Alan Ashbarry has a deep commitment to people in communities that depend upon the sustainable management of Australian forests and acknowledges the pride that forest scientists, professional foresters and timber workers have in providing a renewable resource and in creating jobs that have long term benefit for society, the economy and the environment.
Alan was a researcher for the 15 branches of Timber Communities Australia (TCA) in Tasmania and describes himself as more of a people person than a technician. He has told me that he got involved with TCA intially through “helping a mate”.
If you are trying to find a forestry related statistic, I discovered some months ago that an email to Alan was a good place to start.
When I first asked Alan to tell readers of this blog something about himself he declined. He said he prefered to stay in the background. But he’s since decided to come out and tell us that he occasionally posts a comment at this blog under the pen name “Cinders”.
Alan is concerned that the people who know the forest best and depend upon it for their daily family income are often dwarfed by the media coverage of well orchestrated campaigns.
Cinders posted the following comment last December at this blog:
“For those interested in propaganda icons by the extreme green movement this boastful extract from one of their books is worth a read.
THE REST OF THE WORLD IS WATCHING GREEN IMAGES
by Richard Flanagan and Cassandra PybusInnovation has been a hallmark of the Tasmanian Green movement, not only in its political orientation, but also in its appropriation of the marketing methods of capitalism to win its battles. Long before any other radical movement in Australia, the Tasmanian Greens were using market research, sophisticated advertising techniques, direct-sell catalogues and photographic images of the highest quality to sell their message. “We have grabbed ideas from wherever we could,” Bob Brown explained in a 1983 interview. “We looked at the way other people who sell cheese and paper tissues, how they do it, and thought that if that sells an idea then how much more important that [it] be grafted by us into saving wilderness”. In an era vaunted as the age of communications (and all the contradictions that this implies) the Tasmanian Greens have been a measure of their time.
… The campaign to protect Lake Pedder brought forth a range of aesthetic responses which drew from the Romantic tradition and also the newer modernist abstract aesthetics. The most potent expression of the beauty of Pedder was in the work of Lithuanian-born bushwalker, Olegas Truchanas, who regularly packed the Town Hall with his slide shows. Truchanas’ magnificent collections of photographs of the Tasmanian wilderness had been lost, along with his home, in the 1967 bushfires. He determined to rebuild his collection to show people just what it was that would be destroyed by hydro schemes in the south-west.
Truchanas returned again and again to the southwest. In 1972 he lost his life in the Gordon River he wished to save. “He had been destroyed by biblical simplicity by two of the elements: fire and water,” wrote his friend, artist Max Angus. “Classical mythology affords no stronger example of the drama of the incorruptible man who passes into legend.”
Olegas Truchanas became the Greens’ archetypal hero: the man who returns from of the wilderness with an aesthetic and a political vision which challenges the established order, and then is returned to the wilderness in the most profound and final way. It is a reincarnation of the great Romantic figure: the artist as hero, the essence of which is starkly captured in Ralph Hope-Johnstone’s photograph of Truchanas taken days before his death.
The posthumous publication of Truchanas’ seminal work in The World of Olegas Truchanas (1975) was an impressive beginning to the Greens’ role as a major cultural interpreter. Books, films, photographic ephemera poured out of the movement during the late 1970s and early 1980s. These were the nub of a political-commercial-aesthetic nexus which the Tasmanian Greens skillfully nurtured, creating their own national distribution through the very successful Wilderness shops. The Greens made wilderness a commodity whose commercial nakedness they clothed in the Romantic aesthetic borrowed from Piguenit and refined by the wilderness photographers who followed in Truchanas’ footsteps.
The leading exponent of this school was Truchanas’ student and disciple, Peter Dombrovskis. The political Romantic vision has its apotheosis in his photo of Rock Island Bend, the most famous photograph ever taken of the Franklin River. It was used to illustrate a full-colour supplement in all major newspapers on the eve of the 1983 federal election. The ALP judged the Franklin issue to have been critical in the outcome of that election. In 1990, when once again Green issues looked to determine the federal election outcome, Rock Island Bend was prominent in glossy advertising promoting the ALP as the environmentally responsible choice.
Amanda Lohrey has suggested that in Tasmania the Greens have fused the Utopian and Romantic visions of Tasmania into a new vision that is greater and different from both of them. This new vision finds eloquent expression in a well-publicised photo of Christine Milne taken at the height of the Wesley Vale controversy. This high Romantic image – a solitary woman on a blasted heath – became charged, in the context of a highly charged environmental and political battle, with a whole new array of rich meanings.In this image is also the idea of the Green leader as a solitary prophet, remote from the movement which creates and sustains such leaders. Images of mass action, such as the 20,000-strong rally in Hobart in 1983, have never fascinated the media in the same way as the image of a messianic leader.
Long-time Green strategist, Chris Harries, has written of the problems and contradictions of using the media during the Franklin campaign. Faced with a media “which demands superstars and which has conditioned society to think in terms of hierarchies and heroes … Bob Brown played out The Life of Brian. His pre-eminence in the media campaign was always understood as a means to an end, not an end in itself, and he was painfully aware of the contradiction”.
A media that creates a messiah must logically have its tale told in full, replete with a crucifixion. When forestry workers at Farmhouse Creek dragged Bob Brown (one of many protesters) away from the bulldozer, they were enacting their set roles in a passion play cum photo opportunity par excellence- The powerful image of this photo, shown over and over again across the nation and across the world, is full of falsities, not the least of which is the idea of the prophet being destroyed by a stupid and vicious common people.
The Farmhouse Creek photo does also point to a change in the political aesthetic in Green promotion in the late 1980s. Forests do not lend themselves to Romantic vistas in quite the same way as do wild rivers, but images of the violence done to majestic native forests do, and these became more prominent than the images of the forests themselves.
Stark monochrome vistas of burnt-over clearfells became the staple of Green publications throughout the forestry battles. Likewise, as the forestry industry and government strengthened their armoury against the Green protest, images of confrontation loomed large, both in the media and the Green press. The workers, not the bosses, are portrayed as the enemy in graphic close-ups of chainsaw-wielding forestry workers or alarmed police cordons.“
Alan left TCA at the end of 2007 and now is an independent consultant specialising in Tasmania’s forest and natural resource management sector
Alan Ashbarry lives in Tasmania with his wife and four inspirational children.
———————–
This post will be filed under a category titled ‘people’. As a reader and/or commentator at this blog you may like to tell us something about yourself. Contributions encouraged please email to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com.
This post was updated on May 14, 2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Urbanites are plagued by the suspicion that their way of life is not “authentic.” Every facet of their environment is man-made; where they sleep, what they eat, how they spend their time, is in one way or another determined by artifacts or those who make or control them.
This leaves them yearning for an environment they can confront directly, unmediated by the demands or inventions of other humans. Knowing nothing of the wilderness, they turn instead to what they imagine it to be, and in so doing, engage in mythic thinking.
The Green Machine feeds these myths to the alienated urbanintes, who respond with money. The money connects them with the mythic wilderness they imagine, and having paid, they can go about their artificial lives with a sense that this has forged some distant connection with what they long for.
It can’t work, though, because the wilderness is not as they imagine it, and the alienation they feel has nothing to do with places where wild things live. They are being crushed in a huddled mass of strangers and, unable to find meaning, purchase myths about better places.
Schiller.
Crikey Bob Schiller
Sounds like bloody Kings Cross in Sydney
Urban Brissy is fairly leafy in parts, we’re not all squeezed in like sardines, the parks are green again and people still g’day down the street. We also quite like our artifacts and nearby cafe societe. We spend vast periods of time in Harvey Norman acquiring our artifacts.
Sufferer’s Parasite is still there in all its ugliness – but if you go south you’ll still find nice beaches and great seascapes.
And as Easter approaches you’d better have booked your camping place at Girraween, Canarvon, Binna Burra, O’Riellys or the Bunyas – these places will be full of campers. And I don’t know if they’re that philosophical – they just think it’s bloody neat to be in some inspiring scenery and bush for a change. And they look pretty bloody happy for being so alienated. A chance to walk the legs off the kids, wean them off their Playstations briefly, smoke their clothes, and make them sleep on hard ground for a few nights.
In driving to these places, often alienated in their new SUVs (looking for a bit of FWD action) they traverse much country that is full of clapped out cow paddocks and dead trees, so they can’t help but get a bit philosophical around the camp-fire as to whether the balance has gone too far. e.g. 50% of SE Qld woody vegetation is gone. The definition of a regional national park is a steep mountainous area or general rocky terrain that was too hard to clear.
But your environmental hardline greenies – well they’re different. They’re on a mission ! Ecological over-serious and dedicated. But as for a Green Machine – jeepers the few collective meetings I’ve attended – couldn’t organise a chook raffle, scraping for funds, suffering burnout. Most local conservation groups don’t look that well heeled to me. (and I’m not a member of any myself).
Re Alan’s posting:
I found it, well, out of date. Its now 2006. All of this analysis of how the greens use the media to construct a romantic notion of ‘wilderness’ is so 5 minutes ago.
EVERY group that hopes to sustain a membership has become well-versed in how to market itself, and the main way to do that in our society is to use the media, whether companies, or green groups, or timber industries, or PETA, or meat producers (seen the new meat adverts?) or the major political parties.
