Forestry Tasmania has set out on a mission to establish a new benchmark for openness and transparency in the debate over the management of our forests.
So far, we have thrown open the doors of our headquarters in Hobart to the media. We have started hosting briefings for the community in our regional offices around the state.
We have demonstrated our commitment to admit to mistakes and we are introducing new ways of communicating with our stakeholders (eg.. Branchline e-newsletter).
These build on an already transparent approach. FT is subject to Freedom of Information (FoI). Our three year wood production plans are freely available, Forest Practices Plans are also made available to the public and we are required by law and through the Australian Forestry Standard to consult widely.
As a Government Business Enterprise, every year our business is scrutinised by the Parliament, and every other day, forestry is scrutinised by the media.
This high level of scrutiny has resulted in significant improvements. We no longer convert native forest to plantation. We don’t use clearfelling on old growth, unless there is no other safe or viable option. Our regenerated native forests are chemical free and we no longer use 1080 to control browsing animals.
The question now has to be asked is whether the failure of forestry critics to match our level of transparency, is causing a whole generation of Australians to be swindled?
The Wilderness Society is a $12 million business. To continue to survive, it needs confrontation and a sense of crisis. It relies on $9 million in donations and why would people continue to give if there is no imminent threat or crisis. A quick look at the society ’s web site will show that every issue is accompanied by a plea for people to give now before it’s too late.
Just as our business is heavily scrutinised, so should theirs. The Wilderness Society is not subject to Freedom of Information. If it were, we would learn how this organisation works. Without this basic tool, the responsibility of media to question is greater. If the media unquestioningly accepts Green rhetoric as fact, there is every risk that well intentioned Australians could be swindled into handing over cash to solve non-existent crisis.
How much confidence can Australians have in what they hear on the news? Are they getting the full story?
Forestry Tasmania has for the past five months endeavoured to find a solution to the dangerous and illegal protests in the southern forests. The Wilderness Society has consistently refused to discuss the issue, claiming that it has nothing to do with the protests and that FT should talk to those responsible for the protests. FT does not accept the Wilderness Society has no influence over the activities of these groups.
However, in May, FT’s Derwent District took on the Wilderness Society’s recommendation, and approached a group of protesters in the Florentine Valley. These protesters assured FT that they were independent and acted without outside direction. A Memorandum of Understanding was struck allowing FT to complete roadworks and to collect fallen timber in the Florentine Valley without further interference from protesters. It has now come to light that MoU was in fact submitted to and edited within the office of Australian Greens leader Bob Brown. It has since emerged that at least some of the Florentine protesters have simply moved to a different forest where one of Bob Brown’s staff, Adam Burling, is a member of an organisation that organises illegal protests. At no point during the negotiations did the Florentine Group reveal their connection to Bob Brown’s office or his staff.
In June, the same group of protesters organised a protest in an area called the Wedge. In our view, it was no coincidence that Mr Burling requested permission from FT for Senator Brown to fly over the area in a helicopter with a photographer previously used by the Wilderness Society on the very same day that these independent protesters decided to hold their protest action.
It stretches the bounds of credibility to suggest the decisions to take a helicopter ride and the decision to stage a protest were taken independently of each other.
In a few weeks, another documentary decrying Tasmania’s forest practices will be aired on cable television around the world.
It will claim that industrial logging of native forests is destroying the habitat of the endangered wedge tailed eagle. To the casual viewer, the program will appear to be a genuine investigative documentary, compiled by an independent film company. It will feature interviews with Senator Brown, the Wilderness Society’s Geoff Law, an assorted group of eagle experts and thrown into the mix to add credibility will be comments by Tasmanian Government public servants and the Managing Director of Forestry Tasmania, Bob Gordon.
The conclusion, however, will be that forestry is driving eagles to extinction. What the viewers wont know is that the program is being funded by an anti-forestry activist, who has provided $200,000 on condition that he remains anonymous.
How do we know? Well, the producer Brett Shorthouse told Forestry Tasmania, during negotiations on Bob Gordon’s inclusion in the program. While the anonymity of the businessman behind the project would be protected, Mr Shorthouse did reveal when pressed that the businessman had recently purchased a property in Battery Point. To his credit, Mr Shorthouse has behaved honourably. He has never attempted to hide, and in fact warned FT about the pro-conservation motivation behind the program.
However, we believe people have a right to know who funded the program, so they can make up their own minds about its credibility.
Another cable television documentary by world champion swimmer Ian Thorpe also raised concerns about transparency and balance. FT was approached by Mr Thorpe’s producers asking permission to enter state forests.
Of course, permission was granted, but our invitation to brief Mr Thorpe and to provide a tour of forestry operations was ignored. Instead, Mr Thorpe chose to interview only environmental activists. We would have loved dearly the opportunity to at least put an alternative view to Mr Thorpe, but the producers refused on the grounds that the program was non political and really about entertainment rather than serious discussion. We were therefore somewhat surprised to learn that Senator Brown was a participant. We can only conclude that although Senator Brown draws a politician’s salary, is the leader of a political party, Mr Thorpe does not believe Senator Brown is a politician.
Readers of Richard Flanagan’s articles in the UK Telegraph and the Monthly magazine might be forgiven for believing the articles were entirely researched by the author without any outside assistance. It might well come as a surprise for those readers to learn that a few months prior to the publication of the articles, Mr Flanagan flew by helicopter to the Styx Valley with Greens Leader Bob Brown. The excursion was organised not by Mr Flanagan, but by Senator Brown’s office. It was Senator Brown’s office that contacted FT seeking permission to land a helicopter on state forests, and we therefore assume the trip was funded by Senator Brown and perhaps, taxpayers. I am the first to admit that FT does not know the purpose of the trip, and there is every possibility that it was in no way related to the articles written by Mr Flanagan. Nevertheless, it is important for readers, especially those who thought the articles were compelling, to know about the trip. It may assist in helping them to understand why only one side of the forestry debate was presented. To date, Mr Flanagan has not made any attempt to speak to Forestry Tasmania.
Ken Jeffreys
General Manager Corporate Relations
Forestry Tasmania
—————
Republished with permission from Forestry Tasmania’s electronic newsletter. Register for this newsletter by contacting tamika.triffitt@forestrytas.com.au.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If only this wasn’t true but alas I for one know only to well that its what Tassie timber folk have to endure every day, with out doubt we are to be blamed for the Roman empire. People like flanagan and all the other “experts” who know what’s best, yes from the comfort of their lounge chair, (till they need to get another log for the fire)amuse me greatly as they never seem willing to pass judgement on their own way of life.
