Tarkine mining

[frenchy_84]

in one small area though, they will just be displaced in to another section of forest. You are forgetting how big the tarkine is

[Hallu]

No that's a dangerous assumption. You've got animals that won't leave their territory, and just die here. The koala is the most famous example. I wouldn't be surprised if the wombat wasn't a big traveler either (they're both from the same suborder, Vombatiformes), and Tassie devils prey on them. Insects will die, plants too, and the animals that can move will then be competing with animals elsewhere for food. We're talking about a 180 to 510 million year old forest, wildlife equilibrium is perfect. The displaced animals won't find new territory, but occupied territory, hence in average you'd have simply killed the displaced animals. Either the displaced will take the place of others who will die, or they won't find food and die... It's not an empty forest.

For basic open-cut mines, we're talking about a 1 km² area I'm guessing. With the noise, roads, pollution etc... it's gonna disturb a much more larger area, probably 10 times that. So 10 mines would be about 100 km² disturbed, there are already 58 mine projects, this would be around 600 km² disturbed, with is a THIRD of the WHOLE Tarkine... I'm also very much afraid of environmental infractions. It happens a lot in the Ranger mine in NT for example (granted, it's uranium but hematite and magnetite aren't exactly candy either...). Introducing human presence in the middle of the wild Tarkine is also gonna mean accidental releases of dogs and cats, becoming feral, and again more damage to wildlife...

[frenchy_84]

No that's a dangerous assumption....

For basic open-cut mines, we're talking about a 1 km² area I'm guessing. With the noise, roads, pollution etc... it's gonna disturb a much more larger area, probably 10 times that. So 10 mines would be about 100 km² disturbed, there are already 58 mine projects, this would be around 600 km² disturbed, with is a THIRD of the WHOLE Tarkine...

hmmm, whos doing the assuming...

[Hallu]

Except that I know for a fact that your assumption is wrong, while my calculations are actually quite optimistic... I doubt there'll be 58 mines in the Tarkine, yes, but a disturbance area of 10 km² is the optimistic part : it's only a 1.8 km radius circle, but with roads, vehicle parking spaces, offices, etc... I think it's still low. 10 mines = 100 km² of wilderness disturbed at least, which is already more than 5% of the Tarkine... And the 1000 jobs Burke is talking about isn't for just one mine, the Riley mine for example is predicted to create 60 jobs ( http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/content ... 659361.htm ), this means 1000 is for 10 mines at least. So we're not talking about a small area...

[frenchy_84]

ok time for some perspective, ive just gone around in google earth marking up where there are signs of human interaction. I am sure i have missed alot of older regrowth, I think its pretty fair to consider anything north of that blue line as being logged or near logging. and i havent marked alot of roads. The red line is the boundary of the tarkine as per enviro lobby groups. Green is where the current national park is.
So why cant we find a balance between competing interests? its obvious that not all of the tarkine is pristine, and a fair chunk of the untouched area is already protected by NP's. Why lock up the whole area? Have a norfolk range coastal park, expand the savage river park slightly and then judge applications in other areas on the merits

[gorby]

I reckon that you are on the right track frenchy, I have visited a few of the old mining sites and nature has reclaimed them quite well without the modern rehabilatation methods.
IT is all about balance.

[corvus]

I reckon that you are on the right track frenchy, I have visited a few of the old mining sites and nature has reclaimed them quite well without the modern rehabilatation methods.
IT is all about balance.

+1
corvus

[Hallu]

ok time for some perspective, ive just gone around in google earth marking up where there are signs of human interaction. I am sure i have missed alot of older regrowth, I think its pretty fair to consider anything north of that blue line as being logged or near logging. and i havent marked alot of roads. The red line is the boundary of the tarkine as per enviro lobby groups. Green is where the current national park is.
So why cant we find a balance between competing interests? its obvious that not all of the tarkine is pristine, and a fair chunk of the untouched area is already protected by NP's. Why lock up the whole area? Have a norfolk range coastal park, expand the savage river park slightly and then judge applications in other areas on the merits

NPs in Australia hardly protect anything. Compared to their American counter parts, they're pathetic. The world's biggest uranium mine is right in the middle of Kakadu. There's an aboriginal slum right behind Uluru, where the Australian army is doing the security. And the worst part is : they're not national at all, they're managed by the states... This is why you need World Heritage status as a threat to make things work around here : if you get it, it's big money, and the threat of losing it actually makes you work for it. Australia is a century behind on conservation, those old mining/logging debates in NPs are exactly what happened at their beginning in the US. You don't graze cattle in an NP, you don't log trees, you don't hunt in them, you don't let people live in them, and you don't mine, it's not that hard. There are more than 500 NPs in Australia. Put those rules in place you'd be looking at 10 times less...

