ya de ya de ya we are the only truth, just us, no one else ever yah de yah de yah

Yours Truly [honestly]
The industry View

A very pathetic response, Phill Parsons, (#1), after another intelligent and well presented article from Mark Poynter. Is that the best you can do? Let us see you refute the points that Mark makes…

Quote : 

” Australian timber production is clearly not deforestation because harvested coupes are immediately regenerated to grow into new forests.”

    And whilst these new forests take 15 years or so to reach maturity, so , just how much is cleared in that 15 years ? and so on. 

    This continued spin that forest is replaced as fast as it is taken is not possible and absolute Bullshit !  forestry needs to stop taking the electorate at large for gullible loser’s , with their blatent lying.
   
    This is the age of the computer and a whole new ball game ! with the “never before” associated knowledge and the correspondence between individuals that shows multinational trickery excactly for what it is ! so try another tack ! because as long as they lie to us ,  they will lose.

                      d.d.

This is the age of the computer

Indeed it is, d.d., which is why you can now jump into things like Google Earth and get an idea for yourself whether or not net forest cover has shrunk or grown in the recent past.  You might be surprised.

Oh god Mark you’re obviously one of these geezers that has trouble distinguishing a forest from a plantation. 

Hint: forests don’t usually grow in orderly rows of one species

(4)
  Not too sure what your on, but a statement like that can only be designed to con more of the uninformed.
                  d.d.

Yes, a forest is so much more than just a tree crop.  It is an ecosystem - an integrated community of living organisms, right down to the species-specific mycorrhizal fungi on the roots of plants, which are also destroyed by forestry practices.

The veneer of green seen in the view from space doesn’t give the true picture of what we are doing to the forests.

Trees generally, sequester carbon and are equal to around 30% of anual carbon sink activity. They also produce oxygen at a similar rate.
  When a bio-diverse forest is clear-felled and subsequently replaced by monoculture plantation, only to be re-harvested in 10-15 years, it begs the question: What happened to the carbon stored for hundreds of years in the trees and under story? Moreover, what happened to the arbon stored in the soil for thousands, if not millions of years?
  The small amount of carbon held in plantations is released when harvested and the whole process starts over. The original carbon is in the atmosphere, never to be returned.
  Blue gum plantaions are known by foresters as water tubes. They are cloned to consume and give nothing back. One only has to look at a native forest in Tasmania after rain and see the mist rising from the leaves.  Plantations do not give back water and that is evident after rainfall also.
  These trees do not flower and that takes away a food source for bees, without which we will die.
There will be no pollination, unless Mark and Woodworker, you want to go around the paddocks with a paint brush pollinating.
  The whole clean green myth, put out by Forestry and perpetuated by both sides of parliament is all about profits for shareholders and contributions to political parties by lobbiests and bears no relevance to the environment.
  As a person who has spent some time now, researching the deforestation issue, I can honesty say that this article is so devoid of factual truth it sucks like the blue gums that replace the forests.
  If it were, as is often stated, about jobs, one might comprehend however, jobs have actually declined by more than 50% in foresty since wood chipping began. Plantations will add to the demise of workers even more so as the forests are converted to mere crops.

@5 Kate: d.d., to whom my original comment was addressed, used the phrase ‘new forest’.  Perhaps you should aim your semantics at him.  In any case, your statement is at best arguable and I would go so far as to say wrong; see HERE and HERE.

@6, I can’t for the life of me see how an invitation to look at the evidence can be construed as “designed to con”.

@8 David, those are good questions in your second para.  Do you have some answers?  If you’ve spent years researching the issue, surely you can come up with a better, more detailed refutation than a glib puerile simile (“so devoid of factual truth it sucks like a blue gum”).  And if you do have some evidence, I hope it’s a bit harder than “one only has to look at a native forest in Tasmania after rain…”

“carbon held in plantations is released when harvested” is manifestly not true.  And with all due respect, your statements on bees and pollination are…well let’s just say if I said “Banning nuclear power takes away an electricity source, without which our civilisation will grind to a halt”, it would be just as valid a statement, and just as fatuous.

(9)
    The “new forests” piece was a direct quote from the original post,  NOT MINE ! get it right !

    ” Designed to con ” !
            inasmuch as “Fred average” won’t bother to check GOOGLE EARTH (assuming he knows how) and will just take on what he reads as gospel, as spinmiesters such as your self are well aware.

                d.d.