Pretty weak these so called experts I say. Good on you Ken for putting it as exactly as it is
Why should we not be surprised!? It never ceases to amaze me the hipocricy displayed by the extreme greens, some influential supporters and by association many journalists and media outlets. One classic example is that of the treatment of the Vernon brothers who where virtually driven from their land under pressure from Bob Brown with the assistance of Dick Smith, and in particular misinformation and in my view, deliberate lies, printed in a certain newspaper. On June 24th a story printed in a local paper reveals how Dick Smith has found himself on the other side of the environmental debate. The proposal for an eco-lodge on land he and his son-in-law James Baillie own near Crescent Bay and Port Arthur on the Tasman Peninsula, is being opposed on environmental grounds. With all the hype over the Vernon brothers proposal for their property at Research Bay, it is in stark contrast, the deafining silence displayed by Bob Brown, Peg Putt and the rest of the Greens, in relation to the Crescent Bay proposal. The Greens are always banging on about corruption but is this an example of them being paid off by Dick Smith for their silence? In the story published about this proposal James Baillie is quoted as saying it was unrealistic to try to prevent development on freehold land. Apparently not Mr Baillie, look how successful your father-in-law was with the Vernon brothers proposal!
Ken Jeffreys has refreshingly exposed a few of the facts behind what really goes on with these fanatical extreme environmentalists. He has demonstrated how some high profile individuals are being used. It is such a pity that those high profile individuals can’t demonstrate that they have the intelligence to question what they are being told by either side of the debate. It is equally disappointing that many journalists and media outlets demonstrate a similar inability to see the forest for the trees.
The lack of openness and transparency does not only rest with the Wilderness society and the Greens political party, recently UNESCO’s Committee on World Heritage fell into the same trap.
Last week they made a decision that was reported in the Australian media to express concern over the management of Tasmania’s Wilderness WHA, following complaint by Environmental Non Government Organisations (ENGO).
the World Heritage Centre’s, Bureau of Public Information Roni Amelan was asked for details, including documentation the decision was based upon and which member states voted for or against the decision on Tasmania.
The reply was “The documents are confidential and decisions are made by consensus, so states do not take an individual position on issues. I am sorry I cannot be more precise. Roni”
This is despite a detailed 56 page report by our Federal Government on the issues raised being submitted to the WHC and freely available at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/pubs/tas-wilderness.pdf
This report concludes “Tasmania rated highly in the 2006 WWF-Australia Review of Australia’s Terrestrial Protected Area System… In conclusion, the Australian Government is confident that the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is well protected and managed, and that there is no threat to its integrity.”
At the same time UNESCO was refusing to release the secret report and the basis of the decision, Australian Forest Minister Eric Abetz pointed out that the WHC is advised by the IUCN, an international ENGO, its Australian representative and a Vice President is none other than Greens Senator Christine Milne. Was it a coincidence that the first media releases came from Bob Browns office, UNESCO are yet to issue one? Or that former Staffer Geoff Law was at the conference to address delegates on the issue.
Another coincidence perhaps was that a report critical of Tasmanian forest management was released in Japan by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) to coincide with the UNESCO World Heritage Decision.
Readers may remember that RAN has previously worked with the Greens and the Wilderness to campaign against Tasmanian forest Practices. See http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001239.html
At the time the network admitted on this blog that it was not concerned about Tasmania’s forest practices, but more about a legal case between a Tasmanian timber company Gunns Ltd and the Greens, Wilderness Society and their protesters.
Lets all hope for an open and transparent process to discuss issues, not just forestry.
Well done to Mr Jeffierys I also find it hard to understand how the greens can continue to get away with what they do Geoff is also spot on in that the media has a lot to answer for.
Lets see more people coming forward with what they (greens) are really up to.
At long last I have found a web site that is not afaird to povide comment from bloggers that don’t aspire to the dark green dooms day tatic.
Very interesting what Geoff had to say, yes always thought that there was some thing behind Dick Smith being so ready to help Bob Brown out. Of course the local Hobart newspaper will expose the deal between Dick and Bob. Guess that will be front page this coming week.
Oh Cinders; what a witch hunt we have here! Christine Milne, Brown and Law are indeed a thorn or three in the forest.
Hey: our tall trees may only stand tall today because of them. Ever thought of that Cinders?
I thought about letting this thread pass as another timber industry sob story but I am intrigued by the fact that Forestry Tasmania came out of the woods through Ken Jefferies in the first place.
Look at it this way folks; from personal experience Tasmanian cellulose products have been over produced for decades but it took the first round in the RFA process to outline and address this problem. Growth in export woodchips during our post war building boom began the rot in more remote forests. I saw the first widespread wastage of mixed forest species around the time of the Mersey Forth Hydro Scheme in 1963. The limit of those operations was the edge of the old Cradle Mountain reserve.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/90a12181d877a6a6ca2568b5007b861c/fbc80abf785011ccca256c3200241726!OpenDocument
Thinking the current heritage campaign has more in favour of keeping the place on the world map and guessing tourism is worth more than the bare timber industry without its federal subsidies I googled the hydro scheme and discovered Lorinna again. The fate of folks living around Lorinna and their access to state developed power has long been an interest when it comes to who you trust with developing public resources.
http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/General/fpn_issue_17.pdf
I recall that subsidized power for major industry through exclusive big biz contracts was the reason a few poorer acquaintances left my home town for other states. However my link is more about the observation within the forest practice of things in the bush other than logs. I bet that practices board only came about after a thorough beating of successive “progress” prone governments at the ballot box.
Readers may note that I’m the true conservative here in the political sense.
You can register for the e-newsletter from Forestry Tasmania by contacting tamika.triffitt@forestrytas.com.au
Jennifer: In many ways the forest business today speaks for its improvements via their own publicity machine. See the Forest Practices News for April 2007. I say the images under “Awards” are worthwhile visiting.
http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/General/FORPRA_May07_News.pdf
Gavin chooses to defend those politicians that have openly declared their intention to destroy his beloved Democrats at the next Federal election.
He remains silent on the star chamber like process adopted by the World Heritage Committee that keeps secret the basis of its decision against our Nation.
Yet he attempts to rewrite history claiming “Growth in export woodchips during our post war building boom began the rot in more remote forests. I saw the first widespread wastage …in 1963”
For those that do study history the first woodchip export facility was opened in May 1971 at Triabunna, followed by the mill at Long Reach in 1972, this is the site of the proposed pulp mill.
Gavin might also be aware that the Helsham inquiry was meant to determine the the extent of the World Heritage forests of SW Tasmania. On 6 May 1988 it handed down its report to determine if the 275,000 ha studied met the criteria for World Heritage. It found only a total of 27,400 ha measured up the rest did not. That was less than 10%, but based on a strategy by the ALP’s Graham Richardson to win green preference, the ALP ignored the finding and reserved 370,000 ha.
this extended area was then assessed by the IUCN in 1989 for the WH Centre. Not surprisingly they found “that the new boundary fully meets the reservations indicated earlier by IUCN and expressed in the Bureau’s recommendation” and “Specific suggestions for adjustments of the eastern boundary reviewed during the IUCN field
inspection have now been incorporated.”
They said of the 1989 Extension:
“Outside the boundaries of the site, extractive forestry operations will occur outside the eastern boundary with clear-cutting, road-building activity, the possibility of fire escape, and reduction in visual quality
and wilderness values. These will hopefully be minimised through careful management and through application of the Forestry Commission’s “Forestry
Practices Code”.