And another problem is the "merit" you're talking about. Who defines that ? Is it from the number of tourists it can bring (dead stupid), is an area with rich natural resources automatically prevented from becoming protected ? No, merit has always been a unique environment whether by its unique scenery, geology, wildlife or ecological environment. There are hardly any untouched temperate rainforests in the world, just leave this one alone so our children still can see it... Do you seriously think a couple hundred jobs are worth this loss ? It's not even the fact that it's not the whole Tarkine that'll be destroyed, it's more the fact that in a modern and rich country you still can think it's a good idea to ruin a pristine environment to gain a lousy number of jobs that won't even last.

And no, again and again, that's not because you see some vegetation regrowth on an area that it's "back to normal"... That's like blowing up a mountain, putting some debris on and saying "see, nothing happened".

[Haydynb]

Lock it up, invite the retirees, we can all move to the big island till we are of legal age to retire...as the 10 jobs left will be taken...

We will have lots of trees, retirement villages galore and some pristine rain forest only a few will ever see...

Without development, balanced development, we will have no other option....

Im for balanced development...

[wayno]

in nz its a reasonable percentage of the locals including local body leaders who are often for exploiting the land,
since we dont have state govts, our equivalent of the federal govt make the decisions, thankfully those decisions have protected the national parks in the interests of the nation, i dont doubt if we had state govts the situation would be different.
look at aus, look at all the countless miles of eucalypt forests...
temperate podocarp forests as hallu said are a rarity, the vast majority of forests in the world are dominated by single tree species.
go to the states or europe where you can look at countless square miles of pines pines and pines....
mixed forests are a minority in land area and fast declining. eucalypts are in no danger of disappearing... go and mine in the eucalypt forests instead...

[MrWalker]

So why cant we find a balance between competing interests? its obvious that not all of the tarkine is pristine, and a fair chunk of the untouched area is already protected by NP's. Why lock up the whole area? Have a norfolk range coastal park, expand the savage river park slightly and then judge applications in other areas on the merits

Thanks for the map. For those of us who have actually been there it was always obvious that they were trying to claim far too much. When Burke actually visited the area he could see that the claim for the whole area didn't make sense and rightly rejected it. If those wanting to preserve the 'Tarkine' had been a bit more reasonable they might have actually preserved the bits that matter.

[Hallu]

Unfortunately saving "bits" helps saving plants and insects, but is damaging to bigger animals that need large areas to survive. It is also much more expensive to look after several separate "bits" (that you have to fence and survey) than after a big area. Then you start to get small parks such as Tarra-Bulga in Victoria, the last pocket of this type of forest in the Gippsland, so small there aren't even anything bigger than half-day walks, and wildlife is quite poor. The surroundings have all been logged, cleared for farming etc... It's a sad sight.

[wayno]

yup which begs teh question why not fence off one big portion of the tarkine than a long narrow strip of land...

[frenchy_84]

NPs in Australia hardly protect anything. You don't graze cattle in an NP, you don't log trees, you don't hunt in them, you don't let people live in them, and you don't mine, it's not that hard.

You cant do any of that in a Tas national park.

It's not even the fact that it's not the whole Tarkine that'll be destroyed, it's more the fact that in a modern and rich country you still can think it's a good idea to ruin a pristine environment to gain a lousy number of jobs that won't even last.

And like I have said multiple times and illustrated in the map, it is not a pristine enviornment. Im not advocating for the mining of the whole area, just a sensible balanced approach to conservation.

that's not because you see some vegetation regrowth on an area that it's "back to normal"

exactly, why then try to include regrowth forest in to a NP let alone world heritage status. I have never said that it will back to normal, i have said that with rehab work the site will be turned back to forest that will be different from what it was, yet it will be a small patch in a large area, and IMO opinion worth it for the benefits it will provide.

