700 METRES (multiple image warning)

[tasadam]

So there is this...


Then a mere 700 metres up the road, there is this...








I went past this not long after it had been burnt as well, though I was too disgusted to stop then to take photos.

Tasmania has some beautiful places.
It's such a shame the ugly side is so in your face when getting to them.
What is wrong with these people - do they do this deliberately? It sure seems like it, like, the tourists come and see clearfelling, plantation, burn-off and so on, and it is so in their face that they get desensitised to it and accept it as normal - or so "they" want us to believe perhaps.
I just don't get it, how such an ugly mess is so unavoidable when visiting such a tourist drawcard.

Adam- at that very same spot I took a bunch of photos in the early Spring- it gets innundated with daffodils and jonquils. It made a very interesting contrast to the forestry wreckage.

PS- See any mushies/fungi on the trail?

[stepbystep]

I went past this not long after it had been burnt as well, though I was too disgusted to stop then to take photos.

Tasmania has some beautiful places.
It's such a shame the ugly side is so in your face when getting to them.
What is wrong with these people - do they do this deliberately? It sure seems like it, like, the tourists come and see clearfelling, plantation, burn-off and so on, and it is so in their face that they get desensitised to it and accept it as normal - or so "they" want us to believe perhaps.
I just don't get it, how such an ugly mess is so unavoidable when visiting such a tourist drawcard.

Took my mum through recently when she visited the state, having not been there before myself, it [i]phisically[i] hurts to see this sort of stuff.
I document it on many trips I take.
See attached in SW surrounded by WHA on all sides
There was a massive 30-40 metre Myrtle tree felled and half burnt out. Insult to injury

Attachments

SW.jpg (244.09 KiB) Viewed 12583 times

SW2.jpg (278.23 KiB) Viewed 12583 times

How could you kill something like that? I just don't understand.

[bushrunner]

Money.

There needs to be an emoticon for vomit.

[BarryJ]

[stepbystep]

perfect

[Taurë-rana]

There's a waterfall called St Georges Falls behind Burnie which is an awesome waterfall. When we first saw it, it was falling into a gully surrounded by the smoking ruins of a logging coup. Anywhere else in Aus it would be a signposted, publicised reserve. I've seen so much of it while 4wding because we often use Forestry Tracks. There's a track in the NE that goes through amazing, incredibly diverse wet sclerophyll forest - the track is narrow and not obtrusive, then it comes out to a broad, ugly forestry road which is being put in to clearfell this incredible forest. It doesn't just make me , it makes me

[corvus]

Thanks to FT for the road access to so many areas without which most would never get within a bulls roar !!
c

[north-north-west]

*expletive deleted* FT.

Walked out to South Cape Rivulet during the last visit. Lovely clear, sunny day until, on the return:

Which made me a bit nervous as, from the beach, it looked like the fire could have been between me and Cockle Creek. Fortunately not, and I did get a 'lovely' bit of colour later on:

Of course, it pelted down the next morning as I was leaving, and just outside the park boundary was the remains of the fire - frankly it looked like a bomb had hit a section of forest, there was that much blackened timber lying around the coupe. No photos, as I was already dripping from stopping to pick up a gorgeous young hitchhiker. We both just sat there staring at it for a couple of minutes until a surly looking FT employee started heading our way . . .

[stepbystep]

Amazing shots Scavenger..........so scary, I love that area sooooo much...

[Taurë-rana]

Thanks to FT for the road access to so many areas without which most would never get within a bulls roar !!
c

I agree, there are many lovely Tasmanian areas I've driven into thanks to FT roads, but the majority have been badly compromised, and leave one wondering whether using the same roads to promote tourism and exploration of Tassie's wild areas would have generated the at least as much income for the state. Considering how many people come to walk the OT track, there are many other areas that could have been marketed or promoted in the same way if they hadn't been clear felled, or they could have catered for different markets - mountain bikers, or horse riders or people who wanted a certain amount of comfort in their wilderness.

[walkinTas]

Thanks to FT for the road access to so many areas without which most would never get within a bulls roar !!
c

I don't see that as a positive at all. The more these areas are opened up, the more people will go there (e.g. road through the Tarkine). The more people go there, the more these environments will be at risk (e.g. A fire in the Tarkine - or any alpine or rain-forest environment). Once lost, these environments are gone for every.

The harder it is to get there, the more likely it is that the person who goes there will be responsible and environmentally aware.

[Singe]

Thanks to FT for the road access to so many areas without which most would never get within a bulls roar !!
c

I don't see that as a positive at all. The more these areas are opened up, the more people will go there (e.g. road through the Tarkine). The more people go there, the more these environments will be at risk (e.g. A fire in the Tarkine - or any alpine or rain-forest environment). Once lost, these environments are gone for every.