However, the adjustments to the eastern boundary of the site made in the
September 1989 revision to better follow natural features reduces the
potential problem. Specific suggestions for adjustments of the eastern
boundary reviewed during the IUCN field inspection have now been
incorporated. Other suggestions made during the IUCN inspection has also
been incorporated in the September 1989 revision.”
Forest management is still undertaken under the Forest practice code and we have seen even more reservation brought about by the Green Labor Accord,the Salamanca Agreement, the Regional forest Agreement and the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. All adding large chuncks to the reserved forest system of the state.
Gavin,
Sorry mate but your personal experience in regards to Tasmanian forestry is decades old and has no relevence in the modern forestry debate. You have voiced your opinion over and over that “Tasmanian cellulose products have been over produced for decades” but have yet to demonstrate that you have the expertise or the understanding of forest ecosystems for this stance to be anything other than a poorly formed opinion, It is certainly not based on scientific research nor an understanding of the growth habits of eucalypts,Eucalyptus regnans in particular .
These systems are not static but very dynamic. Pehaps if you paid a visit to many of the areas that you claim to have first hand experience with in the 1960’s you will see that 40+ years on the forests have regenerated and the values that you lament the loss of are still intact.
Your comment regards the images in the Forests Practices News demonstrate your lack of understanding of Tasmanian forest ecosystems and their dynamic responses to disturbance.
Boy what good debate, am I again glad I found this site, to you Gavin a good try but not much comment from you about what Geoff had to say about dark hidden deals between Bob and Dick, and looks like you are not totally up with what’s fact, as pointed out by cinders (is the fire going out or just starting) Therefore as the new arrival I will award this first round to Ken Jeffierys, but guess like most Greens or is it Democrat you will not be able to handle to well being wrong
Great comments from Geoff re Recherche Bay and the obvious pay off to the Greens by Dick Smith over that issue so that he (Dick)can now freely support his son in law in the development of Crescent Bay
There are apparently 2 White bellied sea eagles (threatened species)in the area of the development of Crescent Bay. I have no doubt that Bob Brown and his mates will be making no comment about the importance of this threatened species or the impact that clearing of the site (in order to build a tourist resort) will have on the animals concerned.
Perhaps Bob could go to another good friend(he must still have some) and ask one of them to contribute to the purchase of Crescent Bay from Dick Smith’s son in law so that the area can be donated to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy in order that it be saved from the developers.
The Vernons were subjected to a gross misrepresentation of their intentions by the Greens their sympathisers and the media over a long period of time. It will be very interesting to watch how the Mercury handles this issue.
In relation to Crescent Bay the Greens are now being shown to be driven by political need rather than genuine environmental concern if they, their ilk and the Wilderness Society do not stand up against the bulldozers and this development. The area is far more genuinely pristine than Recherche Bay ever was.
Peter: Let’s reckon on a reasonable on a reasonable depth of experience in Tasmanian eco systems some first hand, some second-hand after six generations hey.
When I say Tasmanian forests were over exploited, I mean in particular that period early 70’s when I organised chartered aircraft for wilderness photography from Victoria because authorities in Hobart seemed to put bans on environment info.
Cinders: The 1963 reference to the Mersey scheme was about when it opened, as you say the export chip mills opened later and I guess the forestry opps near Cradle went on for years. You won’t find it on the web but my technical boss mid 70’s down the West was previously a supervisor at the original APM mill in the far South. His experience helped me track raw forest output up North during the 80’s. Forestry rangers were flat out filling gaps then and some big independent hardwood mills were screaming for a share.
Sorry if I remain deep rooted and rather cynical of anyone crying foul today.
Back on theme; sure scrutiny started in earnest after I left. Scientific observation is a good thing hey. Besides I want to see federal funds spent well out in the bush after all this time.
Gavin,
Visual observation will not provide you with an understanding of the sustainability or otherwise of any ecosystem. You must put in the research prior to making such claims, especially for growth and yield when commenting on forest ecosystems. Sure a harvested area looks untidy and to the untrained eye can appear to be as if it will never return to its former state.
I wonder what your comments would be in regards to an agricultural landscape. Most city based folk will always chose the agricultural landscape over the recently harvested landscape as being the most sustainable. Yet the former is cleared of forest forever, whilst the later is regenerated and again achieves the full suite of values that the forest provides.
I have been fortunate enough to work in some of the areas in Tasmania that you have mentioned on this blog as being places that you have worked. As this was in the early to mid 1990’s my experiences are vastly different to yours. I witnessed the magnificent regrowth forests that have arisen from the work your collegues at APM carried out in the 1960-1970’s. It was a very different landscape to the one which you allude to. Forest ecosystems are dynamic, if they weren’t they would not be able to exist.
Geoff is right to point out the greens reaction to the Recherché Bay and Safety Cove eco tourism developments. At Recherché Bay the owners wanted to harvest the re-growth forest to fund the development of an eco tourist resort.
At Safety Cove, the finance is backed by millionaire Dick Smith, whose money was used to fund the purchase of Recherché Bay and stop the harvesting and development plans of the former owners.
At Recherché Bay the former owners located a nest of a pair of White Bellied Sea Eagles on their property and placed a 10 ha permanent reserve irrespective of the time of the year. The reserve design by professional foresters was endorsed by the Forest Practices Board. In addition construction activities like roading, tree felling, vegetation clearing or burning were banned within 500m from August to January, in fact the owners agreed to not approach by foot within 500m unless directed by the FPB Zoologist.
The Recherché Bay forestry plans also included contingency plans if more nests were discovered. All these management prescriptions were put in place following an aerial search in August 2000 and subsequent ground assessments.
These plans were not good enough for the Greens then, and they ran a national campaign to get them changed. Dick Smith’s Safety Cove has one perhaps two sea eagle nests within 500m of $12 million development
So just what has changed for the Greens or for Dick Smith?
Geoff: “Why should we not be surprised!?
Mate; if I was ever close to being a good campaigner behind the scenes then Geoff Law must be brilliant but I truly don’t know who programmed him.
In political reform my old targets were people in the street, people at home, people on holidays etc. Cinder’s knows nothing about it but there were times when I had contacts with most of the technicians in any big business on your side and my side of the Strait. Secondary processing was my oyster.
And Peter knows little about that. Hey while a chainsaw works hard outside my window I wonder if Peter is really more of a city type than me. BTW I started at Papermakers in the APPM complex before being sent off to see other advanced manufacturing in Melbourne.
“Eucalyptus pulp production begins” See TIA p 247 for research and links to APM, APPM, ANM etc and their various establishments.
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/247.html
Other background: A handful of people I knew well set out to bridge the gap between the public at large and the remote corporate elite via the Federal Grants Commission process a long time ago. If I had a left wing it was the unions and a few odd bods in Trades hall Victoria. My right wing sympathies had to be entrepreneurs in general, self made men with a firm grip and Dick Smith. However there were times when I tried to approach every dairy farmer, every transport operator and their bankers in particular regions back home.