And im not sure whether your comment regarding making it one large national park, rather than multiple small NPs to save on fencing costs is more laughable then your comment that 1/3 of the tarkine will be mined.

[Hallu]

So now the Tarkine is a regrowth forest and not worth saving... I suggest you present your study to Tasmanian conservationists they'll be glad to hear it... And many people live in Tasmanian NPs, I was quite appalled when I saw the town of Sisters Beach in the middle of Rocky Cape NP. Theoretically the town isn't part of the NP, and yet if you park there you need to pay a NP vehicle fee... The same goes for Mount William NP, you can see several houses near Eddystone Point.

[gorby]

how could anyone be appalled by a town in a national park? the town was there many years before the park was proclaimed.
The rocky cape area is a beautiful area and deserves to be a NP .At least with the town in the middle, it can be enjoyed by more than just the agile people.

It is all about balance.

[stepbystep]

how could anyone be appalled by a town in a national park? the town was there many years before the park was proclaimed.
The rocky cape area is a beautiful area and deserves to be a NP .At least with the town in the middle, it can be enjoyed by more than just the agile people.

It is all about balance.

Agreed. There is nothing to be gained by dismantling a town like Sisters Beach but much to be gained by preventing further growth.

Just returned from 4 days in the area. Mining exploration units are already on the ground. I chatted with one crew who were sent out the day after the decision.

[frenchy_84]

So now the Tarkine is a regrowth forest and not worth saving... I suggest you present your study to Tasmanian conservationists they'll be glad to hear it...

for *&^%$# sake, that is not what i said, I have said multiple times that there are without doubt areas within the region that deserve protection, some already have it. However a blanket protection of the whole area, even forest coupes that were logged in the last 10 years (remember these areas must be devoid of all mammals as mammals in the Tarkine do not get displaced they just die) is not necessary. You often go on about how weak australias NPs are, and how some are undeserving but now you are advocating the inclusion of heavily logged forests, and previous mining settlements in to a NP...
To repeat the analogy i used previously, using the 'tarkine logic theory' in the future any development in Bushy Park should be considered against the heritage values of Mt Field. Due to the new region with amazing heritage values called FlorHwayPark (copyright 2013) (it’s the region delineated by Gordon Road, Florentine River and Lyell Highway).

[Hallu]

how could anyone be appalled by a town in a national park? the town was there many years before the park was proclaimed.
The rocky cape area is a beautiful area and deserves to be a NP .At least with the town in the middle, it can be enjoyed by more than just the agile people.

It is all about balance.

lol I'm not blaming the people from the town and demanding they'd be expelled, I just think that a populated area shouldn't be a NP. As I said on the hunting in NSW NPs topic, I think the NP status in Australia is very weak, and that too many areas are being called NPs when they couldn't be in Europe or America, and yet they still would be protected as a State or Regional Park. The NP should be the ultimate conservation status, and not lightly given, otherwise it diminished its importance and symbolism. Have you visited Churchill NP in Victoria ? I've seen city public parks in better shape than this...

[Strider]

look at aus, look at all the countless miles of eucalypt forests...

Are you somehow suggesting that these aren't natural? Or are you referring to plantations?

[wayno]

I.m saying of all the forests they choose to mine in tas they go for one thays not a eucalpt one

[frenchy_84]

wayno, you make it sound like people have a choice where mineral deposits are located.

[Pongo]

A decent article out of the Australian from a few days ago:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fe ... 6580650318

It echoes some of the sentiments here (after the fluff in the first few paragraphs) and calls for a balanced approach to mining with some sort of land security for current and future tourism operators.

[geoskid]

I'd urge anyone interested in this issue to familiarize themselves (if they have not done so) with the Australian Heritage Council process and the Tarkine Assessment Report :

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ ... ssment.pdf

and associated attachments :

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ ... index.html.

It will be easier to understand the Environment Ministers decision, given the tool (National Heritage Listing) he was being asked to use to make a decision about a nominated place ('The Tarkine').
There is all sorts of guff being sloshed around by the media, and some of it has dribbled into this thread.

I agree that balance is needed, arrived at by sound evidence based reasoning.

