What is this post actually about? Another of Vica Bailey’s boring rants. I can’t seem to locate the substance of it.

Please spare us the endless platitudes and images of ‘Tasmania burning’.

Has the Tassie Times adopted new policy that every page must contain an image of Hobart lathered in wood smoke?

Most of the time I don’t mind this website.  And I would trade it in for the Mockery any day of the week.  But please exercise some editorial discipline Lindsay.

And who are the clowns that are actually suggesting that the timing of the burnoffs was some political conspiracy by Forestry Tasmania?

Name yourselves and your evidence rather than your ‘dog whistle’ insinuations.

About time someone questioned validity of these images in contributing to political debate.

The rant above is a view that is sadly missing from this website.

I’ll second the call for Mr Tuffin to step up and gain control over a website becoming hazier by the day.

Good on you Linz@@~~  Keep the smoke images coming!

Our readers from the main island need to see and feel the physical context of much of the writing on Tassie Times.

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj/ForestryBurnoffs

Where the bloody hell are you?

While the federal government is promoting tourism abroad at the cost of millions, Tasmania is burning its assets, ploughing into virgin forests and sending images to the world telling them to stay away.

Good on ya Evan, Paul and John. Keep them bloody nuisances out!

Hello Brenda,

Thanks for the photos, they tell me heaps!

It’s not about woodchips, it’s not about fine sawlogs, but it’s about the land grab!

Look at the colour of the soil Brenda, it says it all, they’re after the land!

It’s a land grab as long as the community let’s them…

Only a matter of time!

Cheers
Frank

My point is that pictures are a plenty but reasoned arguments are scant.  I have no problem with people making anti-logging protests and the like, but at least be sensible.

Pictures are no substitute for logic.

To my knowledge the forest industry in Tasmania is perfectly sustainable.  I’m sure I could dig up some pretty photos as well if you’d like.

Look, this issue has gone too far.

We should join the masses, all stop caring for our fellow humans, flora and fauna and get on with the job of making money.
It’s too easy.

Here’s my plan…..
Lots of dynamite, massive machines, latest technology and worlds’ best practice (when in context of money making) would do the trick.

We simply blow up Tassie, level it out which should double our production area. Convert Tassie into a sustainable tree farm to supply the world’s dunny roll. All the metal can be extracted at the time of blowing the place up to make holders for the dunny roll and thus value add to our export markets.

We can all move to Flinders and King until the dust settles and walk back across the new improved island. We’ll live off cheese and fish while we set up the new Tassie

A big net from Vic to Tas will catch all the food we need, let’s call it “BassNet“, and any excess we can feed back to the North Island.

Nuclear power and desalination plants will give us clean water to run our pulp mills and roll holder manufacturing plants.

Unemployment will be a thing of the past as we will all drive harvesters or push buttons in the various plants.

Those who are left will make fish fingers for the rest to eat.

To the best of my knowledge, I feel that this would be a truly sustainable outcome for Tasmania.

Right, now let’s get on with it……where’s the keys to the dozer??

“To my knowledge the forest industry in Tasmania is perfectly sustainable.” wrote Richard Dowling

Now, that is a statement!

To explore the reality, the outlook, the benefits and costs of this industry, as we all experience it down here, it would be a positive step forward to organise a community workshop session about “sustainable forestry”.

This could ideally be held in the “working forests, multiple use forests”.

It could be a series of such workshops in the various regions in Tasmania.

I am happy to discuss and demonstrate the pro and contra scenarios with whoever is fair dinkum interested to help resolve the unresolved war in and about our Island’s forests.

For me and my member colleagues of Timber Workers For Forest (TWFF = http://www.twff.com.au), the Southern Beekeepers (http://www.saveyourleatherwoodhoney.com) and many more people in our communities the clearfell and burn war in our forests needs to be replaced by very site specific management practices.

The conversion of mixed forests to largely Eucalypt regrowth and monoculture treecrops is primitive and unsustainable.

The price per unit reflects the unsustainable practice we witness down here in Tasmania. 

I could go on, but this is not the place but readers may like to call for community forestry workshop(s) that could address the issues above party political lines.

Lindsay Tuffin’s website could be the ideal place to start the ball rolling.

Frank Strie, FWM
Schwabenforest Pty. Ltd.
‘Ecological Forestry’ Adviser and On Site Sawmiller
President of Timber Workers For Forest
Board Member (social chapter) of the national Forest Stewardship Council FSC initiative http://www.fsc.org/en

It seems we either get piecemeal evidence or overblown commentary on this from the usual suspects – all designed to obsfucate the real data and information and bend a discussion towards a particular world view.