Jennifer knows that I’m an undisciplined operator, that’s because I never swallow the official line. For instance I say to Peter; science is only what someone makes it after the event. But we can argue I hope about over using that water study done on dams after fires in Victorian ash country since it seems to be Peter’s and Tas forestry’s only source of research.
That’s all about our water catchments and sustainability issues folks. Affordability and flexibility are other key targets in today’s political jargon.
Now Geoffrey Blainey is on Howard’s history education panel I can refer again to his work on the layers of modern impacts on one region; the West Coast of Tasmania. Peter should read Peaks of Lyell again. Then we can forget I had lots of experience of early timber exploitation in high rainfall areas. My father and his brothers worked in surveys for Forestry then I followed the rails before the Murchison Highway was built and drove the track over Tunnel Hill long before we lived there. Forests in that region do not recover. I leave the Pieman Scheme and its impact for another post
There is nothing like getting an instant close up feel for accelerated run off and erosion with out trees than having a fixed wing pilot to drop you down in an abandoned open cut near Queenstown. That place lost all it’s rain forest over a hundred years ago. Not only mining, but settlement, agriculture, hydro development and transport industries all over have reduced Tasmania’s heavily forested regions drastically.
I actually feel sorry for people like Ken Jefferies trying to pick up the pieces.
JohnL: A good friend remains close to tourism after many years in its development. I knew a bit about the state’s Port Arthur massacre recovery, the Bush Mill and Steam railway development history etc from private sources and there are youngsters freshly involved with recent federal moves on a range of initiatives in Tasmania generally, therefore in my retirement I keep off their patch with considerable respect for the next wave of minders both within and without the halls of power.
It is a pity Gavin didn’t read further his reference to the newspaper mill that accessed the tall tress from the Styx and Florentine from the 1940s.
Chapter 9 ( http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/258.html ) would have alerted him to the fact that export of wood chips started some three decades later.
Surely Gavin is not critical of the timber harvesting in the Styx and the Florentine, the birth place of clearfell, burn and sow silviculture in Tasmania’s wet eucalypt forests.
After all it is his green mates that hold this area up as pristine, ancient and awe inspiring. Protestors are frequent visitors as well photos of the Styx are the staple of election campaigns and the current propaganda of the Rainforest Action Network.
Perhaps the greens or the media that gives them credibility should read Gavin’s reference to find out just where the Nation’s newsprint came from since the 1940s.
Those opposed to the current pulp mill might also be surprised that Gavin’s reference is about a pulp and paper mill being built on the banks of the Derwent River just a short distance from Tasmania’s capital. A pulp mill set amongst farming, tourism and fishing industries that is still operating and has operated for more than 60 years.
I notice the tack of the Forest Industry supporters in continuing with their labelling of conservationists as “extreme greens” in order to discredit them. The Wilderness Society budget is criticised but it is peanuts compared to what Gunns and Forestry Tasmania have at their disposal, let alone the funds they hand over to Timber Communities Australia and the newspaper ads they run or the Gunns brochures we all got recently in the paper.
TWS campaigns on more than forests if you read their journal so even when Old Growth logging ceases in Tasmania, the campaigning for wild places will continue.
I regret to note that the hand of God has not smitten the accursed forest at Recherche Bay with fire and pestilence befitting an ill-gotten gain obtained through collusion, conspiracy and deception. I shall just have to pray a little harder and will now have to include similar prayers for the fate of any buildings constructed by the family of Mr Smith.
Call it poetic justice, call it fate, call it Karma, call it God’s work, it is all accumulating critical mass.
Peter, have been to several rallies and events staged by Jeff Law and he was quite specific in advising that Old Growth Logging is just the start. TWS actually wants an end to all native forest logging. It was explained that native forest is after all “young old growth” . Hence the debate will have decades left to go. When the communist party imploded and many of its members joined the Greens and TWS – I thought the debate might widen to encompass more antifacism stances. Certainly anti-big business and anti- progress and anti-big government is there, but it seems sort of bogged down in rhetoric at the moment. May be if we had less restrictions on gun ownership – things could get more interesting. Suppose that is a sticky issue though. Still it would make for more “wild places”.
Gavin,
I don’t doubt your working origins or credentials what I do object to are your constant assertions that what you were witness to as operating procedures in the 1960’s and early 1970’s are unchanged today. Almost every post is referenced to you past work and how it was done. Sorry mate but progress in Tasmania did not end when you left. I do enjoy your reminicences for a number of reasons, not the least is to see just how far we have progressed today. And that my friend is a significant distance in any ones book.
Oh and I do note that once again you have mentioned “that secondary processing was your oyster”. Far enough away from the production of the raw material to ensure that your opinions in regard to forest manmagement are not formed as a result of devising and implementing forest management strategies based on an understanding of forest science and ecology.
“Corporate bastards get off my planet” is the catchcry of the greens when posting media releases on the John Butler Trio web site. http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=546.
No wonder they are opposed to the pulp mill and Tasmanian timber company Gunns.
Don’t they realise that the large majority of Australians work for corporations and we would have no jobs and no need for schools, Universities or the public service if the greens succeed in expelling these corporations.
I wonder how many corporations fund the greens or give their policies credibility?
Is the Baillie /Smith’s company that submitted plans for Safety Cove a Corporation?
Well Cinders – why not invite them over to defend their position !
“May be if we had less restrictions on gun ownership – things could get more interesting” for John Brown hey? That thought is so unwise given some of my other experience.
Mate; in this country we can all say it loud and clear when we vote. Dealing with private frustrations requires maturity. Working with individuals on the far left and right simultaneously requires a bit of talent.
Since cinders has shifted the goal posts here with his new found passion for pulp mills lets have a good look at their history in our hardwoods.
In the late 50’s the Swedes sold us their patented continuous digester systems. APPM researchers in Burnie reversed the flow and made them suitable for hardwood chips and gained another world patent. At the same time I was invited to join the physicists as their engineering apprentice on the black liquor recovery pilot plant. APM on the mainland went down a different path to produce fine paper grade hardwood pulps. Both operations led to the feasibility of our hardwood chip export. Now let’s hear it from ANM and so on.
“From a technological point of view there are no significant differences between the operations of the wood chip export projects and those of the local pulp and paper industry, except that the former are generally on a larger scale, some of the chippers used, for example, being among the largest in the world. Disposal of the large quantities of bark and chip fines produced as waste has had to be done in an environmentally acceptable way, where necessary by burning in smokeless incinerators. In the case of APPM, however, chip fines are now being used in a solid fuel boiler for steam generation at its Burnie Tas. pulp and paper mill”. (TIA- p 258).
I could go on about transitions from other fuels and local power generation that became obsolete with subsidized hydro electric schemes.