Mark, I thought I answered the question “what happens to the carbon stored in both the vegetation and the soil. It is released into the atmosphere. I will admit some of the carbon does remain and is stored in the paper or other fibre products that are produced from pulped forests. That usually disappears when somebody uses it to light the fire.
  Talking of fires, why is it that the limb wood, which FT argue is used to make wood chips, is actually burnt on the forest floor, using napalm. Does that not release carbon also? Those fires are extremely hot and consume wildlife, remaining understory and ground cover.
  If Tasmania’s forests were sustainably managed for timber production and selectively logged, most of the carbon would remain in the forest.
  With a world hungry for answers to prevent the effects of climate change, surely it makes sense to leave the carbon sink intact, whist dealing with emissions. Unless, of course, you are one of those in denial.
  It was Albert Einstein who said, following a complex mathematical formula, that when the bees die the human race has 4 years to live. The world is suffering Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and in some countries up to 50% of bees have died out. There are a number of theories as to why this is occurring but the main arguments have been deforestation and chemical sprays. Deforestation takes away a vital food source for bees from tree blossoms. Cloned plantation trees, bred for rapid growth, do not put any energy into replication and therefore do not flower or seed. Aerial spraying for pests, using endocrine disrupting chemicals, such as Alpha-cypermethrin, the new “safe” forestry chemical, actually affects the breeding cycles of many organisms, including humans. This insecticide can wipe out populations of bees on the first application. This is why aerial spraying has been banned in the 27 EU countries.
  Spraying of weeds around paddocks and in plantations also removes a vital food source for bees. Some varieties of bees and other insects have a small spectrum of food types and removal of those plants can wipe them out.
  Two-thirds of what we, as humans, consume is pollinated by bees or other insects, so the bee argument stacks up.
  As far as looking at Tasmanian forests after rain, perhaps you should do that. Not all research is carried out in science labs and libraries.  Just pan a camera between native forest and plantation at any altitude, after rainfall. Thick plumes of mist rise from the native forest as the trees give back up to 50% of the moisture absorbed. Plantations seldom have mist above them. They are bred for profit not conservation. And besides, I like the word suck because it speaks reams on what forestry is actually doing to both our economy and our ecology.

#2 I’ve been spun around so many times that I cn no longer be bothered responding. All the so called points made by Poynter are semantic interpretations. Whilst I am prepared to admit that our ‘side’ can be wrong i await your sides admission of the possibility.

While I don’t mind my article being placed on this website without my permission as it then reaches a wider audience - the same may not necessarily be said for Online Opinion who published it first.

I’m rather amazed that the most vocal critics of the article would demonstrate ignorance of even the most basic tenets of Tasmanian forestry by wrongly presuming native forest harvesting to be plantation development.

Although conversion from forest to plantation has occurred to some extent in the past, the great majority of harvested public forests have always been re-seeded to regrow as native forest. To spell it out - they are not planted in rows and intensively managed with fertilisers, pesticides, and herbicides on short rotations. That is a different process now confined to private lands as it mostly was in the past.

Also, David Leigh (#11) said if Tasmania’s forests were selectively logged all the carbon would remain on-site - it will obviously surprise him to know that the majority of Tasmanian harvesting has always been selective logging, largely using the shelterwood system. 

I am saddened at what sort of a society we have become when I read comments like #12 which says that all the points that my article makes are just spin and semantics! They are in fact statistics from government reports. If you can’t trust them who or what can you trust.

It is sad that we have degenerated to a point where if you can’t respond to the facts you just denigrate them - at least you haven’t denigrated the messenger (me), but from past experience that will follow.

Mark please visit me here in the Chudleigh Valley,and within 10 minutes I can show you 1000,s of acres of native forest on the Western Tiers converted to plantations all within the last 5 years, over to you.
In Tasmania this in your face corruption is par for the course, promoted by a combination of spin and lies.
If many of our Lib Lab pollies tried to get an actual job, they I suggest much to their surprise would find themseves unemployable, except,of course within the ranks of their Forestry industry cohorts.

Mark Poynter, you say that “conversion from forest to plantation has occurred to some extent in the past,” and that it is “now confined to private lands”.

But Forestry Tasmania’s just-released annual report says that during the last financial year FT converted 2191 hectares of State native forest into new plantations. (“Plantation Establishment,” FT Annual Report 2008-09, Appendix 2 - Data Tables, page 9, http://www.forestrytas.com.au/.../Appendix2_Sustainable-Forest-Management-Data-Tables.pdf )

I reckon Mark that if you researched your own “facts” a bit better you might find yourself somewhat less amazed at the “ignorance” of those who query your baseless claims.

Regards,
Jason Lovell

To Jason Lovell
Now Jason, I expect you know as well as I do that Forestry Tasmania announced in June 2007 that it would end the practice of converting native forests to plantations in accordance with its Australian Forestry Standard certification.

If you don’t, I draw your attention to the FT Stewardship Report 2008-09 (p.30). It also explained that planned areas that had been already commenced prior to 31/12/06 would be completed over the following two years. 

The 2,191 hectares of plantation that you refer to as being established during 2008/09 fits the above criteria. Presumably, this has now completed the backlog and there will be no future plantation conversion on public land as I mentioned in the article.

Gunns have also announced that they will no longer convert native forest to plantation, so this will also remove much of the practice from private land.

My article actually said “A small proportion of native forest (about 3 per cent of the pre-European total) has been converted to timber plantations over a long period, but this practice has now virtually ceased”

Given the above, I don’t believe this misrepresents the facts as you have asserted.

To John Hawkins (#14)
John, I worked in northern Tasmania for about 6 years up to the mid-1990s. My area of work was the West Tamar and Deloraine - Mole Creek, so I know the Chudleigh area quite well.