Even the first two paragraphs of this post are constructed to present the personal, good aussie bloke aspect of forestry, and avoid presenting the big faceless business exporting woodchips to japan angle.
So I agree with Alan that it was a ‘boastful’ extract, the Greens weren’t doing anything unusual that wasn’t been done by the commercial world for decades.
Community is common possession. When an individual member of a community is threatened … so is their entire community.
In the name of ‘environmentalism’, individual members of local communities are often ‘sacrificed for the common good’, but invariably, ‘common’ in this context relates to a state or national constituency.
The movement that postures as ‘Green’ is in reality anti-community. If it were not, it would identify its environmental objective and pursue that objective in the most cost effective way by ensuring that the local community implemented its own solutions to the problems identified. The costs of disenfranchisement (if necessary) from socio-economic activities would be offset to ensure that no member of the affected community would suffer losses that would disadvantage themselves, their progeny or their local community.
The true costs of achieving ETHICAL environmental outcomes are far higher than the illusion of popularist environmentalism through usurpation. The anti-community approach says ‘might has right’ and while much of what Schiller posted above rings true, I rather suspect a long suppressed instinctual drive for connectivity with naturen … an obscure flame, if you will, yearning to counter the nature-deficit of the hustle and bustle, which is so easily fanned into a veritable wildfire of popularist environmentalism.
In the context of this collective passion and with such easily won support, we must be vigilent and not forget the most bitter lessons of history.
In the meantime we have the Alan Ashberry’s of Australia with their ‘deep commitment to people in communities’ and thank goodness for that!
Come on Neil – there’s lots of movements and NIMBYism that’s not that environmental – anyone want a dam over their property – Wolfdene dam in Logan lost politically by some not very green grass-roots action. Koala Rd to the Gold Coast sunk not becuase of koalas but in reality because nobody wanted a bloody big freeway through their property. Then there’s powerline corridors, mobile phone towers, new river bridges. You can find a set of units next to your old Queenslander any day too. So communities in urban and peri-urban areas are getting hit with development problems daily. And of course – nobody wants anything that ruins the view, emits anything (even theoretically) or puts too many people close to you.
So you can also spin things back the other way of presenting an image of the humble worker diligently tending his community against evil greenies. You can also do the same with the “noble savage” mythology.
I will agree though that fair ethical outcomes are difficult. But smart businesses are also aware of enviornmental pressure through consumer action and are prepared to go to some lengths to develop this side of their business management. Do we think that people will become more or less “environmentally demanding” over time. All of us, the community, business and greens need to find a better way of undertaking the debate and resolving outcomes.
Yes, ethical outcomes that protect communities and the ‘common good’ are difficult. Does anyone here support continuing agricultural subsidies in Europe and the US to help maintain rural communities in these parts of the world?
There are two main types of concentration of green voters in Australia. The first is the inner city electorates with minimal tree cover, scant parkland and lots of industrial interface. The green vote in these electorates is in the 10 – 12% range. And if there are any “biodiversity hotspots” to be found it is in these places. Their perception of mankind as vandal is based on their immediate surrounds and their militant pursuit of policies that completely exclude humanity from ecosystems is a direct product of the neat curbing and guttering that defines boundaries around them.
The second concentration of green voters is in the leafy upper midddle income suburbs where the children of successful parents remain at home into their 30’s and have the luxury of indulging in ecological flights of fantasy without the tiresome business of supporting themselves. This combination of well to do liberal and indulged green voters can most appropriately be described as “blue-green algae”.
Both cohorts are overly swayed by the superficial, by form rather than content. And both have an aspirational elite form of contempt for the functional and anything soiled by physical work.
When people from either cohort settle in a rural environment they will most certainly distinguish themselves from the original community by investing 99% of their available funds on status displays in the form of conspicuous housing or elaborate landscaping. Any real issues of environmental repair etc will only gain attention, if at all, in the brief period of boredom between the completion of the status displays and their return to their urban millieu.
Farmers and forest workers are expected to make disproportionate sacrifices to provide nothing more than palliative treatment to the sufferers of urban maladies.
Keep up the good work, Cinders.
What a pity ‘smart’ was made to suffer such condradictory meaning through Beattie’s branding of Queensland. And is there any business bigger than government within its respective jurisdictions?
You write of a collection of public works projects that were set aside in response to political actions, but in terms that imply ingenuous environmental posturing. This merely reinforces my point of unethical environmentalism. Had an alliance of green groups thrown their support behind these projects, would you deny that they would not have gone ahead, despite the local opposition?
Insofar as eminent domain is concerned, land can be compulsorily acquired for public benefit, but in doings so, the jurisdiction of the land court is activated to protect the landholder’s interests. If every person ‘sacrificed’ in the name of the environment had a right to put their case before the land court to argue to the extent of their injurious affection, environmentalism would be far better constrained within the legislative frameworks of civil and ethical society.
That’s an interesting extract from Flanagan and Pybus; I missed it back in December. As I read it, I began to think I was reading a satirical piece. Are F & P green or analytical? I think the piece was published in 1990 (?) and perhaps Flanagan has become a lot greener since then. Or perhaps this particular passage was written by Pybus? Don’t follow either of them beyond a five minute google search.
But whatever the motive for the writing, it is a very good description of the use of utopian and romantic visions. As you say Steve, this may be fundamentally the same as advertising, both commercial and political, but I think it is a different shade of gray. It’s more like the photo of Pauline Hanson wrapped in the Australian flag, and her video of “If you are watching this, I have been assassinated” fame. The attempt to cast the hero as a messiah, “the prophet being destroyed by a stupid and vicious common people” is a step further than most advertising. And an idea may so 5 minutes ago, but that doesn’t make it wrong or unworthy of being repeated. An idea doesn’t have to be fashion statement, but unfortunately, at the dinner party, it often is.
Part of the reason why the argument needs to be repeated is that most people take green promotional material at face value. Greens are perceived to have no vested interest. There is a common failure to recognise that pecuniary interest is only one of many forms of vested interest. I think it is preferable to have a widely recognised pecuniary interest in an issue than an obscured vested interest, such as the sense of well being derived from following a “worthy” cause like a fundamentalist religion.
At least when I see Mercedes or BMW trying to stir my sense of insecurity with their advertising (“What? You can’t afford one of our cars? I’m sure most of your class from high school can. You’re not A Loser are you?”), I recognise it as just advertising. But it is curious how those who would look down their nose at a fast food advertisement would swallow without question the images served up to them by some messiah of the forests.
Call me whatever you like, but I would prefer the company of a person who cares about their community of people than that of a person who cynically uses the contemporary worthy cause for personal advantage.
Bit worried about the name though. Cinders, hmmm. You not one of those evil-doers who burns the forest are you? I’m holding up my crucifix to the computer screen as I type.
Neil – the projects didn’t go ahead for simple reasons of perceived numbers of votes. And that’s what’s very disturbing about Labor now deserting greens to acquire votes. As hypocritical as courting them in the first place to acquire votes. So much for principled stands.
As Graham Richardson said on election night when learning of the considerable “Koala Highway” electorate losses – “Better have been a bloody good road”. After the election, the sophistication of the grass roots campaign was revealed.
Anyway I am simply pointing out that it is not only country folk who are trampled on by “majority” decisions. Maybe even without a mandate – simply who has the power.
As for the leafy suburbs buying the green line – I’m not sure – they’re buying Indonesian rainforest furniture like no tomorrow; installing more and more air-con; buying more and bigger vehicles – looks like Gordon Gekko – “Greed is Good” to me. (Wall St, 1987)
I disagree that most people take green promotional material at face value Boxer. You have a lower opinion of the general public than I do. Remember, people see crap on TV and in the newspaper every day. I have little doubt that most people in our society have become quite adept at seeing the motives behind the motives and take very little at face value (there are loads of books on this subject, “Everything Bad is Good for You” by Steven Johnson is one).
“Call me whatever you like, but I would prefer the company of a person who cares about their community of people than that of a person who cynically uses the contemporary worthy cause for personal advantage.”
I wouldn’t call you anything – who wouldn’t prefer this? Which reminds me: what are the sources of funding for Timber Communities Australia and who established it?
I’m reluctant to take these snippets which I found with 20secs of googling
http://www.oren.org.au/logging/who/tca.htm
or a Bob Brown speech on TCA
http://www.bobbrown.org.au/500_parliament_sub.php?deptItemID=20
at face value because they are probably just green propoganda.
Steve
Don’t know about TCA, if you were directing the question to me. Cinders may be the one to ask.
Steve, further to your comment about my opinion of the general public.
Once upon a time there was a country called Germany, and next door was another country called Austria. These countries were, and very much still are, nations of confidence, high culture, produced many of the world’s finest thinkers, were and are populated by intelligent industrious people.
Along came a strange little man who had many perculiar personal habits and a deep sense of personal injustice, which he suffered as a result of the Treaty of Versailles and, it seems, various personal traumas in his youth. In an atmosphere of general public concern about raging inflation and other economic problems, this man convinced both these nations to take extraordinary action against a wide range of perceived enemies which led to the death of about 50 million people.
It seems to me that this is a good example of the Rule of Collective IQs (www.youhavegottabekidding.edu.au) which says that the collective intelligence of a group of humans is the average individual IQ to the power of 1/n. Where n is the number of people in the room. It’s also called the Rule of Lynch Mobs.
