation movement and they have been happy to play fast and loose with the facts or take an isolated example and portray it as standard procedure.

Basically games have and are being played by all sides. There is no such thing as one side having clean hands. As mentioned I personally struck in Turkey one well know person's gamesmanship.

From these games we get portrayed as uncaring oafs to stupid to get out of our own way. Personally I have grown tired of this approach but vilification of opposition is as old as politics. The Nazis pushed this to the point that the holocaust seemed reasonable solution to many otherwise caring human-beings. While that is extreme it should not be unexpected that if you vilify someone or some group hatred is the result and then any action is "justifiable". In USA politics more than a few consider it in the nation's interest to kill elected members that support universal health care.

Outside Tasmania most "information" had come from the conservation movement as no counter balancing from forestry interests. In Canada the locals seal hunting community endured the same even though the harvest was sustainable if rather nasty in method. The result was once the media circus moved on no-one gave a stuff what was left behind in destroyed communities.

Frankly Tasmania has been derided economically by all sides of Federal politics so no great care if we become a third world fail state. Honestly we care more about African Wildlife than African people so why should we expect the rest of the world to care more about Tasmanians than some demand to never cut a tree down.

Welcome to extremism politics.

Regards

[ILUVSWTAS]

Hmmm I knew I disliked politics as much as I do religion for a reason.

[photohiker]

Fact is nobody really knows who got here first (at least 'first' after the aboriginal peoples).

I'm glad that someone mentioned that there was a race of people living in Tasmania (and Aus for that matter) before it was 'discovered'

[stepbystep]

Fact is nobody really knows who got here first (at least 'first' after the aboriginal peoples).

I'm glad that someone mentioned that there was a race of people living in Tasmania (and Aus for that matter) before it was 'discovered'

Apparently the Pacific Ocean was 'discovered' by the Spanish today in the 16th Century sometime, I guess all the fish etc moved in shortly afterwards

[Bailiwick]

Where do you live?

My original "home" was Bailliage de Guernesey, but I did not lived there for some many years and do not remember it well, instead living mostly in France and other European countries. I am learning now some more information.

When the French discovered Tasmania it was a beautiful place. Now most French would not go there because you have made it so ugly.

Ignoring the typical European arrogance of neglecting the people that "discovered" the place probably fifteen thousand years or more ago it was the Dutch not the French as the name Tasmania is from Abel Tasman who arrived in 1642. If you have any idea of the history of the place you will understand that when one French expedition arrived it was greeted by the British.

I think perhaps you are nitpicking with your childish comments, or perhaps not understanding. I am sorry that I said the word "discovered" if there is a better word. You dine with your work colleagues at a restaurant you have not visited before, when you go home would you not say to your wife "I just discovered a nice little restaurant"? You are trekking in the mountains and you find a cave you did not know existed, would you not tell your companion "I just discovered this amazing cave"? A Frenchman sails to Tasmania to see its beauty and tells his countrymen of these things, can I not say the French have now discovered this land. Does not, "when the French discovered Tasmania" mean the French are became aware of what Tasmania might be. Is there a better way to say this? If I am saying something very silly perhaps someone can be more polite and explain, rather than everyone rudely laughing.

There is no "lecturing" in my statement, unlike your own. If I were to lecture I might say that perhaps you should read some of the writings by Elisabeth Rossel and others. You will learn that Jean François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse, arrived off the coast of New South Wales on 23rd of January in 1788, the first English ship arrive on the 18th and others over the following week. Bad weather delayed a landing and when La Peruose finally came ashore, some English had already left for Sydney Cove. I'm not sure who would have been more surprised, La Perouse to see the English, or the English to see La Perouse.

The Frenchman Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne was the first European to be meeting with the Tasmanian Aborigine when he "visited" Tasmania in 1772. It is a simple fact that the French expedition of Antoine Bruny d'Entrecasteaux settled in Tasmania in 1792, well before the English arrived in 1803, and this settlement was used on and off for about 10 months when the expedition was sailed around Australia in search of La Perouse. It is also true that the French suspected Tasmania was an island, but had not the time to finish exploring this idea. If it had not been for la Terreur and the French Revolution, and the war with England that followed, it is perhaps a possibility that France would have establish more settlements and it is also possible they would not have wished to. But who knows if La Perouse had returned home then maybe things would have been very different. Most likely d'Entrecasteaux's expedition would not have sailed. You would have to understand a lot about France to understand what was going on at this time in history. France was a divided nation at war on many fronts. I should also say your words are most rude because I am not reading that the French neglected your Aborigines. Early French explorers all acknowledge Aboriginals, some traded with them and studied them, and some even lived with them and learned from them.