There is another side to continuous mass production and its called effluent. Liquid and gas streams were another part of my early industrial training. Tasmania once had arguably more seriously polluted outfalls per head than any other part of the modern world. This continuous disaster must include the Derwent. Pity about those estuary mussels, hey.
Cleaning up or shutting down certain processes became another world target. Where was the mercury in our old pulp mills? Your answer should involve two parts in the original chemical process.
Cinders: This big question remains – why was so much of the latest technology lost to Tasmania in the interim? Buying technology is one thing maintaining your edge is another.
“Surely Gavin IS critical of the timber harvesting in the Styx and the Florentine”
Was it like the Hellyer region where too much timber went to paper?
Peter: All I wish to claim is some knowledge about accelerating exploitation that lead to resource shortages today. Also large scale ups in production usually means fewer jobs and sharing of wealth from public assets requires alternative distribution networks. That’s why TWS and other organizations including governments are entertaining tourism etc.
What is responsible for the rarity of the Tasmanian Wedge-Tailed Eagle?
Intriguingly, Ken Jeffreys “piss and moan” piece never bothered to offer an alternative explanation.
Again in the interests of openness and transparency, melaleuca would be aware of the court case undertaken by Bob Brown against Forestry Tasmania (Ken’s organisation)last year in the Federal Court.
According to the evidence of the Court appointed expert, (Mr N Mooney) on the Wedge tailed Eagle, the pre European level of Wedge tailed eagles was likely to be about 530 pairs, plus un-attached adults and juveniles. (Mooney Report Table 3 Page 17)
Prior to the Tasmanian RFA process, the scientific literature reported about only 138 pairs in 1991. (Mooney Report Paragraph 63 )
The evidence before the court and accepted by the Judge was that there were now 457 pairs. (Mooney Report Paragraph 61 ) This represents an increasing from 26% of pre European population prior to the signing of the NFPS to today’s 86% of 1750 breeding population.
On the surface this seems a remarkable achievement on the recovery of the species, it shows a current population of up to 1500 eagles when considering unattached adults and juveniles.
Moody states in his evidence “the different estimates [between 1989 and today] do not reflect an increase in numbers but rather better estimates.” Yet if this is the case then the nomination of the bird as endangered based on these low population estimates is no longer relevant and should be reviewed. It also shows the success of the prescription in relation to the WTE in searching for, identifying and managing eagle nests.
It is all the more remarkable that the same court appointed expert gave evidence, again accepted by the judge that over and above natural death rates, he estimates about 30 eagles are killed by collision with wires and fences per year, about 50 by collision with vehicles, another 1 by collision with wind turbines, about 32 by electrocution, about 40 are poisoned and another 20 shot. This totals to about 173 killed prematurely per year, an amount that has increased by about 18% in 15-20 years. (Mooney Report Paragraph 95)
On these statistics since the RFA was signed in 1997 about 1700 birds killed by non natural causes. However not one eagle has been recorded as killed due to forestry is in his figure.
With 86% 0f its 1750 population if the bird is considered rare then it is due to other factors than the settlement of Tasmania and is not due to its foerest sector.
A full copy of the report can be found at http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/poss/pulp/whatsnew#Submissions as a submission by the Wilderness society!
Hmm some good debate and good strong points from cinders in support of Ken.
Melaleuca if you call Ken’s writing “piss and moan” sure hate to think what you would call the writings of peter d.jones, straight out diarrhea perhaps, but I would never say that of another blogger, as to me if you need to revert to name calling then tells me you don’t have much substance to put forward.
So well done to Ken Jeffierys for providing a very strong case that is yet to be challenged in any meaningful way.
But you guys are preaching to converted and hard liners here. Ra ra! Bravo old boy etc! Where’s the debate?
Thank you very much, Cinders. I have an open mind on the forestry issue. I realise wood must come from somewhere. Thanks again.
Luke
You ask where’s the debate well not sure but I think this thread commenced with a in depth article from Ken Jeffiery’s then several responses from gavin and equal number supporting posts from cinders, also along the way a number of posts for and against Ken’s opening article.
My reading of the debate is Ken’s argument held up very well, gavin did provide some interesting responses but got lost a bit with dates which cinders corrected,
To me, a good robust debate.
Jennifer: It’s time I went on the offensive and at risk of hogging the blog again I make this provocative statement;
bloggers for loggers come from about the most selfish groups in this country.
1) They have never liked sharing public assets forests, roads etc on equal terms with other users
2) Cinders and co won’t debate on the issue of federal subsidies to their industry.
3) Forest industry spokes persons don’t accept comparisons with other industry; mining tourism, dairying what ever.
4) Groans about TWS Greens etc. become a smokescreen as subsidies to forest biz demand open book on all aspects of forestry operations.
5) There is a serious danger the Australian public will become bored and shut down the free cash after a federal election.
6) We don’t hear the debt story. I remain concerned about who eventually owns that fed cash after its distributed.
7) Cinders and co sit in offices allday like the rest of us and become hangers on hey.
8) Ken, TF and co says nothing about the international value that TWS, Greens etc continues to add to Tasmanian tourism.
Folks: There was a time when I lived in Melbourne and had country recreation in Tasmania almost every weekend. With my other HR Holden stationed quite close the to the airport it was possible to have my family out in the bush in NW Tas sooner than if we had driven up the Maroondah Highway to Lake Eildon. Sunday afternoon returns to the big city from either place were the deciding factors for the location of any adventure.
While working in Tasmania I made a point of picking up backpackers every day between stages. Our conversations always related to their first impressions, how they decided to come, who they would bring back. The logging industry had no idea of the damage they did to this trade.
When Ken writes “This high level of scrutiny has resulted in significant improvements. We no longer convert native forest to plantation. We don’t use clearfelling on old growth, unless there is no other safe or viable option. Our regenerated native forests are chemical free and we no longer use 1080 to control browsing animals” I say hang your heads in shame!
Folks: How long does it take for any industry to get a grip on itself? IMO Deep down in TF They owe the public a great deal more than admissions of past practice. Mid 70’s I shifted with family into a pos to watch Hydro, Mining and Forestry developments.
That watch goes on, through private flights over the SW, trips round the bush and frequent calls on others passing through. Photography has become an essential tool in the hands of tourists and that’s something TF should never forget when they compete with TWS for sympathy.
Carbon is being traded at between $A10 -100 per tonne. Forests grow carbon at 1-10 tonnes per hectare – or sequester 3 -30 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per annum.
Market forces will eventually see the end of the use of trees for paper making – but sawmilling has a long-term future being able to both afford the carbon price easily and store it in finished products.
Managing forests for pulp timber production however is unlikely to generate sufficient returns in the future.
Over the years it has often been said that all forests in each state should be managed by the one body. If the carbon stored and the carbon storage of Tasmanian forests was marketed internationally the returns in export income for the national economy and the returns to the state economy may be extremely high into the future.
This is not a matter of whether or not you believe in Global Warming – but about the reality of a market.