This is the only way I can come to terms with what happened during the last century, and the only reason this country has not done the same sort of thing is that we have never been put to the test. There is nothing unusual about the German or Austrian people. I reject absolutely the argument that the war was the consequence of some flaw in the collective or national character. Though our public debates about various issues are many orders of magnitude less significant than WW2, there are many analogies to Germany in the 1930’s. A general sense of public concern about eternal life/environmental decline/national security. A messiah who convinces the public to follow him/her to salvation/utopia/1000 Year Reich.
Almost all people are very intelligent, and individually we can follow complex arguments, reach reasonable conclusions and so on. But collectively we are pretty sad to watch, and talk about “the intelligence of the electorate” and the like sounds to me like more of the same bovine faeces.
The reason why there is so much garbage on TV and in the newspapers is because it gives someone a return on their investment in the advertising. It works. It’s the reason why I avoid commercial radio and TV, because I know it works even when I attempt to deny it in relation to myself.
I think the extract from Flanagan and Pybus presented by Cinders makes this same argument very well. The first sentence says it – “Innovation has been a hallmark of the Tasmanian Green movement, not only in its political orientation, but also in its appropriation of the marketing methods of capitalism to win its battles.” The phrase “win its battles” says that this strategy has shown a good return on investment.
Straight question – what have the Greens actually won on in Tasmania. How much forest?
Whoops, Boxer just invoked Godwin’s Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
The reason somebody came up with this law is that it is preposterous to be making comparisons to WW2 and Nazi Germany. Today’s clash of ideas over the environment (and it is a clash, its not like the green movement is alone in producing propoganda) is in no way comparable.
The key quote: “Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a valid comparison to anything but other despotic dictators.”
To try and salvage the discussion: could you tell me more about what you are thinking with this ‘messiah’ talk. I don’t get it.
According to the ABS survey
“Environmental Issues and Practices” March 2004 4602.0 which is available for free from http://www.abs.gov.au:
People stating that they were concerned about environmental problems has been dropping steadily every year from 75% of people in 1992, to 57% in 2004. That’s quite a trend! over a decade!
Maybe all this hand-wringing over green propoganda is unnecessary.
Boxer,
Cinders is a play on the first three leters of my family name, that of course is the nick name for some of our eucalypts that provide terrific timber to build our houses with.
When it comes to regenerating our fire evolved eucalypts, if the professional foresters and scientists, prescribe fire to ensure a seed bed and successful regeneration, I am all for it. Especially as I know they have done the scientific research and have monitored the regenation over many years and publicly reported the results.
A good example of how the Southern Tasmanian forest grows back after regeneration can be found in the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission’s ‘In Search of Excellence: Exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific’ downloadable at http://www.apfcweb.org/publications/publications.html
Fire has also been used in the past for fuel reduction, that is essential in our fire prone forests, however it may now be possible to physically remove the logging slash/non commercial residue to a close by wood fired power station. Whilst leaving behind enough habitat for those species that need course wood debry, a wood fired powered station would provide renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. It would also control the burning cycle over the full 365 days of the year instead of just a few days in autumn suitable for fuel reduction.
This should be able to be achieved thanks to the skill and innovation of our forest contractors.
Phil Done
in your earlier post (March 13, 2006 12:24 AM)
you stated that “as for a Green Machine – jeepers the few collective meetings I’ve attended – couldn’t organise a chook raffle, scraping for funds, suffering burnout. Most local conservation groups don’t look that well heeled to me”
Sorry to say this but its very clear that in fact the Green Machine is so well heeled that it is a multi million dallor industry.
In 2004/05 the TWS had gross revenue earnings of $9,137,412.00 with 97% of that being gained by fundraising (markting)
The year before the ACF’s gross revenue was $6,768,285.00
Check it out for your self at http://www.givewell.com.au/
And of course I’m sure that the TWS and ACF would be distrubiting this annual $15 million war chest out to their local activits.
So please don’t try and tell us that there is no well heeled green machine. Also don’t try and dismiss the fact that the “green machine” masters are all about markting a death and dome image less the the truth,and if it wasn’t, then why don’t we hear from the greens facts about what Tasmania has achived for conservation (not one word about 1 million ha of old growth forest reserved.
Cinders is spot on with every thing he said and I for one, that has had a very proud life time working in Tassies forest, know one thing is for sure that those same forests will still be there providing for future every day needs (including spiritual and marital) long after you and I are long gone to the blog paradise above.
$7M and $9M is a lot of money ??
Come on what’s the timber industry corporate turnovers, unions or the turnover of a lot of charities?
My comments were about a few invitations to local groups not national organisations.
Anyway I’m not defending AWS or ACF – just curious about how much money we’re talking about. A lot for you or me perhaps as individuals but not an organisation.
And I’ve spent a proud lifetime working for agriculture and there’s plenty of room for national improvement !
Phil
Hope you aren’t trying to sneak away from the fact that there is a well heeled cashed up Green Machine including local activits that bases its revenue raising on a fallacy.
If you don’t aguree please tell me then, why we don’t hear from any “green machine” group large or small facts about what Tasmania’s has achived for conservation.
If the smallest green group is only interested in looking after the environment then why not talk about whats been achived?
Could it be that with “good news” then the “market” might dry up, and you are correct $15 million is a heap of cash.
Yes you are correct agriculture has a way to go in catching up with codes of practices that rule productive forest managment.
Happy to debate that once we establish the motives of the green machine
Basil – Well I have asked above
“Straight question – what have the Greens actually won on in Tasmania. How much forest?”
add the supplementary question – “with what conservation values”
So it’s a straight question for both sides:
For you – what “losses” of resource (and by implication dividends to shareholders and jobs) do you attribute to green activities
and for them
“what national conservation values have they saved by locking up these resources”.
Also without knowing the background (which I’m sure you’ll educate me on) I cannot help but note reports of a great granddaughter commenting negatively against the company and at least one shareholder making negative comments and comapring activities with mainland forestry. As they say in Federal parliament “are you aware of any other policies”. There is some implication therefore that the community can do better.
And while I’m lining up for a stoning – I would assume the green argument would go something like : the biodiversity and wildlife values of old growth forests are not the same as regenerated forests. And if the industry is so sustainable why does it need old growth forests – why does it not have plantation rotations established? And that coarse statistics of how long it would take to get around the resource don’t represent the unique diversity of different eco-systems in the “forests”. As I have previously said to Jen – I do not know why this information isn’t available for some “informed” debate.
And to illustrate my ignorance of your forestry – my concern would be that revegetation after sand mining doesn’t put back anything close to what was previously there, and clearing of savanna woodlands or even Melaleuca wetlands can produce a sea of fine regrowth – sticks. Nothing like the original vegetation. Reassure me you guys have it under control !
Boxer, what of the “Wisdom of Crowds” by James Surowiecki? Louis already made it clear that the 1st person to invoke Godwin’s Law automatically loses the debate.
Ian I reckon that urban vote ought to focus on greening the cities 1st, including the industrial areas. Grow native trees and understory too, grasses, parks, scrub, whatever is locally appropriate. Discourage exotics. More green roof parks on big developments with natives.
Steve’s made some good points above.
It’s not intelligent to pigeonhole all environmentally concerned people as ‘dumb/rabid greens’ or pinkos as frequently happens on this site. If you stick to a rigid outlook the rest of the world outlook has eclipsed you. Even govts and major businesses are greening up, and enviro groups and big business are partnering.
You have your ‘deep greens’ (fanatics) – are there any regulars from that camp on this blog? Then you have ‘shallow greens’ and ‘dry greens’. I reckon many commenters here are shallow greens, some are a bit dry, but we probably share more in common than we have to differ.Most of the disagreement is over the approach (political model, use of markets and technologies, etc).
Phil
Interesting that you appear to be still running away from my ask for you to explain why we don’t hear from any “green machine” group large or small, facts about what Tasmania has achived for conservation?
Or if the smallest green group is only interested in looking after the environment then why not talk about whats been achived?
Could it be that with “good news” then the “market” might dry up.
But to show good faith I will answer your first question, then to be fair over to you to answer mine.
The amount of total forest reserved in Tasmania for conservation values is 1,442,440ha from an existing forest cover of 3,207,250ha.
Included in these figures are 977,480ha of old growth reserved. History shows the varst majority of these forest lock ups come from green campaigns.
May I sugest that you get hold of Sen Graham Richardson’s book “What ever it takes” Richo is very up front about how he did deals with the TWS and other green groups to lock up great areas of Tassie forests for green votes (not forgetting his same deals in Northern NSW and QLD.) In Tassie this one was called the Helsham inquiry, this one not driven by science just politics Richo admits this himself. 330,000ha of high quality saw and veneer rich southern forest lock up for sydeny and Melbourne votes. Yet today you would think that not one tree in the southern forest was reserved.
The list goes on, I’m sure you have heard of the “Valley of the Giants”
Well during the Tassie RFA process the greens were full on campaigning for (in their own words)the world’s largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest, The Valley of the Giants.
No not the Styx Valley but the Beech Creek Valley of the Giants, and it’s now in the World Heritage Area. (again high quality resource)
At the time the greens took credit for the reserving of this tall old growth forest.
