The map in this form cannot be blown up but the essence is, that the darker the blue the taller the trees

This would provide a good basis for a “special” Sunday Tasmanian or other media investigation. A single view of the truth as a starting point for all parties (political, industry, community and environment). Perhaps a special episode of “Mythbusters!”

I’d expect the usual mumbling from industry and political groups until a joint diary-check revealed another appointment.

Still though, it would be a fascinating and entertaining read.

Yes, Neville, but so what????
You have to look at the history of this. When was the World Heritage area declared? Quite a while ago. You seem to be implying that the blue areas to the east of the WHA boundry contain no areas of protection, which is definitely not the case! In fact, the original Tall Trees Reserve was declared more than fifty years ago. I had the pleasure in 2007 of being on a trip to the Styx in the company of the now long retired forester (well into his seventies) who, as a young man, was responsible for the initiative to reserve it, and it was very close to the date of the fiftieth anniversary of his initiative. While he did do this, he simultaneously worked at good forest administration to maintain supply of logs to the timber industry, and to regenerate healthy forest on the harvest areas he supervised.
Since the WHA declaration, numerous additions have been made to reserves to the east of its’ indicated red border. It is all on the public record, and on maps that are published, and in the public domain. I suggest you have a look at all the public material in the Forests and Forest Industry Process, including the JANIS criteria, which led up to the eventual signing of the RFA in 1997. You might even discover that the Wilderness Society participated in the process, right up to the crunch-time of final signing, when they baulked. (some felt at the time that it was a good agreement, but others saw it more in political terms, and reserved the right to attack it as circumstances presented themselves.) You cannot say that this has not been thoroughly considered from all angles. You might even note that last year a delegation from the United Nations visited Tasmania, at the instigation of the Greens, but after their investigation, they delivered a recommendation that the WHA boundry not be changed, much to the chagrin of old mother Milne.
And Mark, a single view of the truth as a ‘starting point’??? What an utter load of crap… and even so, if they were motivated,a barely adequate presentation would be well beyond the low calibre of the local media.

Well Woodworker the map you have objected to was not publically available in Service Tas nor upstairs in Mapping. or in Tasveg. Of course we have added the boundary,(by publically available I mean over the counter) and why not!
And if there is a variance that you seem to insist, .Show us your map!Show us your map!
The constant chanting of the mantra “47% of Tasmania is in reserves, by Amos, by Forestry and by some of the present members of the State Labor Government is bullshit when those of us that are fortunate enough to know better is that 90% of the World Heritage area in commercial terms is a money making wasteland.
The benefit to the likes of you is that the najority of Tasmanian voters are in La La land, more interested in the next episode of Sex in the City than the natural world.

Yes, there are some protected areas outside the red WHA boundary on this map. Not a lot of worthwhile size in the deep blue areas though.

“Woodworker” might like to give us a list, with the relevant hectare values. And he might as well tell us the area of that “original Tall Trees reserve” in the Styx declared over 50 years ago. Was it 15 acres?

Yes, I know its size has been increased recently, but it damn well wouldn’t have been had not Forestry Tasmania been in damage control mode after the popular success of the “World’s Tallest Christmas Tree” and Greenpeace’s “Gandalf’s Staff”.

Good for your forester friend who had the original reserve declared. There used to be honest foresters who loved forests and treated them sympathetically. Precious few these days. It’s people who love nothing but money and power who call the shots.

I’ve been avoiding any further entry into this debate because of my crappy concept of a single map. If only cartography was a science. I bow to superior logic.

Re #6, “if only cartography was a science” Well, it certainly is a science. A quick net search will reveal volumes of information in that direction, including the following:
  “The fundamental problems of cartography are to:
Set the map’s agenda and select traits of the object to be mapped. This is the concern of map editing. Traits may be physical, such as roads or land masses, or may be abstract, such as toponyms or political boundaries.
Represent the terrain of the mapped object on flat media. This is the concern of map projections.
Eliminate characteristics of the mapped object that are not relevant to the map’s purpose. This is the concern of generalization.
Reduce the complexity of the characteristics that will be mapped. This is also the concern of generalization.
Orchestrate the elements of the map to best convey its message to its audience. This is the concern of map design.”
The first question to ask is whether map makers have been perceptive enough to have prepared a map in advance to answer an inquiry that you might dream up. Secondly, given that maps are very expensive to prepare properly, is it fair to expect that maps should suddenly appear every time someone asks a question? (If you are thumping the counter and demanding something for nothing, I reckon it is justifyable that you are told to bugger off.) Isn’t it also the case that masses of information is spread across many different maps of many different scales and purposes, and if all of it were to be gathered in an attempt to put it on one map, it would be unreadable?
Forestry Tasmania uses base material created by the mapping branch, Tasmap, and from there they compile their own information through their in-house mapping section. There are some maps they make available to the public, but there is a lot of other mapping information for which they are justified in not making available.