So far the Commonwealth has only spoken of Carbon tax as a price deterrent on carbon production. Such figures are hard to set an even harder to verify theoretically. The cost of companies actually paying foresters to manage the forest for carbon production can be measured, is real and is likely to be a fraction of the amount economists have in mind for a price deterrent tax.
Whatever the price of the carbon tax that money should flow to forestry for managing timber for its carbon storage potential.
None of this will happen suddenly – but long term investments in pulp mills need perhaps to be tempered by the need for flexibility in regard to the raw materials used to produce pulp.
There will always be sawmill waste and plantations of single species with sub optimum carbon storage potential may provide a lifeline to the hardwood dependent pulp industry for some years or decades to come – before as market driven transition to other sources of fibre.
However the export of woodchips will not be able to compete in dollars per hectare generated from the native timber resource nor export income generated from sequestering carbon in native forests.
Bob McDonald introduces another subject on the environmental credentials of forestry. Forests in Australia store an estimated 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon (excluding that carbon in the soil). Australian plantations and commercial forests removed a net 43.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in 2004.
These facts are to be found in “Forests Wood and Australia’s Carbon Balance” by the Australian Governemnt’s Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation and the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting at http://www.fwprdc.org.au/content/pdfs/new%20pdfs/Forests,Wood&CarbonBalance.pdf
This publication also deals with carbon storage in harvested and un harvested forests (see figure 10) and the storage of carbon in timber products including paper even after disposal.
Gavin ask why I have not debated subsidies, well first no one has asked me, and then Gavin will need to define what you mean and give some examples as I am yet to receive a subsidy from Government. Is it subsidies in general such as the ones that made the HR Holden cheap enough to buy, or the subsidies given to the Environemntal movement such as the The Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations see http://www.environment.gov.au/programs/gveho/index.html Perhaps Gavin should do a seperate post once he defines the subject!
Bracks says “Carbon trading can’t wait” ABC news
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/03/1968706.htm?section=justin
but I want to draw readers attention to a radio comment today where a NSW farmer plans to cut down his trees one by one till paid not to by the state in response to recent land clearing restrictions.
Apparently there is a new campaign by landowners; but who do they think they are in holding the rest of this country to ransom at a critical time in carbon storage transition? I’m sure Phil Koperburg will respond as he used to as fire chief
Anyway; Who owns all the greenery on this planet?
Now I reckon its time cinders and co stopped fussing around behind smoke screens, pointing the stick and started thinking about the consequences of anyone holding this country to ransom as we could decide we have a bad batch minding the show down south hey
Jennifer: Although Bob McDonald raised the issue first it has been on my mind for a while that under international agreements carbon issues will overshadow both states rights and individuals. Its likely logging, farming, wilderness and heritage will all be back stage soon.
I now see that Cinders has actually lied to me. He said:
“According to the evidence of the Court appointed expert, (Mr N Mooney) on the Wedge tailed Eagle, the pre European level of Wedge tailed eagles was likely to be about 530 pairs, plus un-attached adults and juveniles. (Mooney Report Table 3 Page 17)
Prior to the Tasmanian RFA process, the scientific literature reported about only 138 pairs in 1991. (Mooney Report Paragraph 63 )
The evidence before the court and accepted by the Judge was that there were now 457 pairs. (Mooney Report Paragraph 61 ) This represents an increasing from 26% of pre European population prior to the signing of the NFPS to today’s 86% of 1750 breeding population.
On the surface this seems a remarkable achievement on the recovery of the species, it shows a current population of up to 1500 eagles when considering unattached adults and juveniles.”
Mooney explains the discrepancy in estimate numbers from 1991 til now as follows:
“The different estimates do not reflect an increase in numbers but rather better estimates”.
http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/70721/Mooney_Report.pdf
The problem with lying is that once you lose your credibility it takes a lot of work to win it back.
Melaleuca please withdraw your cliam that I lied. If you re read my post July 2, 2007 08:09 PM then you will see that in my statementthe you quote the next paragraph is
“Moody states in his evidence “the different estimates [between 1989 and today] do not reflect an increase in numbers but rather better estimates.” Yet if this is the case then the nomination of the bird as endangered based on these low population estimates is no longer relevant and should be reviewed. It also shows the success of the prescription in relation to the WTE in searching for, identifying and managing eagle nests.”
If you are to accuse me of lying please have the curtesy to read what I have said. I hope for the sake of your credibility you will immediately apologise and retract your baseless and offensive claim.
Mooney 2005 parra. 9 mentions the reasons for Tasmanian wedgetail eagle population isolation, Bass Strait and the drowning of their land bridge to the mainland. Readers my recall my interest in the rate of that change and in particular the oscillation of our coastlines at the end of that period.
Anyone who can’t see climate change as a real threat is blind. The balance between ice and greenery is also a fragile thing.
Hey: Our southern eagle numbers respond to warming not logging!
Melaleuca: When it comes to tracking eagles I reckon cinders spends most of his time hidden in some Hobart office with his naval covering half the keyboard, otherwise he’s not a bad bloke to argue with and we need that mutual respect.
In fact all these TCA bloggers can put up a fair fight most of the time. But I can catch them out easily when I ignore their anti green focus.
Another hint: While they slap backs round their own group they forget I have a bit of experience with the alternative employment about the regions. What else besides log carting, chipping and pulp mills can we have to keep it all in perspective? Let’s look for a moment at how our traditional towns and their cultures handle change.
The history of Burnie and Strahan will do. With Burnie and the VDL it was agriculture and a deep water port, and then came mining via the EBR. APPM later dominated everything with pulp and paper manufacturing. With declining APPM employment after industry automation the local entrepreneurs switched to mine and transport engineering. Container cargo dominates the foreshore today.
How many people work in town for Caterpillar / Elphinstone today, 600 or 700?
I doubt if TF or the TCA can tell us.
We had a great battle over the Franklin River and the long term future of the remaining west coast mining towns. In the mid 70’s copper mining was declining. I went to Queenstown with the unions from Zeehan where we negotiated interim employment support from governments and potential change with managements that included HEC underground engineering.
I believe Queenstown and Strahan eventually benefited from another insight after the partial restoration of their unique railway engineering.
Hmmn, presettlement numbers were 530 Eagle pairs on an island of 7,200,000 hectares makes 13,585ha for each pair. And their primary food source is lambs on cleared land. That cleared land is managed for maximum lamb populations and has a total animal weight/hectare far in excess of a hectare of forested landscape. Unless one includes termites in the animal weight of forests.
In any event, last I heard was that Eagles are not known to eat termites so there is every indication that the cleared land has actually improved the stocking rate of Eagles in exactly the same way that the stocking rates for Ninox (Powerful Owls) has been boosted by urbanisation and the addition of domestic moggies to their normal diet of possums and threatened glider species.
Gavin, the rampant narcissism that oozes from every line of your posts is getting really tedious. Get a dog.