But it wasn’t long before it better suited the greens to put this win in the back of the draw and never to be spoken of again and move on to a new Valley of the Giants ( the Styx)funny thing the war cry was the same, “world’s largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest”
Now over to you Phil to answer my question. (perhapes the above will help you along a bit)
Basil – this is annoying me. I don’t speak for those groups. I assume you want me to say – because they won’t acknowledge any lock-up for conservation to date. But greens tend not to get much of a reception on here do they?
I’m trying to ask some questions for the lurkers out there in blogland who don’t know.
I would assume given it’s your special subject that you would be be aware of a list of green claims – whether you accept them or not.
If you think I’m trying you on – I’m not.
Anyway I thank you for your information. I assume that greens have had their share already in your estimation and have failed to acknowledge this.
I would be interested to know how much non-reserve old growth forest we are talking about not in reserves under consideration for logging now and in the future. What’s left. Why do greens want it conserved.
And at what stage will the Tasmania be in rotation with plantations and not require old growth forests.
Phil, in answer to your point about regrowth Melaleuca being a sea of sticks, you are correct, it is not the same as old growth and nor is just about any young regrowth. But you are only seeing the regrowth in a single point in time.
All Eucs will produce as many sticks as they can and it is the foresters job to thin out all those sticks so that the remaining stems can continue to grow without excessive competition. So the initial 40,000 sticks will be thinned back to about 1000 stems which will then need to be thinned again and again over decades until the final 100 odd stems that are left can grow to a full sawlog size. And that thinning process costs money and that is why the small stems are sold as woodchip.
They are too small for sawing but produce superior fibre to plantation grown stems. And it is the recovery of some of the costs from woodchip logs, at an earlier stage of the cash flow, that enable a profit to be eventually made on the sawlogs.
Without this thinning process (silviculture) most regrowth would hang around for years as a sea of sticks. And it is worth noting that the absence of on-going silviculture in Qld State Forests, after they are logged and handed over to “Sparks and Wildfires” under the Qld Forest Agreement, will mean thousands of hectares of sticks will never grow to become contributive habitat. And you can thank the idle whimsies of Aila Keto for that debacle.
And in light of this it is rather ironic that Bob Brown could make the following statement to the Senate;
“In closing, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Cherry, the forest industries in Tasmania are effectively on public trial. Their destruction of Tasmania’s forests at the greatest rate in history—and with them
the wildlife of those great forests—is an absurd abuse of a marvellous national resource and a destruction of the iconic heritage forests of this old nation. It is time this industry was brought to book by proper democratic processes and by a fair and honest and aboveboard debate
which does not involve coercing, pressuring and
litigious measures against those who wish to make this debate based more factually on credible information before the public arena”.
The man is a disgrace. It is the market for small stems as woodchip that funds the actions that enable regrowth to become contributive habitat again. Regrowth grows up to five times faster when the seeds germinate in ash beds and this clown is actively campaigning against the two things that do most to ensure that the wildlife have functioning habitat to return to, fire and thinning for woodchip.
“fair and honest and aboveboard debate
which does not involve coercing,” indeed. And “debate based more factually on credible information,” my ass.
And Phil, your question, “at what stage will the Tasmania be in rotation with plantations and not require old growth forests”, has missed the point. The purpose of regenerating regrowth rather than replanting a plantation is to ensure that we continue to grow more old growth forests. That is what regrowth forests do best. They retain all the original genetic material in the new forest and maintain that aspect of biodiversity value. A conversion to a purely plantation estate will not do this.
Feeling close to getting shot – but will you not harvest that forest before all the hollows and holes appear that wildlife seem to need. Would you not have more control in a plantation with timber quality – same size, straight etc. And are not regrowth forests all the same in terms of cohort age. (At this point I can hear the foresters saying – cripes they’re never satisfied).
Incidentally how is the harvesting done – in coups like swiss cheese or on a broad front. What soil loss occurs during the establishment phase. Are there slope limits?
And if the regrowth quality is superior to plantation – how enduring is this? ie repeat harvesting
How can you be annoyed for being asked to respond to a few simple questions that directly flows from your own statement about green groups being nothing more than sweet poor soles? Again just in case you forget what you said
“as for a Green Machine – jeepers the few collective meetings I’ve attended – couldn’t organise a chook raffle, scraping for funds, suffering burnout. Most local conservation groups don’t look that well heeled to me”.
Is it that you find it a bit uncomfortable to accept that there is a very well heeled organized green machine? Organized to the point that it has been able to lever massive forest lock up deals with Federal and state political party’s, again Sen Richardson”s Book, tells the story,
Or do I take it that you accept that the green machine is really a multi million dollar marketing business with the selling brand of “the world’s largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest”
Regarding your questions about old growth management hopefully the following facts will help you gain an understanding of the complete picture about Tasmania.
Fact 1 Tasmania has a land mass of 6,840,000ha
Fact 2 Tasmania”s total land mass in conservation reserves is 2,935,000ha (42%)
Fact 3 Included in Tasmania”s total land mass is a total forest cover of 3,207,250ha
Fact 4 Tasmania”s total forest cover in reserve is 1,442,440ha (45%) (This is part of the total land mass in reserve)
Fact 5 Tasmania”s existing old growth forest cover is 1,246,000ha (this is part of the total forest cover)
Fact 6 Tasmania”s existing old growth forest reserved is 977,480ha (this is part of the total forest reserved) There is an additional private land 25,000ha of old growth to be considered for voluntary reservation.
Fact 7 Tasmania”s assessed high quality wilderness is 1,943,570ha
Fact 8 Tasmania”s assessed high quality wilderness reserved is 1,885,300ha (97%)
Phil do you agree that Tasmania”s conservation achievement s are world class when the conservation target set by the International Convention on Biological Diversity is just 10%.
Why we still harvest old growth is to provide the high quality timbers that I’m sure you benfit from. The strength and durability of these timbers comes from slow growth. Quick grown plantations don’t have these qualities but are ideal for producing paper products that I’m sure you also benefit from.
Also rest assured old growth is renewable for if it wasn’t we would not be having this debate today.
Over to you
You’ve got me there Thinksy. Don’t know Surowiecki, but I assume he’s a comedian? And have I demonstrated some sort of invoking of Godwin’s Law? Haven’t met or read any Godwins either. What a dummkopf, I have lost the train of your argument.
In a discussion of how the general public can be hoodwinked into doing strange things by clever proganda what strong example is a natural part of the topic?
Detribe,
In this era of political correctness, it is hardly surprising that affluent, well-educated middle-Australia shares a common concern for loss of biodiversity, pollution, global warming, water shortages and famine, particularly when one considers the vested interests of the various lobby groups prusuing such an agenda.
Popularist environmentalism IS the strong example, although it must be said that amongst its numerous improprieties there are also acts of respectability; just as amongst the fanatics and usurpers there are decent people with a genuine care for the natural environment.
The clever propaganda that warns of endangered ecosystems or species threatened with extinction claws at the consciousness of the multitudes that are already activated through their collective desires to off-set the nature-deficit that is part of metroplitan life, at least in a notional sense. This, I see, as the natural part of the topic. If humankind would re-established its rightful place in harmony with the natural environment, there would not be the tinderbox of environmentalism begging to be ignited by the political arsonists of this world.
And to continue with the wildfire metaphor, there is also an institutional accelerant, in the form of bureaucratic process, that rewards BOTH the identification of environmental problems that convince the broader public of serious concern, AND ALSO the number of staff under the authority of designated positions. Through special purpose grants and budgetary allocations, positions are advertised, e.g. designated indigenous rangers or feral animal control officers, and the salaries of all superior staff increase due to the increased number of subordinates. Fanning the flames of environmental concern achieves bureaucratic growth and this is how the general public is hoodwinked into doing strange things, because the vulnerability of the Southern Cassowary, for example, cannot be reduced by increasing the number of bureaucrats employed by a NP&WS.
Scientists provide data which may very well be objective, but this is then presented with these institutional rewards in mind. I have allowed scientists access to my land in the past to study uniquely endemic species. They have produced reports that recommend assistance to the landholder, which have been replaced with bureaucratic initiatives that take elements of the study to justify complusory expropriation of development rights including the right of access to my own lands. It would seem clear enough that the fledgeling careers of the well-intentioned researchers should be mindful of those with the administrative authority to make or break careers and environmental management agencies ARE principle employers of science graduates.
Phil, in most cases care is taken to ensure that clear fallen coupes are not adjoining so there is sufficient hollow bearing trees (HBT’s) all around the rich smorgasbord provided by the regrowth. There is also a mosaic of retained old growth stems all through an area of multiple coupes (steep slopes, crek banks etc) that maintain a mix of housing and food trees.
In selective harvesting regimes it is normally required to leave at least 6 HBT’s per hectare for this purpose. But the science on HBT retention needs has always carefully avoided reference to the actual population densities and range of family unit sizes that are found in our forests.
People have essentially conducted their research in a way that will justify the maximum number of retained HBTs at the expense of crop trees.
The theory has been that there must be some minimum density of HBTs below which dependent species will not be able to survive. Most work assumed that this need lay somwhere between 4 and 20 old trees per hectare. The mathematical callisthenics that apparently intelligent people were moved to try on as justification for this level of retention would be comical if it were not such an important issue.