If you read my article it does not dispute that native forest has been converted to plantation - indeed, I myself participated in this practice on private lands in your region, although rates of plantation establishment were relatively low in those days.

I am simply responding to the many comments in response to my article which simply equate all native forest harvesting with plantation development, when in reality most operations on public lands have always involved regenerating back to native forest (ie. broadcast seeding of the original tree species rather than planting of non-indigenous species in lines plus attendent weed and animal control).

In Victoria there has been no native forest to plantation conversion since 1987. Nevertheless, it has become a tactic of The Wilderness Society and others opposed to native timber production to misrepresent forest regeneration as plantation, and it seems the same applies in Tasmania.

Mark, you know as well as I do that an enterprise who say they are going to stop doing something, but then continue to do it, are liars.

Forestry Tasmania said in 2007 that they were stopping the conversion of native forests into plantations. But then Forestry Tasmania converted 2191 hectares of native forest into plantation in 2008-09. Which means, (ridiculous last-minute goalpost-shifting excuses aside), Forestry Tasmania lied about stopping this practice in 2007.

And I do note that you don’t appear to fully trust them yourself, given your careful use of the word ‘presumably’ when you say this practice has finally ceased. Presumably indeed; I don’t trust them either.

Regards,
Jason Lovell

PS for some reason my cut and paste last night produced a bogus link - the proper link to the FT report appendix is (rejoin):
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/
pdf/pdf2009/Appendix2_Sustainable-
Forest-Management-Data-Tables.pdf

Mark, you just don’t get it, we don’t trust government departments or the various papers they draw up. There are seedlings going into the ground right now and native forest.
  As for selective logging I saw some of that in the Tarkine. Ancient myrtle forests decimated, leaving the odd few standing. I am talking about and area of maybe 20 - 30 acres with possibly 10 trees remaining. If that is what you call selective logging see your optometrist.

To David Leigh #19,
No David, I guess I don’t get it - I don’t get that supposedly well educated and articulate folk can refuse to look at basic facts and statistics provided by governments, yet be so irrational as to dismiss them as lies. I can only guess that a dislike of having core beliefs challenged is the motivation for such behavior.

I can certainly get that many people don’t like trees being cut down, but refusing to judge its significance in terms of context and proportion, as well as broader societal need, is simply putting your head in the sand.

From what I can, see the greatest folly of most correspondents to this website is simply forgetting that forests actually grow, die, and regrow. They are dynamic and renewable - not some museum exhibit that can be locked away and expected to remain the same. Sadly, that sort of attitude resides most strongly within those with the least practical experience of being in or around forests.

Well managed native forestry is probably one of the few human activities that works with, rather than against nature to ensure environmental sustainability. Yet largely because it has been so pilloried by environmental activism, there has been a substantial move to establish plantations which it now seems are hated because of their artificial nature.

It seems that many ‘environmentalists’ can’t seem to decide which they hate more, so they oppose both from the comfort of lifestyles which are based on human intervention in nature which they prefer not to see. 

I don’t know much about how Myrtle is being managed, but from your self-stated distrustful attitude to anything about forestry, I’m afraid I find it difficult to believe your description of it. Sadly, distrust simply breeds more distrust.

the greatest folly of most correspondents to this website is simply forgetting that forests actually grow, die, and regrow.

The greatest?  Hmmm, I might quibble with that, but it’s certainly getting up there.

Mark, one thing that tertiary education gave me was an ability to question, rather than blindly believe in the printed word. Government documents are like any other and should be interrogated against other work, to assess the truth.

I have no problem with having my core beliefs challenged, in fact I welcome it. I also do not have a problem with trees being cut down. I work with timber and value it as a resource. What I do object to is mismanaged forests. I grew up in a forest and understand how they work. What I have seen in Tasmania is blatant destruction of a precious resource; valuable as a carbon sink and invaluable as a provider of income. When I see good quality saw logs, deliberately split to look as though they are fit only for firewood, I get angry because I know how much work that timber can provide for skilled hands.

You talk of ‘Environmentalists’ as though they are dull and indecisive, when in fact, most of the people I have worked with, on environmental issues, are very positive about how forests should be managed and far from dim-witted.

What you do not see in those government papers is just how many real jobs have been lost to wood chipping as opposed to the timber industry. There were 8,000 people working in the forests 20 years ago and around 4,000 small sawmills. Tiger myrtle was worth around $1500 per cubic metre to Gunns. Today, they pay around $10 per tonne and it goes to the chipper. Myrtle and Blackwood are exported to Japan to generate electricity, not a very fitting end for these magnificent trees.

Forestry Tasmania has latched onto yet another green word, ‘Biomass’ and Bob Gordon can see yet another use for Tasmanian forests, power stations within Tasmania. Most Tasmanians pay between $50 and $80 per Tonne for firewood and those in cities are not allowed to burn it.  Of course, only limb wood and general forest waste will be used, just as it was supposed to be for woodchip. I’ve found it necessary to wear a crash helmet in the forests these days in case of low flying pigs.

As for the way Myrtle is managed, I have photographs…