Start of Access Road
Access Road some 80 metres past foxgloves
Foxgloves and Thistles abound
The email below was sent to FT and the FPA and others on 20 October 2010 relating to a number of breaches of the FPC and the FPP for Coupe BA 388D.
The predictable response from the CFPO was “no breaches evident, all according to the FPP etc, world’s best practices etc etc”.
I will focus on just one EWTT referenced in that email = that of washing down machinery before and after accessing the coupe. EWTT#5
The attached photos show the logging access road pushed in without consultation during early June 2010 while I was overseas on holidays. To the most fervent believer in FT practices these quite clearly show that the contractor vehicles were downloaded off the flat beds and pushed in the road without being washed down. Hence the prevalence of foxgloves and thistle, well grown e.g approx 18 months gestation, in the first 80 plus metres of the access road. Beyond that there is some evidence of recent (early 2011) blown seed growth of small size - by then all the 2010 seeds had been carelessly placed on the beginning of the road.
Projection Bluff and the WHA Central Plateau here we come!!!!
And if the FT protectionists want any further evidence of how well FT manage weeds etc drive down Riversdale and or Bogan Roads to Liffey Falls and look at the FT plantation coupes prolific with foxglove infestation - but then according to FT Mersey foxgloves are NOT WEEDS! Under my covenant with DPIPWE they are!!!!
The story of the Green and Gold Frogs (threatened and protected species) will follow in a week or so, complete with audio evidence.
I will hand pull the photographed foxgloves tomorrow!
Email to FT/FPA etc 20 October 2010
One of the great phrases that came out of the last Federal election was “expansive with the truth” which was liberally applied to describe the “self regulation” of a certain set of budget forecast/election promises.
I believe the same phrase might be appropriately ascribed to the “self regulation” that you have applied to BA388D*, and perhaps to many other coupes in prior times before your rubber stamp hits the page.
Below I give you Volume One of the EWTT’s that you and FT have perpetrated (some of the quotes are my abridged versions of YOUR statement, but the content of these is entirely valid) :-
• “This is not the call of a Green and Gold Frog - two experts have comprehensively identified this as the Brown Tree Frog”. Audio evidence from an independent source and provided to you in a separate email clearly indicated this was not correct = EWTT#1
• “There are no suitable water bodies on the coupe that would sustain the Green and Gold Frog”. (FT Evaluation Sheet of 17 May). Audio evidence from the coupe clearly demonstrates this is not correct and indeed FT maps clearly show at least two bog areas capable of supporting a frog population. In fact there are many such water bodies during the winter/spring breeding season (none evident in the summer of course but that is not when you go looking for water bodies) = EWTT#2
• ” Only rocks of 10 metre diameter, with moss, are protected, and ..... the photo is misleading”. The FPP clearly states “large individual rocks with moss are protected” There is no specific size proscribed. The photo is indeed misleading as there at least another three rocks of similar size that have been uprooted in the area. Indeed what you did was to disturb a sandstone rock outcrop (see photographs) which by your own process should have had a 10 metre exclusion zone….it did not, you destroyed it = EWTT#3 and EWTT#4
• “Clearly the machinery was washed down as shown by the clumps of mud on the strategically placed grass washdown area”. The attached photos show the washdown area but there is absolutley no evidence of “clumps of mud”. Do you have photos to support your statement? = no = EWTT#5
I would emphasize Graham that it is YOUR signature on the cover letter that confirms that these EWTT’s are valid = not so = EWTT#6
I would maintain that each of the above EWTT’s, in one form or another, constitute a breach of processes within the Forestry Act and your collective Visions, and demonstrate that “self regulation” is a mechanism that generates ineptitude, EWTT’s, and inherent self protection. It is not regulation, it is just a soft and easy mechanism for FT to proceed without external control or observation.
Volume number two of the EWTT’s will follow in “due course”. (It was too wet and under snow over the weekend to get the photos on the coupe needed to support).
*Background on Tasmanian Times:
Forestry Tasmania’s arrogant trashing of Aboriginal and settler history
The short-sight of Forestry Tasmania
Has the forestry industry really moved on (2)
Has the forestry industry really moved on?