How about talking about something real my TT colleagues? Otherwise it’s just smoke and no fire. We know you dont like industrial forestry - we get it! Try and say something new, please!

Frank - it’s only a matter time to what? A revolution mounted by the 16% of Tasmanians who support Greens policies?

Super_Annoyed wrote and asked me:
“Frank - it’s only a matter time to what? A revolution mounted by the 16% of Tasmanians who support Greens policies?”

For starters I think it’s only a matter of time until you can feel secure enough to lay down your cover Dr. - P.V.

If you are that tree crop grower with a PHD, get out of your bunker!

How about directing your energy to some positive thinking, for example what kind of natural resource management Tasmania deserves.

Open yourself to some constructive debate rather than continue to express your hate of “The Greens”.

To answer your question “SA” my finishing remark was about the signs that eventually Tasmania’s customers and Tasmania’s competitors on the world scene will get involved in demanding fundamental changes in forestry.

Look at the positive changes in the fishing, farming, and tourism industries.

If you are the chap I think you are than I like to encourage you to rethink your situation and switch over from being “super annoyed” to super creative.

Tasmania’s Forest Practices System, the Private Timber Reserve Program combined essentially aim to exclude critical input from local communities and local government as much as possible.
The glossy promotion, the constant spin and the TV ads around the Airwalk experience pretend that Forestry Tasmania has got it right.

I make the claim here that over time this expensive pretending will be seen as unfair to the total Brand of Tasmania not just by the “usual suspects”.

It’s only a matter of time until the PEFC International (http://www.pefc.co.uk/about_pefc.shtml ) will address the terrible spin and interpretation of the Tasmania style “World’s Best Practice, second to none”

Whilst you call yourself Super Annoyed, you may not like to accept the concerned voices that committed people from Tasmania have expressed in the “TWO VISIONS” documentary (http://www.twovisions.net ), however from the feedback I am receiving here I can tell you:

1. More and more quality orientated forest managers distance themself from such outdated ‘forest mining’ practices as we see, hear and smell them down here in Tasmania.

2. The propaganda & spin will be exposed for what it is no later then when the PEFC will hold its 12th General assembly in Australia 2008.

3. The fact that, in order to maintain a forest industry, Australia has to import more and more Foresters from overseas (due to the serious lack of interest by Australians), forest practices will change the over time.

Like it or not “SA” and your likeminded friends, if you want to help your industry and Tasmania in a positive way, you may have to change as well and over time you may be prepared to work together with the community, including the environmental and social movements.

I am not about simplistic party politics; I am about sustainable outcomes, I am about what I believe is good for Tasmania now and for generations to come.

Lay down your “SA” cover and help your fellow Tasmanians to make this place the unique Island that got it right, as Gerard Castle called it.

I suppose time will tell
Frank

Dear Frank - I enjoyed your latest polemic. I feel that the masses (well 16% of the masses) well may rise up to rid this island of industrial forestry. Forward comrades (but not the comrades in the union I might add).

Frank - the last election was a clear choice for Tasmanians on this issue - as indeed was the last federal election going on State results - a good majority of Tasmanians approve of forestry practises as regulated by Federal and State governments. Maybe ‘approve’ is too strong, ‘tolerate’ may be better. My guess is that the majority of Tasmanians would like to have no forestry in ‘oldgrowth’ forests at all if their were clear economically and socially responsible alterntaives.

I dont hate the Greens at all. I do rather dislike the spin, zealotry and ‘holier than though’ approach that is proffered by the Greens as the basis for change. I did enjoy an earlier article on the actual issues by TWFF (Timber: The Terrible Waste) which had many persuasive elements in it. That is what we need in this war of values going on in Tasmania (and waged also on TT). Not liking Industrial Forestry is not enough - give the Tasmanian majority and government clear reasons to change practises, not just ranting and rhetoric.

BTW - no idea who Dr PV is - certainly not me. I am not all associated with Forestry.

To close - one of your last points was “Like it or not “SA” and your likeminded friends, if you want to help your industry and Tasmania in a positive way, you may have to change as well and over time you may be prepared to work together with the community, including the environmental and social movements.” Well, I think the last election shows that the Greens either have to learn how to engage the wider community or change their approach if forestry practises are to change. Antagonizing the majority of the population ain’t gonna get you there.