Analysis by Wormington et al graphed the relationship between animal population and HBTs as barely lineal and highly inelastic (almost dead flat) and then proceeded to imply that a barely detectable rise in the curve from 3 to 6 HBTs/ha justified this retention level. But what all the graphs clearly show is no link between HBTs and population between 1 to 13 HBTs/ha and an actual decline from 13 to 20 HBTs/ha.
And one can only conclude that the point at which species diminution takes place due to insufficient nest hollows is somwhere in the fractional range of trees/ha.
And this was borne out by the actual population data divided by their propensity to form family units in the one hollow. In SE Queensland State Forest sites there was only an average of 0.1 of a family unit/ha that actually needed a hollow in a good season and 0.04 of a family unit/ha in a dry season.
And when a retention level of one HBT to two hectares was modelled for the entire 76 samples (2 x 38 plots) in the Wormington study, only 4% (3 plots) had less than 2 HBT’s for each family that needed one. Another 4% had less than 3 HBTs each while the remaining 92% of plots had more than 3 HBTs each. The average availability in a good season was 4.8 HBTs per family while in a bad sesason the average was 11.5 HBTs per family.
The actual density of retained HBTs in all the State Forest sites was 7.625/ha. And this meant that in a good season there was 73.6 Hollow Bearing Trees for each arboreal mammal family that needed one. And in the dry season sample there was 175.3 Hollow Bearing Trees for each family that needed one. And each HBT had from 1 to 3 hollows each.
Suffice to say that the level of retained HBTs in public sector forests is far in excess of what is needed by hollow using species. And it follows that concerns over the need for HBTs are exaggerated.
More importantly, the view that a lack of hollows could be a primary cause of the collapse of local populations is not supported by the evidence. Species or population collapse will take place in a bad year, not a good one, and it is only in very good years that any resemblance to competition for hollows takes palce.
These very good years are usually short lived and the resulting decline in population due to decline in food quality and volume produces a surplus of available Hollow Bearing Trees.
The requirements will obviously vary in higher or lower productivity forests, but in SE Queensland the critical point, at which a diminished dry season population only had access to two HBTs per dependent family would be 0.08 HBTs/ha or one tree for each 12 hectares. And this is well below the levels currently observed in private forests which, previously, have had no HBT rention prescriptions.
The relevant paper and supporting spreadsheets are available on request.
Basil – no I don’t find it surprising that well heeled machines may sink things against community views. Sometimes it’s called “a state or federal election”. In my part of the world well heeled groups of affluent people sink (stop) roads, river bridges, power lines, subvert building and planning codes, and water storages every day. Some of these are not in my interests or the community’s overall interest. And I’m living in rented Besser bricks and steel not timber. But anyway not that any of that matters.. .. (Someone will probably tell me that concrete production kills bats.)
Thanks for the numbers – seems that a large proportion of Tasmania is cleared already presumably a fair swag for permanent agriculture/grazing.
I’m not able to separate out the forest and wilderness in the overall context – not sure if it’s all the same of how much rocky outcrops, heath, scrub is included. I guess we need to define a forest in height/canopy cover terms.
The extent of remaining old growth seem impressive on an areal basis and against international comparisons.
How long does a forest take to grow be come old growth and suitable for timber harvesting ??
Is all old growth forest much the same ecologically ?
Of the remaining old growth forest under contention : – how diverse or special is it?
And how long will the resource last at the current harvest rates. Will it regrow in time to become old growth again. What’s the cycle?
Can you advise me on erosion losses when logging and control measures. Terrain looks steep to me.
And how are the fire regeneration burns supervised/conducted.
I put it to you and the industry, that the discussion we’re having should be publicly available in a more organised case here on the national forum blogs.
If mainland ignorami don’t ask these questions we won’t be informed. I hope the lurkers out there are getting something out of this discussion as I get my butt shot at here !!
P.S. Ian thanks for information – still digesting with the on-board Pentium II 90 Mhz.
For Boxer:
Steve already linked you to this:
Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
on the wisdom of crowds:
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, first published in 2004, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
Detribe
Neil has answered your question well, but I could offer another more specific example.
In WA the RFA was produced about 6 years ago I think and the greens refused to be involved. I think they are challenged by a process that starts from the premise that some form of forest harvesting is acceptable. But that’s okay, they make their position clear.
The RFA was then attacked and there was extensive use of local celebrities to attack the notion of commercial forestry in native forests. Prominent business women were featured, footballers, all the people you would expect to have expertise in the area. The local daily paper joined in, despite being printed on paper, and there were frequent misleading and inaccurate stories with photos of celebrity a, b or c leaning on a karri tree. Usual stuff. After a few months of this the RFA was torn up and the timber industry was destined for the chopping block. Wesfarmers, recognising that it was on a hiding to nothing, sold its interests in the timber industry and stopped putting “This is NOT rainforest timber” on the Australian wood it sold in its Bunnings stores, and sells rainforest timber instead.
All this was not startling. It’s just a normal public relations campaign strongly supported by the only daily paper in the city, in the interests of increasing sales by telling people what they want to hear. Self-censorship by the populace.
What left a fairly strong impression upon me and my professional colleagues was the very strong level of public hysteria and hostility that became directly towards us as individuals. I now understand why for example, the police socialise with other police. It’s because at the social occasion, when you meet the friend of a friend for the first time, and they say “what do you do for a living?”, you found you had to brace yourself. “I’m a forester.” The look on people’s faces was actually funny to watch once you came to expect it. Imagine saying in such a situation “I’m a paedophile”; shock, disgust, and then a brave attempt to recover the polite facade, followed by a discrete termination of the conversation and moving away. I lost contact with a friend of over 30 years standing during this process because I realised I was going to king hit him next time he mocked me for the enjoyment of the other people around the table. Bugger the nice china, the tablecloth and the expensive glassware, he was going to get the smashed bottle in the face.
After a time I became more assertive and when I was challenged by people, I would ask them to tell me the difference between clearing and clear felling. In every case of several, the answer was “Ah, umm, ah, well there is no difference is there?” Most people, including the celebrities trotted out, believe that cleared agricultural land is the consequence of logging. Common question from polite strangers: “How much of the forest is regrown?” Answer “All of it.” Response “Oh reeeally?”
What did we learn? Collective public hysteria is easy to arouse when most people share a common anxiety. As Neil says, the environment is a common concern. I would add that we mostly share a common guilt about this, because we all know we are not doing very much to curtail our consumption. Guilt is a great catalyst for increased anxiety.
Steve – I just found your response of the 13th at 3:47pm – sorry I missed it because I skim over these long threads a bit.
Godwins Law – okay, I complained somewhere on this blog that the description of a regeneration burn as “napalming the forest” trivialised the use of napalm. Guilty in your eyes, but I think there are principles underlying national behaviour that are easily illustrated by taking the extreme examples.
This forestry issue is a very modest example, in the overall scheme of things, of collective public hysteria. My point is that if you can lead nations to war by means of collective hysteria, it’s pretty easy to do the same over something that has much less potential to blow back on you. Many people in Germany in the 1930s knew what war was about, there was an understanding that militaristic behaviour contained personal and national risk, but look what happened anyway. The Treaty of Versailles may have been unfair and oppressive, but to risk your nation??!! One of the things that amazed the allies after the war was that the captured german officer class was not regretful about having fired the war up in the first place, they regreted that they had lost. After all that suffering, all those cathedrals open to the sky, and they still thought the whole exercise was a good idea that just didn’t turn out!
In the case of the environment, there is no personal risk to being “environmentally aware” because all it takes is putting out the recycling bin every week or two. And believe me, I hear this most days on Radio National so it must be true, the planet is going to collapse and eject us, so there are grounds for considerable concern. There’s really nothing to restrain our capacity for collective self-delusion in this case. But there is so much gratification, knowing that “I’m concerned, I’m well informed” about the environment. “I’ll use steel instead of wood”. It must be so easy to convince most of the population in a rich country like this that you can save the world by closing down the forest industry – the only people at risk are “stupid and vicious common people”, to quote Flanagan and Pybus.
And as for “messiah talk”, I think Cinders original extarct from Flanagan and Pybus just puts it so well, it’s hard to improve on it. For example:
“A media that creates a messiah must logically have its tale told in full, replete with a crucifixion. When forestry workers at Farmhouse Creek dragged Bob Brown (one of many protesters) away from the bulldozer, they were enacting their set roles in a passion play cum photo opportunity par excellence- The powerful image of this photo, shown over and over again across the nation and across the world, is full of falsities, not the least of which is the idea of the prophet being destroyed by a stupid and vicious common people.”
And this was written, as I understand, by a proponent of the green movement. The collective dellusion is described by one of the deluded! I can’t put it better than that.
Phil, you’re a bloody trooper. You doggedly get in there with the questions. It’s refreshing. My hat has been taken off.
For Thinksy (sounds a bit formal, but that’s the convention)
Godwins Rule sounds like a fun thing to have and this is only a game we are playing. To counter The Rule, I suggest the movie “Downfall”. An observation of this movie, which rings very true to me, is that it is confronting to see a portrayal of Hitler as a human, with compassion for his dog and his staff, a real man with conventional feelings. Sure, many twisted characteristics may have also existed within the real Hitler, but the convention of portraying him and his immediate circle as a collection of unique cases, as monsters, is dangerous. What happened then could happen again and to portray the Nazis as uniquely weird is a form of denial of history, a strategy that has many perils.