Cinders,
here is your bare faced lie:
“Prior to the Tasmanian RFA process, the scientific literature reported about only 138 pairs in 1991. (Mooney Report Paragraph 63 )
The evidence before the court and accepted by the Judge was that there were now 457 pairs. (Mooney Report Paragraph 61 ) This represents an increasing from 26% of pre European population prior to the signing of the NFPS to today’s 86% of 1750 breeding population.”
Mooney says in the same para you draw your facts from that the 1991 estimate was wrong and that no increase in eagle numbers has occurred.
This is one of the most egregious cases of dishonesty I have ever witnessed on the net. Apologise or remain silent.
Melaleuca,
There is absolutely no lie on my behalf, only on yours and your lack of comprehension.
I stand by my first statement and any one reading my posts will know that I do not lie.
looking at your own web blog you appear incapable of accepting when you are wrong!
Mooney’s figures speak for themselves, it his expert opinion confirmed by others that the eagle breeding population is at 86% of pre white settlement.
to me this means the eagle is not rare, nor is it threatened. Which was your question in the first place.
Mooney clearly says the Tasmanian wedge tailed eagle is endangered. If you read the whole report, plus the other Wildreness Society report which was co-authored by Mooney, it is obvious that the species is at real risk of extinction.
The point is, what do we do about it?
Forestry activities that create openings in the forest canopy create food resources for ground dwelling mammals, by lowering the height at which most of the ecosystem’s productivity is expressed. eg by promoting the growth of grasses and palatable pioneer species. Consider the debate over browsing marsupials eating eucalypt seedlings. Eagles can benefit from an increase in prey populations and the creation a patchwork of open hunting grounds within larger forest areas. Big old stags are important nesting sites and adequate numbers of these should be retained, and adequate numbers of old trees should be allowed to senesce as replacement stags for future eagle populations. Forestry activities can alter ecosystems in favour of wedge tailed eagles, and be economically viable.
Ken wrote “In a few weeks, another documentary decrying Tasmania’s forest practices will be aired on cable television around the world.
It will claim that industrial logging of native forests is destroying the habitat of the endangered wedge tailed eagle. To the casual viewer, the program will appear to be a genuine investigative documentary, compiled by an independent film company. It will feature interviews with Senator Brown, the Wilderness Society’s Geoff Law, an assorted group of eagle experts and thrown into the mix to add credibility will be comments by Tasmanian Government public servants and the Managing Director of Forestry Tasmania, Bob Gordon.
The conclusion, however, will be that forestry is driving eagles to extinction”
Regardless of TF, TWS, Brown, cinders, melaleuca, motty etc I saw very few wedgetails any where in Tasmania over the period 1940’s to now. Dare I say; neither did anybody else. Since they weren’t so numerous many of my acquaintances out in the bush likewise noted regular pairs and additional sightings.
The most eagles I saw was on our school bus after kids with rabbit traps had show and tell with their teacher (late 40’s). On long lonely highway drives where there was truck road kill every night I disturbed only the odd one in months of regular ice breaking runs (mid 80’s).
Previously I jokingly suggested improved eagle numbers were related to warming hoping someone would connect with improved government managed practices like wholesale 1080 poisoning some time back. Lets have some science from TF hey.
IMO as a former frequent forest user TF on behalf of the state had an obligation to come clean on not only forest practices but also habitat and wildlife improvements on all tenures.
Congratulations Ken; but for me at least it’s all been a long time coming.
Hi Ian Mott,
a chap called Ian Rowley, I think, studied a few thousand lamb carcasses in the ACT back in the 1960’s to see what actually killed them by autopsy. Predation accounted for 1% – from ravens, dingo, foxes and wedgetails. He wrote a few articles for a book called Australian Birds published in the early seventies. His is the best research by far – just seeing eagles eating lambs eye’s doesn’t mean they killed the lamb. He was the guy who worked out that all those black birds were not just ‘crows’.
The wind turbines at Woolnorth are far more efficient at killing Tasmanian Wedgetails than the eagles are at killing sheep – I think the official count is five so far – then again when a turbine blade hits a bird up the backside a 300k who knows where the carcasses will end up – and then only a few turbines have predator proof fencing back 50m.
Rabbits appear comparatively scarce in Tassie, but barred and short nosed bandicoots are relatively common, along with betongs, red neck wallabies (mainland name) and large numbers of pademelons – all wedgy tucker in addition to the usual coastal and river scavenging of what washes up. In Gippsland wedgetails soar with sea eagles and at times fight over tucker. Roadkills are both tucker and a source of wedgetail mortality.
Wedgetails here have been observed chasing and spooking wallabies until they drop and then feeding on them. Wallabies and other marsupials only have a limited amount of adrenalin and once that is used up they can die quickly and easily – killed by stress literally.
Cheers Bob
Bob,
These wedgetail feeding activities would seem to need open space to happen?
Bob: I fully expected to find that the birds killed at Woolnorth would be ‘sea eagles’ given the region, but we learn something every day “See birds fatal attraction” it’s a sad story about the destruction of resident families.
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21021483-3462,00.html?from=public_rss
And: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1714916.htm
Interestingly enough I had a call from my old haunts several weeks back. While a co owner and a neighbor were restoring my old pump system they were counting rabbits, 15 in one sighting. Unfortunately the local lads were shooting other wildlife for fun as there were several wallaby carcasses shot in the same paddock. It immediately raised the question of callcivirus in Tasmania post say 1997. For a few of us another discussion arises.
Our semi bush steep block was abandoned mid 80’s as a haven for the rare “white” version of the grey goshawk. TF and the state government should take notice while the fate of this threatened smaller raptor that lived on the fringe remains in question.
“North West Tasmania probably holds more than half of the state’s population of Grey Goshawks. They’re an extremely rare bird [a gross overstatement – SD]and it’s important we do everything we can to protect them.” The bird mortality project had been initiated in 1996: in response to a similar incident at Wynard where, over a six year period, an estimated six or seven goshawks had fallen victim to a single power pole” Australian Raptor Association News, Issue 19-1 archived on the www.
Another link gives a good account of eagles and couples
http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/scribblygum/july2006/default.htm
There are good links to ABS and official reports “The state of Australian birds 2003” “Measuring Australia’s progress” on invasive species 2002 and so on.
Motty and co seeking proof of endangered species re climate stats and bird facts IUCN etc ought to look up the case of the brown bittern in “The state of Australian birds” 2004, then “why the Egg Islands are special” (Richard Kingsford NSW) at sea level down the Huon.
Interesting post, Bob. But what is the wedgetail population of the ACT? How does it compare with Tasmania?
Area of ACT = 235800ha/13600ha per breeding pair = 17 pairs in the ACT if the home ranges are the same as for Tasmania. Is there a credible census?
The other issue is how many of the lambs were carried off to the nest to feed young and missed the sample?
And Gavin, of course you didn’t see many eagles in your visits to Tasmania. A 136km2 home range has a 6.58km radius, what are your chances?
Ian: I’m beginning to wonder I you have ever seen a pair of eagles soaring far side of your desk top calculator & screen.