The harder it is to get there, the more likely it is that the person who goes there will be responsible and environmentally aware.

On the flip side though, the more people experience wild areas the more public support there is for conservation in general, which can lead to an overall positive even though the more popular areas end up trashed. There's definitely an art to selecting the 'sacrificial zones' though, one distinctly absent from the proposed Tarkine logging "tourist" road. Similarly, once you've developed a 'wilderness' area to the standards expected by the washed masses there's no going back and thus the 'true' wilderness areas diminish at a steady rate. It's a tricky balance, and one we're nowhere near achieving in Tassie - but that notwithstanding, forestry still causes a gajillion times more ecological degradation in this State each and every day than tourism does in ten years.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

Last edited by Ent on Thu 11 Nov, 2010 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[walkinTas]

This is "the wilderness is too good for anyone but me and my select group" argument. Such social elitism has a dangerous side effect.

Its nothing like that at all Brett. If I can walk there so can most other people. (If you'd met me you'd know that is true). Take a look at this article. The fire was started as a "distress signal". It is easy to argue - no road, no fire!

What does the most damage is society not as a whole valuing wilderness and the best way to achieve that is to ensure that people are ignorant of the wilderness so by all means dissuade them from going.

Wilderness is just that. Wild and undisturbed. Once you put a road through it and a chalet in the middle of the picture it isn't "undisturbed" any more.

If I was arguing an elitist argument then I would argue that wilderness is for no-one. Cause and effect! Action and consequence! Karma! No one can walk through wilderness without changing it. Each footstep damages a plant, compacts the soil, disturbs a rock, what-ever, but there is some small change. And the consequence of those changes? Who knows! I think you would agree that driving a bulldozer through a wilderness is much more dramatic that walking through a wilderness. The article above shows one consequence of one action. Is it worth the risk? In fragile environments there is no room for mistakes or regrets. Every area of Pencil Pine, King Billy Pine and Huon Pine that has been burnt out has been lost forever - no regeneration. As you say yourself, what is needed is balance, or as Singe said, "There's definitely an art to selecting the 'sacrificial zones'".

My appeal is simply to leave some areas undisturbed. Especially those that are most vulnerable. If we don't do this, then education will be nothing more than pictures of what used to be. I know that sounds a little exaggerated, but in fact there are many plant communities in Tasmania that are already endangered, or at risk of extinction.

Yes idiots exist but I am feed up of having laws impinging on me to "stop" them. Heck, one of the attributes of idiots is they do not give a hoot about the law. Education and a development of respect is required but what has been suggested appears to parallel the jail approach and we all know how effective that is.

Steady on, nothing was mentioned about changing the law or putting people in jail. Besides, there is no point. Those things won't undo the loss. We must be proactive, not reactive.

I rather tire of of the abuse directed at forestry in total rather than activities and results from the failure to consider that trees are a raw material (an a far more ecological friendly material compared to alternatives such as steel, etc). ...Sure forest practices can and should be improved with using cable logging to clear fell step hillsides making no sense with the loss of soil that takes millennia to create. It is hard for even the staunchest supporter of forestry to walk through an area that has been cleared felled and burnt and not feel sad.

I agree that forestry is an important industry. You can read other comments I have made in other threads. We started planting trees in plantations over 40 years ago. We have the knowledge and ability to provide timber without further opportunistic exploitation of old growth forests.

The Forestry Industry has itself to blame for its bad press. Why log to the edge of a public highway? Why not leave a buffer zone? Why log to the skyline of a waterfall or other attractive natural feature? Why not leave a buffer zone so people can't see the devastation? The pictures in this thread are asking just these questions. These are not new questions, they were common questions 30 years ago. Now there is no excuse for it, other than the people responsible just simply don't care.

I for one have strong concerns over mono culturing of "super" trees.

Emotional dribble Brett. If you are going to argue that trees are just another crop, then treat them as just that. Breeding better trees that grow faster with shorter rotations and more timber per hectare is just that, treating trees as a crop. The question is not whether or not to grow the crop, but what we loose in the process. Or rather what society is willing to give-up in order to grow trees, have timber and produce paper. Actions and consequences again. The arguments for and against growing forests for timber are no different than the arguments for an against any other intensive agricultural or silvicultural practice.

What is required in this imperfect world is pristine wilderness, selectively logged native forest, mixed specie forests, and maybe mono cultured plantations if the economic trade-off is better at preserving the first two. We still need farm land and living places.

...And so there is nothing "elitist" about calling for a bit more of the "pristine wilderness" when it is appropriate to do so.

[corvus]

Hey wT lots of rhetoric ,name a few popular walks that you have done recently that did not include FT building the initial road .
c

[walkinTas]

Name one where there hasn't been subsequent damage or loss?