However, enough of this silliness. I joined here just to agree with some comments that had already been made by other participants and in many documentaries I have viewed with the hope that some of you would know these comments are truthful. I too am very sad that you destroy your own Island and I think that one day you will also be sad that you have done this. I also decided to ask you some simple questions. I have been very surprised how hostile you have been. However, I understand now that you probably don't wish to have other people ask why you are doing this. Perhaps you hope that no one else will know?

[tasadam]

...... why you are doing this.

You imply that we are all at fault.
You are therefore picking on all of us, from afar it would seem.
The pros, cons, facts and otherwise of old growth logging is too long winded a story for me to have to explain just to make my point, but I would suggest you don't put us all in the one category as you seem to be doing.

[walkinTas]

Also, regardless of some of the inaccurate comments made here, it's a bit alarming to think that some of the other countries around the world view us like this.

It is food for thought, but I'm not sure how many other countries would be in that boat. A lot of other countries would have their own forestry debates to worry about. I'm not even convinced that Bailiwick can legitimately claim to speak for all of France.

I think we should all be careful here. This debate will never end. If Bailiwick's figures are correct we have 230,000 + hectares of plantation to harvest in the next 15 to 30 years. Add to that all the native forest that has been harvested and replanted, and will be "regrowth" to harvest sometime in the next 40 years. Even when old-growth logging stops, the debate will not stop. The next debate will be clear-felling of native forest, then clear-felling of plantations and stopping clear-felling completely, and then stopping the logging of native forests at all and then stopping the expansion of plantations and on and on it will go, dividing the community because people on both sides have entrenched ideas. And even if we grew hemp, there would be people who would protest about using agricultural land that should (in their opinion) be used to grow food.

i see Gunns has gone into administration.

The alarming question now is who will end up buying Gunns' assets for a song. Will it be a foreign company?

[Ent]

Hi

If the current process continues the plantations will be sold to USA pension funds at fire sale pricing. The banks have control over the land and will seek to have the trees valued at way below cost thus transferring the growers' equity to their land value. Expect the administration to take many years while the corporate shell is drained of all cash by the banks and administrators/receivers.

That has what is happening with the other companies that the banks have destroyed.

Regards

[ILUVSWTAS]

i see Gunns has gone into administration.

The alarming question now is who will end up buying Gunns' assets for a song. Will it be a foreign company?

Quite right!! Sometimes we must be careful what we wish for!

[steveh72]

Hi ent,

Without commenting on gunns for I do not know the circumstances,

As a bank mgr I do feel you are being a bit harsh,

The joy of borrowing money is that interest & repayments are met if so no problem if not as a secured lender the reason why security is taken is to get your money back (as the person giving the money you get to set the rules) and I am quite sure that all the term deposit investors are quite happy about this for it is their money that is being lent out

If the rules are not acceptable then don't borrow the money

Cheers

Steve

Yes the administrators do very well and we are all employed in the wrong job in regards to the valuation an asset is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay.

[ollster]

I have been very surprised how hostile you have been. However, I understand now that you probably don't wish to have other people ask why you are doing this. Perhaps you hope that no one else will know?

I suggest you come here and have a look and make up your own mind, rather than googling what you want just to back up your assumptions about the place.

[ILUVSWTAS]

I have been very surprised how hostile you have been. However, I understand now that you probably don't wish to have other people ask why you are doing this. Perhaps you hope that no one else will know?

I suggest you come here and have a look and make up your own mind, rather than googling what you want just to back up your assumptions about the place.

Wait... are you suggesting not everything we see on the internet is real??

[stepbystep]

i see Gunns has gone into administration.

The alarming question now is who will end up buying Gunns' assets for a song. Will it be a foreign company?

...and we will only have the arrogant backwards looking dinosaurs on the Gunns board to blame despite what some here seem to think. 'The Greens' saw the writing on the wall, but the decision makers at the corporate and political level were so pathetically caught up in each others pockets like an obscene game of twister, and surprise surprise the workers get screwed, well who'd have thunk it...????

Oh yeah Balliwick, I've travelled throughout Europe, you don't have wilderness left to protect, come and check it out. It's even better than on YouTube!