At certain times of the year they are not hard to find at all if they are about because the adults play high in the sky and they make loud screeches so younger ones keep their distance. This acrobatic courtship can take hours.
Besides on a good day I could travel up to 14 hrs in daylight and see quite a lot of country.
Another go from me despite the likelihood of childish naming calling from critics.
Tasmania has an eagle recovery plan that covers both the Wedge Tailed Eagle and the White-bellied Sea-eagle.
This $2.4 million plan states the reasons the WTE is listed:
“The Tasmanian population is listed for the following reasons;
• It has a population of less than 1000 mature individuals,
• The population may be declining,
• The population is subject to a number of identified and ongoing threatening processes,
• It occurs in a single island population, and
• It is a distinct subspecies.”
As discussed on this blog, the latest evidence is that there are now 457 breeding pairs reflecting a current population of 1000 to 1500 eagles when considering unattached adults and juveniles. I consider it to be more likely to be towards the upper number of 1500 with over a 1000 mature birds. (Note the range is quoted in the recovery plan and is based on approximately 426 breeding territories.)
This upper range is backed up by Bekessy et al in a 2004 report entitled Linking landscape ecology and management to population viability analysis by University of Melbourne prepared for Forestry Tasmania
“It is estimated that there are 363 territories within Tasmania, suggesting a maximum population of 1500 birds in total, comprising 750 territorial birds, 750 non-territorial birds (including immatures, juveniles and non-territorial adults).”
[Chapter 10 of this report was submitted by the Wilderness Society to the RPDC- ignoring the introductory Chapters describing the project and the ‘what if’ scenarios as well as the conclusions.]
This blog has also discussed that recorded eagle numbers are increasing from less than 100 (The Sunday Tasmanian 14 May 06) to 138 pairs in 1991 to now 457 breeding pairs.
The recovery plan http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/tasmanian-wedge-tailed.pdf shows a map of recorded nests. The vast majority of nests are recorded to be located in State Forest or on Private land rather than the 42% of Tasmania within conservation reserves. The forest industry spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year searching for these nests.
How many more could be found if the ENGOs also spent the same amount searching for eagles within the reserves. If instead of protesting in State forests, environmentalists went out into the wilderness are found these nests.
The second major issue discussed on this site that it was not forestry but other human impacts that were recorded as the source of death to the birds. About 50 by collision with vehicles, these deaths could easily be avoided if the ENGOs spent their money in equipping vehicles with sonic devices to warn animals. The Natural Resource Management Committee ( http://www.huonvalley.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Roadkill_Mitigation_Program_Copy.pdf ) estimates that one million animals are killed on Tasmania’s road each year. Eco-volunteers could also patrol the roads to ensure carcasses are safely removed and that hot spots are signposted.
The Recovery plan also addresses the 30 eagles are killed by collision with wires and fences, about 32 by electrocution, about 40 are poisoned and another 20 shot per year.
This would be better than just blaming the forest industry. After all the Bekessy model (submitted by the Wilderness Society) of possible extinction due to habitat modification was based on converting State forest to plantation, a practice that has now ceased as per the opening post by Forestry Tasmania’s Ken Jeffries.
Cinders
YOU are RIGHT.
MELALEUCA got it wrong so many times when he was STEVE MUNN that he decided to change his name.
STEVE MUNN and MELALEUCA is a FRAUD and much more.
look at this thread: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001847.html AND THERE IS MORE
Thanks Denis, have a look at this bloggers post on
http://allocasuarina.blogspot.com/2007/07/conservation-of-tasmanian-wedge-tailed.html
For those following the situation Mr Mooney was a court appointed expert in a Federal Court Case Brown v Forestry Tasmanian decided last year and currently under appeal.
Despite the report quoted the judge chose to his ignore his own conclusion that “Mr Mooney’s evidence supports the view that the forestry operations in Wielangta in coupes 17E and 19D and the proposed forestry operations in Wielangta in coupes other than 17E and 19D are not likely to have a significant impact on the eagle, having regard to its endangered status and all other threats to the eagle”. Instead finding “It is unlikely the State can, by management prescriptions, protect the eagle’ and ‘The evidence supports the view that the State has not protected the eagle through the CAR Reserve System.’
both of these last statements are,in my opinion, wrong and fail to acknowledge that the eagle is protected by the application of the CAR reserve covering 42% AND by prescriptions, Forest Practices Code, Recovery plans, Threatened Species Legislation etc.
This is cleary shown by the massive increase in reported numbers of the bird since the National forest Policy Statement. (Whether due to the CAR reserves, the management prescritptions of simply miscounting them, for the last 17 years). For those liking to consider the judges justification for ignoring Mr Mooney’s advice that the eagle was not at significant risk the judgement is available at http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html?query=brown
Good professional last post cinders so I criticize again with considerable respect.
The flaws in all this TF/TCA back slapping future way forward for new forestry based on modern eagle modelling are easily found given as I say; the science only comes after the event.
Good land management anywhere was only ever an art form based on the master apprentice system. Counting empty eagle nests won’t do in the long run.
For the duration of this thread I have been recalling eagle numbers in their heyday and considering the facts as represented by your current researchers. As a child I saw at least six eagles flying in their respective groups at a time and there were lots of regular eagle sightings around say Yolla in those early post war days.
Let me suggest here readers; each breeding eagle pair had more than one batch of chicks in their territory and breeding pairs frequently overlapped territories. Also; drifting eagle groups represented changing seasons (and snow) like the huge migrating swamp hawks as they competed for prey.
Tell your plantation foresters cinders; we also had hundreds of black jays and green parrots on the rainforest margins further inland. As for the pioneering of large scale hardwood operations re your Styx and Florentine region like clear falling across the face, I can say APPM also went down that path a long time back. However they used to leave a few twisted old ugly giants E. delegatensis for natural seeding after their massive late summer trash burns.
Along came E. nitens plantations; so everything else went including the birds. Readers should know that apart from the major processors I had considerable access to both government rangers and private operators throughout this period, 40’s 50’s 60’s 70’s 80’s before completely giving up the local lifestyle.
Another clue: While living briefly on King Island in the 1970’s I discovered there were no eagles and no trees to speak of, as everything had been cut down for fire wood over a long period of time. Cinders & Co has never acknowledged our common history and its impact on the local ecology of fragile areas.
My first observations of the ignorance associated with raw landscaping for mono culture began with watching uncles often in the employ of government agencies, clearing and draining huge areas, then expanding the state road network into virgin bush for timber. Nothing they did was on the scale of APPM and ANM operations though.
Tasmania’s natural water systems become another industrial causality.
Mr Turnbull: The fate of the bittern, the giant fresh water lobster and our Bass Strait seals must be a major focus in an enlightened recovery.
Hi,
Interesting forum, at least both sides are getting a say…..which is to be applauded. I’d like to hear both sides of the story when it comes to the giant freshwater lobster. There has been a lot written about it and what it’s status is….so any comments would be appreciated. Is it going to survive? what measures are in place? are they enough? and how do we know all this?
Cheers