Dave - I’ve got nothing against people going on silly rants like you just have.  But c’mon, at least make it funny and somewhat enjoyable for the reader.  That was a pretty lame effort.

Frank - I get the feeling you have a genuine interest in moving past what Barnsy calls “the myopic and clubhouse style banter of tasmaniantimes.com”  Unfortunately you are in minority.

Those community forums that you suggest would end up becoming hijacked by too many special interests.  My view is that there are not many people who actually want to find out whether current practices are truly sustainable.  On one side you have the Wildo Society/Greens whose existence relies on the unfounded assertion that it is a destructive industry.  Then you have Gunns/Govt who must continually bore us with banal bragging about how much forest is already protected.

I seems unlikely that the debate will ever move beyond this tired tit-for-tat.

Dear Super-Annoying, Richard Dowling and others who continue to perpetuate the stereotype of the Greens Forest Policy as an ...“unfounded assertion that it is a destructive industry” or as “ranting and rhetoric’, I refer you to the document “Tasmania’s Forests:The Way Forward”, the Greens Forest Transition Strategy. 

This 53 page document has been available on The Greens website for more than two years. It is a carefully researched and costed alternative to current forest practices that ...“is designed to create more jobs and wealth from Tasmania’s native forest and plantation resources whilst protecting its world-renowned high conservation value forests” (sic)

Your own ill-informed ranting and rhetoric betrays the fact your agenda is about spreading your ignorance and anti-Green prejudice, not about contributing anything useful to the forestry debate, or even better, contributing to bringing about the much needed changes in the way forestry is managed in Tassie.

Lauren H Mills

Lauren I really don’t care for your presumptions about my lack of research on the issue. I’m certainly no expert, but nevertheless consider myself to be fairly informed on the issue and beyond that of the ‘uninformed ranter’.

While it was sometime ago and my memory is hazy, I did read the forest transition document when it was first released.  All up I thought it wasn’t a bad effort and at least moved beyond the usual anecdotal/emotive rhetoric.

If the strategy could actually achieve what it claims then I’d be the first person to embrace it.  But sadly the dismal science of economics and commercial reality would rain on the parade.
The fundamental problem with the report is that its central economic claims are completely unsupported.  There was absolutely nothing in the report to suggest that the increased job numbers were nothing more than figures formulated in someone’s dream.  Most reports like this at least include some dodgy econometric study to add scientific legitimacy to the proposition.  This report had none of this.

Why should I believe that there will be 175 new tourism jobs as a result of this initiative? I’m not even saying that there wouldn’t be, I’ve just be given no good reason to believe it.

Then there is the small issue that no private firm has actually expressed the slightest interest in providing the necessary capital to complete this noble agenda.  If the claims made in this report were realistic I would have expected profit driven firms to be jumping at the opportunity.

C’mon, this report is clearly a political document and would fail at any level of academic scrutiny. Nice try though.

Forestry burns, bad. Launceston wood smoke also very bad. Check out the following blog: http://rodfarmer40.blogspot.com/ and start contributing to naming and shaming those selfish individuals who pollute mine and your children’s lungs and to give the LCC and state government a push to start using existing powers to put an end to wood smoke pollution in Launceston.

It’s a bit rich accusing the greens of coming up with uneconomic statements Richard Dowling, when the forestry sector has not only come up with uneconomic ideas, but made them happen, with the help of ‘mates-in-government’ to support a decades old ponzi scheme. The losers being the citizens of Tasmania not on the ‘old mates’ gravy train. If readers, you think we have seen the worst of it, think again. The federal government has been aware of ‘the joke’ for years, but was reluctant to close it down for political reasons. Now with Denison independent and the forestry workforce shrunk to pathetic levels, there’s no holds barred at the next premier’s meetings, grant comm. meetings, COAG etc.; when funds are being allocated we’re gonna’ cop it in the neck. The only hope we’ve got to drag our collective genitalias out of the fire is to a/ Abandon the Pulp Mill - economic considerations aside, any attempt to build it will result in conflict we could not afford, socially or economically. If you disagree, and have an axe to grind in regard to ‘deep green watermelons’ so be it, that’s your beef. But please, pause and think, because that old tune will do *uck-all for our state. B/. Allow Forestry to die an unnatural death, and request the federal government to halt the RFA, and move the funds into genuine regional development. That, and green power for an energy starved mainland, are my two cents worth, it may be uncouth, but I’m not offering to buy the Triabunna chipmill - that’s simply mad!