I also recommend a book written by Albert Speer, the name of which escapes me and I’ve lent it to my son. I’ll chase it up for you if you like. Speer was initially Hitler’s architect, a great honour as Hitler thought of himself as an architect. Speer became part of the inner circle and was amongst other things the Minister for Armaments. He was the only or one of a very few of the most senior Nazis not to be hung by us after the war. His book is facinating, rational, clear and by providing such insight into the very inner circle, makes you realise that Germany was no special case, it was just one that ran out of control.
I also offer the statistic that in the chaos immediately after the downfall, the Poles killed 6 million Germans in a frenzy of revenge. I can’t say I blame them for it, and all the other occupied countries did the same, but they access to fewer Germans and the piles of bodies were smaller. We should never put the Nazis in a special category, we are very like them. My wife is doing a unit on terrorism at uni at the moment. In the immediate aftermath of the recent Cronulla riots, an Australian white supremacist website took 10,000 hits.
Godwins Rule sounds like some sort of debating game rule, so I’m happy to ignore it.
Wisdom of the crowds – I agree with the concept that a team is more effective than the individual, but as my comment to Detribe last night describes, the behaviour of the mob is not the behaviour of a team or group with a common purpose and a rational strategy.
Phil
From your reply can I now take it that you do ague that there is a well heeled green machine that is in fact a multi million dollar marketing business with a selling brand of “the world’s largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest”
Also can I now take it that you accept that there is 15 million ($) plus reasons why the green machine operates with the principle zero base line marketing.
Phil sorry but I just can’t imagine that you could live a day without gaining some benefit from timber (which is the only renewable building resource available.) No doubt from your personal experience you know how cold, steel and concrete is.
Just let me assure you that I never wish to live a day with out the benefit of knowing we have healthily evolving forests. I suppose we in Tas are a bit greedy in that regard with were ever you look you see forests, again to remind you, a forest cover of 3,207,250ha and 1,442,440ha (45%) of those forests reserved for conservation. And included in those reserves is 977,480ha of old growth forests.
Now to your questions to help you understand the publicly available established criteria that defines forest, old growth and wilderness get hold of the JANIS report that sets the
Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate
and Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia.
If you don’t have a copy, try this link
http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A03289
Regarding all your other questions the answers are readily available in hard copy or on line in the form of annual reports of the Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority, Forestry Tasmania (FT also publishes a SFM report) and Private Forest Tasmania.
One thing I do find interesting though is you don’t seem to have much interest in how the 1,442.440ha of reserved forests for conservation are being managed for future generations.
Please don’t tell me you are also blind to these reserves.
Nestled in the picturesque Daintree Cape Tribulation Hutchinson Valley, Douglas Shire Council’s “Welcome to Cow Bay” signs have swatsikas emblazoned over the logo portion and have done so for years. At the ferry, the noticeboard for vehicular and pedestrian charges has “Hitler knows how to charge”.
By direct comaprison between Hitler and the partnership of Bewick (DSC Mayor) and Boyle (Qld. Minister for Women, Local Government, Planning & Environment), billboards draw visitor attention to the parallels of fanatics seeking to displace ‘unwanted’ peoples via unethical means.
The dynamics of the impropriety are the same. It is merely a magnitude order of difference.
So Basil I’m disappointed – you were one post from having my support – but given you don’t want to engage on my questions I suspect you have something to hide. Don’t refer me off to a pile of research when you could give a one or two sentences to answer each of those few points.
Like the Greens you are just as bad at staying on message. Always makes the punters suspicious you know. Maybe the Green’s $15M is well spent. You see the same absolute area style of argument is used in Qld land clearing debate. Cape York distorts the statistics no end – and it all isn’t the same type of botanical community from Tweed Heads to Weipa – even within regions. Its the intrinisc regional biodiversity that’s the issue. Trees ain’t trees.
And I quite like the concrete and steel actually – can’t hear any external noise, doesn’t get on fire, doesn’t splinter when you drill a hole, and doesn’t get termites.
I’m not anti-forestry nor anti-agriculture – but that doesn’t mean everything in all these industries is hunky-dory either. I simply asked some reasonable questions to gain an understanding.
For Boxer (keeping up the convention): I take your serious comments on board. And the allies ignored Russia’s genocide because it was inconvenient to their goals. I think few people can even imagine what they’re actually capable of given certain pressures and peculiar circumstances. However I don’t see that it’s in the same league, ie to jump from green promotional materials and wisdom of the electorate all the way to genocide?
The frenzied physical actions of an over-excited mob at a single place don’t equate to the thinking processes or the voting decisions of a politically aligned sector of society. Are yuo comparing different data sets? What’s the connection?
What’s the significance that an ‘Australian white supremacist website took 10,000 hits’? It doesn’t mean that all the visitors are white supremists. Some want to see waht makes the other side tick, to udnerstand why they’d go to such extreme actions (same reason some of us meet up on this blog). Apparently of the 2 instigating white supremists one is Lebanese and the other is half Indonesian (something like that). It still doesn’t tell me anything about the dangers(?) of green marketing materials.
BTW, note my post on end of Tasmanian thread (2 threads before this one). Opponents of the green’s ‘messiah’ are on the side of the real Messiah’s exclusive supporters: The Tasmian farmer Roger Unwin and the ‘Exclusive Brethren’. From Crikey:
The world head of the sect, who rejoices in the title Elect Vessel of God, is wealthy Sydney businessman Bruce Hales. Hales lives in Prime Minister John Howard’s electorate of Bennelong and reportedly prophesied the end of the world if Bush and Howard were not re-elected.
“..now secretly intervening in Tasmania and supporting the Liberals, some of whose pamplets are very similar”
“..a sect which rails against the evils of modern society and exercises extreme, control freak style moral and social authority over members, who are made to feel unsafe outside the sect. It’s the height of hypocrisy for a group which excludes itself from the mainstream to insidiously try to influence how people vote.”
Phil
As you haven’t dismissed my understanding that you ague with that fact that there is a well heeled multi million dollar marketing driven green machine I’m now pleased we have some common ground.
But sorry you didn’t appreciate the list of official documents I listed for your reference.
My reason for offering this small referenced list was because as you doubted the previous information I provided I guessed you would do the same with any answers I provided, so see the publications as the way to go and these official publications are also providers of much more information way beyond the questions you asked.
Now if that doesn’t suit happy to engage but in a two way street.
PS
I will stick with my wooden house, its warm and friendly, built from a renewable re-useable, bio-degradable resource.
Basil – I hope I’m not an unreasonable man.
I accept that there is are green organisations with multi-million dollar budgets. I do not know exactly how they allocate their money per campaign. However I assume they are committed and are engaging full tilt ! (Otherwise why did they collect the loot).
My local experience with green groups left me feeling that they weren’t that organised. But as they say – your mileage may vary.
I DID indeed appreciate the list of references – I will make the library trip and have done the web searching – and so in a few weeks I will be briefed. However – Jen’s style is not to have standing items on this hallowed blog. These threads turn over and go into the archives where only a few hardened bloggers tread. The momentum is then lost once the items go off the front page.
I was hoping you would engage on the biodiversity and practices issues. The lurkers – out there might like to know. 7,000 to 8,000 of them I think from Jen’s stats – You have a good case on areal extent – finish off the job !
And futhermore I still can’t understand why you guys don’t formally challenge the greens to post the debate on two separate forums – the case for and against! The issue of agenda creep seems to be really getting at you guys.
P.S. yes I have lived in my share of wooden homes too and think timber is a great product. Just hate old cypress – splits even if you just look at it – but termites do leave it alone.
Good post, Boxer. I find introducing oneself as a “right wing ideologue” or “property rights activist and axeman” liberates oneself from the tedium of conformity and any weight of expectation. Most are just grateful they are not trapped in a half nelson and take any display of civility towards themselves as a personal favour. It also provides temporary relief from outbreaks of “bimbophobia”.
For Thinksy: Important distinction, I think, it wasn’t the behaviour of the Russians, though I’m sure the Red Army could have done more to prevent the bloodshed, and the horrors of the Red Army’s own revenge on German women are enough to make me weep. It was the Poles too. And the Dutch, etc etc. We tend to want to push this behaviour onto the classic baddies, being Stalin and Hitler, and the soldiers. My point is that this wild mob behaviour is within us all.
Regarding the comparison to forest debates, I’ve repeatedly said here that these matters are in a different league, that widescale revenge killing and instigating a war are many orders of magnitude worse than some silly debate about forests in Australia. Given the evidence that it is possible for civilised people to commit these extraordinary horrors, it is easy for our society to demonstrate analogous (note only analogous) mob behaviour in the more moderate, much much less harmful way that makes up some political behaviour.
The desire to belong to a mob, the appeal of messiah-like leaders when the mob has a communal concern about some issue, the ability to indulge in collective self-delusion under the influence of messiahs or prophets – this is a template that can be laid over many human scenarios. Of course the global war scenario is worse than a political debate about forests, of course pulling Bob Brown off a skidder in the bush is less dramatic than the actual nailing of Christ onto the cross. It’s the pattern of behaviour described by Flanagan and Pybus that makes such interesting reading, and as Cinders observed, it comes from supporters of the greens in this case.