[corvus]

Behave !! your question is a bit like when did you stop beating your wife !!
You are obviously not game to name the popular walks available to us thanks to FT.
c

Last edited by corvus on Wed 08 Jul, 2009 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[north-north-west]

your question is a bit like when did you stop beating you wife !!

No, it isn't.
'When did you stop beating your wife?" presupposes that the addressee did in fact beat his wife. There is no such presumption in walky's question.

[walkinTas]

I acknowledge that putting roads in gives access to "popular" walks - perhaps even makes the walk more popular, but to continue to argue that one point in isolation, you would have to ignore the key theme of my little rant.

[corvus]

Which to the point is!!
c

[corvus]

your question is a bit like when did you stop beating you wife !!

No, it isn't.
'When did you stop beating your wife?" presupposes that the addressee did in fact beat his wife. There is no such presumption in walky's question.

He answered my question with a question
c

[walkinTas]

Which to the point is!! c

The more these areas are opened up, the more people will go there. The more people go there, the more these environments will be at risk (e.g. A fire in the Tarkine). Once lost, these environments are gone for every. ...Wilderness is just that. Wild and undisturbed. Once you put a road through it and a chalet in the middle of the picture it isn't "undisturbed" any more. ...leave some areas undisturbed. Especially those that are most vulnerable. ...there are many plant communities in Tasmania that are already endangered, or at risk of extinction. ...And so there is nothing "elitist" about calling for a bit more of the "pristine wilderness" when it is appropriate to do so.

Quite simply Corvus, some things are actually fine just the way they are. And I can live with the fact that there are some places in Tasmania I will never go.

But hey, great idea, lets put a road into Federation Peak and an elevator to the top so everyone can have a "wilderness" experience. You know, something similar to Bailong tianti (in ZhangJiaJie National Park). Share the wilderness with everyone, not just these elitist, bushwalking Yuppies! That way we'll be sure to encourage people to preserve Tasmanian wilderness. That is the alternative argument isn't it? More access preserves the wilderness!

[Taurë-rana]

A lot of the places we walk have easier access because of FT roads, but it didn't stop people going there before the roads were there. And there are many areas that would be more attractive to walk in if they hadn't had logging operations conducted, which could be accessed by non FT roads. There are also plenty of great 4WD tracks that were put in through forestry, but the ones that were put in when selective logging was conducted still go through beautiful forest - it is possible to have a forest industry that preserves what we have left rather than trashing it.
That is what people have been fighting for for years and years, it's just that the radical greenies who do want to "lock everything up" get all the press.
If there had been better management of what we have, there would be less pressure on the popular areas because there would be more places to chose from. There would have been some beautiful walks possible in the NE mountains before the large scale logging and the same goes for the NW, including south of the Arthur River where FT promised never to go
Actually there are quite a lot of walks that are accessed from Hydro roads rather than FT roads.
I guess because I grew up with a love of the Tasmanian bush and have watched it being steadily destroyed and mismanaged I'm very passionate about preserving what is left before it is too late - maybe it doesn't hurt so much if you haven't seen so much of it and realise how much is gone.

[flyfisher]

But hey, great idea, lets put a road into Federation Peak and an elevator to the top so everyone can have a "wilderness" experience

C'mon be fair, if they don't upgrade that road in the Tarkine, they could put a road from Scots Peak to Port Davey ,bridge Bathurst channel and continue on back to Cockle Creek, Amotel here and there with fuel, food and accomodation, and possibly Macca's and KFC so everyone could have a few wrappers and boxes to pelt out the window.

Road to PD was proposed by a Huon council member some years ago.

ff

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

Last edited by Ent on Thu 11 Nov, 2010 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[tasadam]

I wish I had time to read all this now, alas I do not.
Remember the initial point was that there is unsightly forest work on the main entrance to, and less than a kilometre away from, a very popular tourist destination.
There is no doubt the need for logging is there.
There will always be the for and against arguments - the need versus greed and so on.
Please keep it nice (maybe it is, as I say, I haven't read it all yet).

[Taurë-rana]

There are two mistakes both sides make and it is the same one, "Man is not part of the eco system". To believe as say the radical right does that man is above the eco system will have us eating money (love that phrase and hope it did come from some tribal elder not an add agency). The converse with the radical green is man a pest and as such should be eradicated.

I think half the problem is that the radicals on both sides have radicalised the moderates on the other sides - moderate greens, or conservationists are distressed at the wholesale destruction they see done by the "radical" timber companies and therefore move their position to "no more, ever", and moderate um... forest workers are upset at the radical greens who appear to care nothing for their livelihood. If only it had all stayed in the middle. Interesting that there were forests managed in England for hundreds of years that were not untouched wilderness but nevertheless were healthy, thriving, diverse ecosystems until the thinking changed and monoculture was tried then things stuffed up majorly. They supported families and were used for timber until people got greedy and impatient.