[dplanet]

Spent 3 days and 2 nights in the heart of the Tarkine at the beginning of this year and as a view of a bushwalker, I would have to disagree that it is the pristine forest (agree with you, frenchy84). Having said that, i don't mean, that mining is supported.

As mentioned in my early post on this thread, I walked the Tarkine coastline from Temma to Interview River in late December 2011. Having experienced both, I honestly say that I prefer the Tarkine coastal walk to the one in the forest.

[wayno]

wayno, you make it sound like people have a choice where mineral deposits are located.

well of all the land in aus, they want the tarkine.

tas hasnt even scratched the surface of what they could do do boost the economy with tourism when you compare it with nz, i think they are being too hasty in proceeding down the parth towards mining wehn they could look at other options for expanding employment.
.

[stepbystep]

Frenchy is hitting the nail on the head in many areas. 'The Tarkine' is certainly not pristine but it has some really important pristine areas plus natural and cultural values that need to be looked after and unfortunately you can't really do it in a patchwork fashion. The coastal strip is great but also a no-brainer and an area that even if there were huge oil deposits would never get approval.

Frenchy's idea of a Norfolk Range NP is also excellent. In fact from The Pieman North to Temma and inland to the Western Explorer should be locked up for all time. Add to that the largest possible area of undisturbed rainforest and we are talking. Mining and forestry could still operate but on the outskirts of these areas, they have their own heritage that can be exploited by the tourism industry.

[doogs]

I happened to be looking for some information on geomorphological features in the Mount Field National Park when I stumbled across this site http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/ind ... /index.php . It shows a lot of the areas around the Tarkine hold areas of both national and international geomorphological significance (trying saying that when you're dunk!!). These areas do need to be protected so people can study them further in the future. I am not anti mining but there are a lot of areas that do need careful consideration when positioning when siting a mine.

[Ent]

Interesting as always discussions on the future of Tasmania. As for history lesson on the Tarkine it is a made up name with a set of geographical co-ordinates to define it that reeks of a political game. I have yet to meet any local that knew the area by that name. The comments made many years ago when it was mentioned that it was a tool to define an area by a trendy name and then “lock” it up. And yes that is happening.

It never ceases to amaze me that “conservations” are always looking in someone else’s backyard for the salvation of the planet and never their own. We have urban sprawl in Melbourne that has destroyed vast areas. Adelaide along with any town on the Murray River trashing that eco system and locked in endless bun fights blaming each other. Brisbane is happy to send a rare tortoise to extinction rather than save water. And we have the natural environment of Sydney? Is there not a strong push to open up even more land for urban development? Oh yes they want the Northern Territory to take their nuclear waste. Never been to Perth to make any specific comment but WA inc does feature as an icon of money first thinking. Oh, and Hobart. Best thing said is the original source of fresh water for European settlers became a sewer.

So a regional area gets a chance and in the café latta conservationists come. Strange but if the mine was in WA or SA the trumpets of joy would sound but in regional Tasmania no, no, no, never is the mantra.

So we as Tasmanian get ridiculed by other State Premiers over been wealth-fare dependent drain on them but any chance of growing our economy is shot down before it starts by the inner city “conservationist” writing from their teak desk made from clear felled timber in some country they never bothered to worry about. Who of them cares that in a short section of Rooke Street in Devonport (the hub of the tourist industry) are seven empty shops.

O’well let the debate ramble on punctuated by images of people chained to gates. Let’s ignore the environmental damage done in the capital cities as they build coal burning plants to produce fresh water and salve our consciences by stopping something in Tasmania then all will be right with the world.

Regards

[stepbystep]

Hi Ent

The Tarkine as named quite respectfully after the Tarkineer people, one of the four tribes of the region by Bob Brown and subsequently adopted by Forestry Tasmania for their Tourism venture 'Tarkine Forest Adventures' is indeed a vast area. Having spoken to many locals of the area from Marrawah to Corrina very few of them want 'the jobs' or 'the change' that potential mining would bring, in fact quite the opposite, they want the place "left *&%$#! well alone". It seems desk jockeys in Devonport and Burnie are pissing them off almost as much as decision makers in Hobart or Canberra.

Aside from your generalisations as to who is making decisions for whom and why, how much time have you spent in the area and what are your impressions?

Regards.