Cronulla and the white supremacists: a small number of people use text messages on mobile phones to motivate a mob of thousands with a shared grievance/concern to do something silly for an afternoon. So easy; messiah by remote control. This is within us all. Just possibly, I wish to suggest, green campaigns tap into these same human characteristics to achieve political objectives. Understood, the scale is different, and understood, many groups and organisations use these same methods, but it is still a valid (if repeatedly stated and denied) comment to make about green campaigns. Your rejection of the existance of the concept baffles me, but maybe I’m not clear enough. I obviously have a problem being concise.
Phil
Thanks you have highlighted the very point I was trying to make with providing several links to publicly available referenced answers to your questions. The answers are already on the public record in countless reports for any one that is interested
My point is how many times over do you have to answer the same questions, The Green Machine knows the answers but don’t recongise that facts as it doesn’t suit their marketing business.
Also the open forum you talk about has been had and done it was called The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement , spread over 2 years with countless opportunities for all sides to put forward their bids and concerns to an independent umpire for the final lines on maps that established areas of forest set aside for a wide range of conservation values (base on JANIS) and forests available for timer production. At the start the rules were set (following input from all side) one of those rules the outcome would be for 20 years. The green machine (GM) signed up by engaging every step along the way, Took with glee every new reserve created (remember the first valley of the giants) but the GM now want to destroy the security provided as the trade of to timber folk. But of course the GM would have the reserves staying in place.
By the way the massive volume of documents and official reports produced by Tassies RFA (all at the time open for public input during the draft stages) are now very much underpin present day forest management.
Please tell me what do you think about the management that is in place for the 1,442 440ha of reserved forest Tassie has?
Basil – I’d like to tell you – but I’m uneducated – and you’re sending me off to the library. As I said you could make some simple points here and win myself and the lurkers over.
And if you’ve said it before – well that’s public extension for you. The difference between mainlanders and a computer is you only have to punch the data into the computer once. (Usually Tasmanians or NZ’ers are the brunt on the joke – but today on this issue especially for you .. .. 🙂 )
Boxer I don’t think I rejected ‘the existance of the concept’ but I did question the applicably. In short you’re saying that there’s a difference in magnitude of behaviour, but there are parallels to consider. (And it applies to all sides). That tendency of people to create their own messiahs must run deep, eg the fickle fads of unthinking masses adoring famous people. Like you, I avoid commercial media. You & yr wife might be interested in this blog http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ (check out his CV!)
Ian I challenge you to introduce yrself as a card-carrying pinko next time and try to maintain the act for a while. Remember back in school days when the teacher would deliberately put on the side of the debate so you had to successfully argue the opposite to what you believed in? An educational experience. Now & then I try to convince people that I’m normal, but the disguise never lasts long.
Phil
now we have both had our say about the world as we know it, I’m more than happy to get into your questions (no problems with any of them) but that will have to be Friday, got other things to do today so will post back tomorrow
“I still can’t understand why you guys don’t formally challenge the greens to post the debate on two separate forums – the case for and against!”
Why on earth do you think those groups who rely misinformation and propaganda for power would expose themselves to accountability willingly, Phil.
On the issues I track I have never seen it happen in 15 years of close attention. They run a mile from any possibility of rigourous challenge, and repeatt the same misinformation even after being told repeatedly that it is wrong. I’ve just seen another example this week in the rural newspapers.
The reason why most of these public “debates” make such slow progress is that major stakeholders dont see them as debates, and will never change their position anyway. So dont waste time and effort trying. Reach out to the ordinary voter directly to get the message over, Rely on the general good sense of most average Australians. It takes time but its the only way.
Detribe: Well it’s very tedious for the average punter chasing all this information. And then both sides want us to listen to them on scant information. OK not scant – it’s down the library. But alas yes – you’re probably right.
Phil, if you can drag Aila Keto into a public forum where she will debate the full spectrum of Queensland forest management issues with me then be my guest. But she has gone to some lengths to ensure that no-one capable of laying a glove on her vacuous whimsies has ever stayed long on the other side of a policy table.
Ask former member of the National Forestry Round Table, Gordon Banks, if he has ever been given the impression that his place on certain policy committees was conditional on his continual support of certain positions.
On the issue of similarities between Nazi or Stalinist propaganda and green propaganda, it is true that at this stage there is an entire order of magnitude in difference between them.
But the real point of the matter is that ordinary, stable, loving family oriented people need at least 10 years of cleverly focussed demonisation, on a bed of prior trauma and desperation, before a sufficient portion of them can be induced to cross the line to indiscriminate killing.
It took the germans 4 years of war, 15 years of reparation induced poverty, and 10 years of focussed demonisation before the final solution began in 1943. It also took 10 years of war, civil war and famine to trigger the massacre of the Kulaks.
And all this, for any farmer in central or eastern europe, made the choice between a homicidal maniac killing farmers and priests and another one killing lawyers and money lenders, a no brainer. Yet, only the farmers support of Hitler is seen by our urban elites as a sign of a moral fall from grace.
The point is, if we compare what the green movement was saying about farmers ten years ago with what they are saying, and getting away with today, then we have every right, and duty to our families, to take it very seriously.
So where do the deep-greens hang out then? They won’t engage? Let’s go get ’em!
There is a great piece today by Alan at Online Opinion: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4258 .
But hang on .. .. Alan says “transition to re-growth and plantation saw logs”. I thought you guys were telling me (above in this thread) that you had to have old growth as plantations were no good ?
And I haven’t been to the library yet – but I have had some passionate email, from non-greenie lovers of the forest, to the effect that soil erosion and consequent effect on streams from current operations is significant and that the ecological and biodiversity values of the replacement forest are not those of the existing old growth. So I’m not saying that’s right but I am being lobbied back the other way. (I did ask above !)
Yep no deep greenies within coo-ee – just me here getting shot at.
Phil
Now that’s being very naughty to say that it was said that plantations are no good, if you remember in my earlier post replying to you I stated to you that;
Why we still harvest old growth is to provide the high quality timbers that I’m sure you benfit from. The strength and durability of these timbers comes from slow growth. Quick grown plantations don’t have these qualities but are ideal for producing paper products that I’m sure you also benefit from. Also rest assured old growth is renewable for if it wasn’t we would not be having this debate today.
Also didn’t we aguee that Tassie has a world class forest reserve system in place to provide for conservation and forest not required for conservation are avaliable for providing for oiur timber needs.
I was just about to take some time out and answer your questions but if my efforts are to be dismissed or forgotten, to it appears, just to keep the debate raging then should I bother.
Now Basil – don’t be like that. I thought you’d gone 🙂
Anyway it’s what Alan said ! And I downloaded the maps from one of Alan’s commentators today – lots of Tassie has been cleared and it looks like what’s left is craggy rocky mountains and impenetrable south-west scrub – what’s the definition of a forest?
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pdf_files/sfm_brochure.pdf
Got some good links off that site actually.
Back to it – I did have some questions above on ecological values of regrowth, erosion and how long it takes a cleared forest to become useful old growth again for your purposes.
Phil you are starting to fall into the old green tactic of totally misrepresenting what is being said. And as you just admitted, hoping no one will know the difference.
Well Phil I do, and don’t start misrepresenting the details on the maps because it won’t work either, but first to who said what.
Alan NEVER said plantations were no good FULL STOP it was you.
How many times do I have to repeat for it to sink Why we still harvest old growth is to provide the high quality timbers that I’m sure you benfit from. The strength and durability of these timbers comes from slow growth. Quick grown plantations don’t have these qualities but are ideal for producing paper products that I’m sure you also benefit from. Also rest assured old growth is renewable for if it wasn’t we would not be having this debate today.
Also are you now saying that the largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest, The Valley of the Giants.(TWO) are reserved the Styx Valley and Beech Creek Valley of the Giants, in the World Heritage.
It does look like we need to revisit the FACTS about Tassie.
Fact 1 Tasmania has a land mass of 6,840,000ha
Fact 2 Tasmania’s total land mass in conservation reserves is 2,935,000ha (42%)
Fact 3 Included in Tasmania’s total land mass is a total forest cover of 3,207,250ha
Fact 4 Tasmania’s total forest cover in reserve is 1,442,440ha (45%) (This is part of the total land mass in reserve)
Fact 5 Tasmania’s existing old growth forest cover is 1,246,000ha (this is part of the total forest cover)
Fact 6 Tasmania’s existing old growth forest reserved is 977,480ha (this is part of the total forest reserved) There is an additional private land 25,000ha of old growth to be considered for voluntary reservation.
Fact 7 Tasmania’s assessed high quality wilderness is 1,943,570ha
Fact 8 Tasmania’s assessed high quality wilderness reserved is 1,885,300ha (97%)
Phil also do not forget that Tasmania’s conservation achievement s are world class when the conservation target set by the International Convention on Biological Diversity is just 10%.
To help you understand what is forest, old growth and wilderness click on this its all there for you and its nasty loggers who have establish these criteria
http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A03289
Now I have a question for you what is the total amount of forest cover for your state % against total land mass would be good.
For those like Phil & Basil, who want a good appreciation of the vegetation in dear old Tasmania a reasonable map can be located at http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/soer/image/234/index.php
Don’t get caught out like the ABC’s Four Corners and be forced to apologise for not being accurate or for misinterpretation of the colour code! See
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1132297.htm
For a report on land use in Tasmania, may I suggest have a look at
http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/rural_land_trend_2003/index.html
Appendix 1 has some figure that might surprise.
For those interested in loss of vegetation cover, then
http://audit.deh.gov.au/ANRA/vegetation/vegetation_frame.cfm?region_type=TAS®ion_code=TAS
is the go.
NO – Basil you’re falling into the unfriendly pro-timber workers tactics of yelling at anyone asking questions. And not much sense of humour either – I was joking (you know .. .. joke). You don’t have to keep pounding me with the same numbers. You are rampantly ducking my questions which could be answered in a few paragraphs.
I am not a member of any green or political organisation.
In the Online Forum piece today Alan gives the distinct impression that the industry is moving to plantations .. .. “and outlined a transition for the timber industry to re-growth and plantation saw logs”. I found this at odds with you saying that access to old growth is essential.
You have ducked my question on ecological values of regrowth. And erosion. On areas I am asking about forest types and vegetation types. And forest definitions.
My points are simply that this is what are some of the issues with your opposition.
On your question:
Woody vegetation in Queensland is about 80 million hectares out of a land area of 1,730,648 sq km – 46%
Phil
Didn’t sound like a joke to me but if that’s your defense fine .
Now 46%is not a bad score for QLD so this so-called massive land clearing in Qld is a myth just like it is in Tas.
You what me to answer your question will give it a go but on the condition that we sign of on each before proceeding to the next. And expect the odd answer if I present a few along the way.
The point you seem to be missing about old growth, regrowth and plantations is the wood and timber products we gain from harvesting these different forest types (and for this exercise we will include plantations in the mix) is very wide ranging.
Old growth (only about 1% of that available is harvested each year) provides for high quality furniture making, via solid timber boards and veneer, also were structural strength timber is needed e.g wooden bridge building and load bearing sawn building timber.
Regrowth has a very wide range of uses from framing, to fiber for paper. Saws and dry ok but logs will split if not keep damp during storage before sawing.
Hard wood Plantation is best suited for fiber for paper and constructed board there is a lot of research going into finding ways to saw and dry plantation wood. The problem is being fast grown it is “very free” bows and twist not the thing a builder wants but ideal for paper making.
Soft wood plantations do provide framing timber but not with the same structural strength as hard wood, twisting and bowing is of a lesser problem but still exists.
Now regarding what makes a forest please take time to go to the below site it will give you the full story it is just on click and no need to venture out to the library.
I could cut and paste but for you to get the full story try the mouse. Don’t be frighten its not that bad
http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A03289
If you want to get the actual numbers on Queensland land clearing try
http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/slats/report.html
I think you’ll find the areas non-trivial.
You will notice a few things though – not many trees in the west of the state, lots in Cape York that will never be touched, and a huge area of Mitchell Grass native grassland (no natural trees). You can find lots of silly statistics in the statistics – mate – I know how both sides manipulate extent data. That’s why I was asking you. The 46% doesn’t mean much at all really.
But I do thank you for your information.
Phil, it seems these TCA blokes keep on popping up all over like mountain ash. Reckon it’s time for the chain saws? Must be an election somewhere hey.
Back to serious logging er blogging, what has me wondering is why TCA posts don’t ever refer to Commonwealth data that underpins their RFA process. In fact it underpins a probable international carbon trading system where we could well be asked to promote wood retention in trade offs as opposed to staying in the cheap chips rat race down south.
Try this map, zoom in and it shows our tiny block as all green, not bad considering the rough bit is mostly regrowth after it was first surveyed off and fenced early last century.
http://adl.brs.gov.au/mapserv/intveg/nht_state.php?state=tas
Unfortunately neighbouring blocks have been chipped or cleared, some however have potential for another crop of Messmate E obliqua down the big gully. It’s the natural timber in this region and is much better timber for the spot mill than regular plantation blues scattered about in this steep country. My neighbours could cut theirs again next century.
But given Tasmania can grow heaps of wood quickly and is about the best state to target as a new carbon sink as things heat up a bit more we could end up paying all the TCA chaps to simply put it back if the balance is actually going the wrong way. Here I am thinking more and more about Japan chipping in. After all Japan is the home of Kyoto.
All it takes is a couple of degrees and a bit more ice in the drink
There is another angle since I came from the process side of forest industries as was once very keen on R&D across the board I can say anything we can save for a sunny day down there must be worth much than mere carbon stored in the green when we can also have some of it in the new house or as a replacement for some plastic as the cheap oil runs out.
Going back to the BRS above, which ever way you look at it Phil, the little patches of old growth eucalypt forest left in Tasmania today represents a very large part of Australia’s tall timber reserves.
The usual TCA or NAFI argument about how almost 50 percent of the state forest is now wrapped up in reserves doesn’t wash for other reasons besides not including Australia’s deserts in any set of figures for our part of the world. See this map –
http://data.brs.gov.au/asdd/overviews/nfi03r9abfi001/nfi03r9abfi00111a00b.gif
there is not much left in Tassie in either closed canopy or rainforest. Ahhh! but it shows other forest types you say.
I notice Cinders last post offers a map first up giving us a better picture and outlining the catchments as the HEC once did but the devil is still hidden. Cinders also leads us to some rural land use figures that don’t show old growth that’s locked up but a parra in 7.2 on forestry made me chuckle.
After a bit on Australia’s 20/20 vision, falling hardwood chip prices etc there is this gem “Tasmanian woodchips are of higher quality than mainland Australia reflecting higher pulp yields” I reckon Gunns “strategy” may still allow a bit more saw log down the chipper chute as we once did back in good old APPM paper making days.
But what I really wanted Phil to see was this report on the fate of an important non eucalypt timber species
http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-A2200060B0A02995
Then this with more pictures about the devil in the detail of our RFA process. It leads to threatened species considerations associated with forestry operations.
http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LJEM-6K38P2/$FILE/Tasmanias_Vegetation_Ch4_pages_300-333.pdf
Always more than mere numbers like the fifty odd tall trees featured in this site
http://www.gianttrees.com.au/
Phil
I’m more than happy with the QLD 45% remaining forest cover you stated was existing so no need to now try and devalue that number.
But for us to move on do you understand and except the differing uses of old growth, regrowth and plantation?
Also to bugger, Know you will be over the moon with joy because all the ststics I posted about Tassie are Commonwealth figures lifted from the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement sign by the Federal Government last May.
Also don’t worry I know the 15 million $ reasons why you are hell bent on dismissing Tasmania’s world class forest reserve system including the largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest, The Beech Creek Valley of the Giants. Mustn’t let detail get in the way of big business (The green machine’s the name and marketing is the game and I bet buggers in the play)
Yes you have explained the difference.
For the lurkers, a very small amount the 46% is tall closed canopy forest – much is savanna woodland with scattered trees. There’s probably not a lot of savanna woodland in Tasmania.
Phil
Thanks for noting my explications so hope from this point we shouldn’t see any more mudding the waters about subject.
Also you are correct we don’t have savanna woodlands in Tas we have eucalyptus woodland included in that is 1,246,000ha of old growth forest cover within the total all aged forest cover of 3,207,250ha with 977,480ha of those old growth forests reserved for conservation. Values and there is an additional 25,000ha of old growth on private land to be considered for voluntary reservation.
So I do believe the balance is very well struck in setting aside 1,000,000ha of old growth for conservation and 25,000ha to be managed for timber values.
Basil, we still have a long way to go. For instance I want to know what happened to our Myrtle forests under your Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement sign by the Federal Government last May. Then there is the Native Forests Issue Report, the Land Clearance Issue Report, the study into Coarse woody debris and so on.
http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/soer/bio/4/issue/58/ataglance.php
When I said the devil is in the detail I want to know who is looking after my Nothofagus cunninghamii as we go forward and say when and where you last saw our white goshawk or a big lobster crossing a logging road anywhere.
In my days scouting around the back blocks the same sort of guys you probably know tipped me off about how the gang with chain saws were told by this or that contractor to fall a few big eucalypts through anything the carters did not want to pick up. This was about the time anyone who could built a triple axle jinker to lift their official capacity to what ever the maximum was. About 45 tons I recall.
Basil; who is minding the show at ground level these days? Perhaps it could be another blog topic soon.
BTW yours truly spent a long time with various processors looking for trouble in their business but not a day with TWS or any similar outfit. I’ve always been keen on first hand info.
BTW
again you can jump for joy as just short of 90% of what you call the Tarkine is now reserved and you know that this region is rich in Myrtle including the highly prized deep red Myrtle, now reserved, and this valuable resource is now lost to the north west sawmillers so guess that makes it even better news for you.
No need to worry about the other matters either as the TFCA has stitched them up for the greater good and that’s not wood cutters or spud growers either.
All most forgot to ask did you jump for joy when the largest remaining tract of pristine, old growth, tall-eucalypt forest, The Beech Creek Valley of the Giant was included in the World Heritage area.
Basil: you can reckon on me jumping only after I stood on a black bull ant’s nest looking for stump robins in an old Messmate buttress.
Also Basil I would get some joy out of knowing some one still had the big stringy obliqua growing like they used to up north,
Tall skinny mountain ash are a dime a dozen in regrowth. Not impressed!
Bugger
you can go and sit on that ants nest because
of our Tall (wet) E. obliqua old growth forests, 63% is reserved. That’s an incredible 52,840 ha of a standing area of 83,490 ha.
These figures clearly demonstrate again that Tasmania is well out in front with setting the standard for forest conservation.