If “our common ground” were in fact serious about finding common ground they should acknowledge the amount of the states forest in permanent reserve, almost half and of the remainder we have a world class forest practices system for forest operations that do occur. The RFA did not simply enable the harvest of more native forest, it set up a CAR reserve system, provided greater protection for forests, flora and fauna species.

So far this group has simply peddled the same old worn and tired green arguments, only under a different organisation name. To find common ground there must be agreement on some things, and reaching a compromise on the others. It is apparent the only compromise sought is that on the side of the forest industry.

Surely no coincidence that the wilderness society release is almost identitical to this.

Simon, I would like to know who the people and groups are that belong to ‘Our Common Ground’.

I would like to see just a scrap of evidence that Environment Tasmania actually did get the assent of its member groups to engage in such an incredible pro-plantation industry spin trip.

Because it’s really odd how the Tasmanian Clean Water Network was (is not now) a member group and yet was not given any verification of the voting process.  Further, the details of ‘Our Common Ground’ did not become known to TCWN until they were published on the Tasmanian Times.

Members of the TCWN oppose vast tree monocultures in Tasmania.  They haven’t seen any evidence that New Zealand and QLD provide any sort of viable model for a ‘forest’ industry.  Members have also opposed the notion of the foreign ownership of vast land resources such as occurs in the tree plantation industry.

How much do you think it will cost to turn this industry around?

Who is going to pay for the capital improvements that your are proposing, Simon?

The community is already paying around $250 million in various direct and indirect subsidies (see my article earlier today:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog
/article/stop-the-subsidies-to-stop-the-conflict/

rejoin link) while our health and other systems go short of funds.

I am of the view that the industry should be controlled by market forces, rather than taxpayer subsidies. If, as you say, the crisis for the industry is deepening, how will they pay to get themselves out of the mess that they have created?

What is OCG’s position on the costs of the turnaround and reinvestment?

It sounds eminently sensible, except for the “common ground” part.  The opposition relies totally on political access to public resources, which they get for more or less nothing. 

They have no experience of real commercial competition and utterly no understanding of the severe environmental constraints that are emerging from the Copenhagen conference.

The 21st century world simply can’t afford to coexist with Tassie logging nor their political stooges. It’s past time time for OCG to drop its dreams of a coalition with the Neanderthals. 

John Hayward

Mr Branigan says: “It can create more timber jobs by investing and diversifying in a range of plantation timber products. ”

Such as, Mr. Branigan?

Has FEA’s plan of some years ago to turn plantation grown E.nitens into sawn timber progressed?  Has the PhD student they funded been successful in discovering how to predict in advance of milling which trees will produce straight timber, and which will produce banana timber?

Has Mr. Branigan discovered a cost effective method of pruning plantation trees so that knots are minimised, thus increasing the workability (and value) of plantation grown eucalypts?

John Maddock

I agree with Mary #1, The RFA did not only create a CAR reserve system it gave unfettered access to the native forests, it removed export quotas on woodchips and removed the majority of jobs in the timber industry.
Before the RFA back in the late 1970’s we had 440 sawmills in Tasmnia, now even counting portable millers we have 50.
In the last 3 years 60% of the forest contractors have been sacked (translates as made redundant), the logging has increased and the woodchip piles have never been higher( Barry Chipman).
Plantations have swallowed up very valuable farm land, MIS schemes have crashed and burnt. Many farmers and landowners have been pushed out by high land prices created by MIS schemes.
Vast areas of our catchments are being sprayed with fertilizers and chemicals each year leading to poisoned rivers and increased weed problems in waterways. Profits have increased (since the GFC they are beginning to fall off) and subsidies have skyrocketed.
The roads are in atrocious condition from the onslaught of woodchip log trucks and will soon be worse with the introduction of quad axle log trucks.
So yep the RFA was a beauty, profits increased and the island is heaps worse off(except a few aged ill men)
As far as the CAR reserve system, yep same tired old rhetoric. Instead I would like to see the actual figures of potential production forest in these reserves. Not all the pencil pine, button grass and coastal scrub that is conveniently included now.

Went shopping for a length of 4 x 4 tas oak last week. Cannot buy it. Why? because all they saw now are regrowth and it would take four years to dry a stick that size. When I made some disparaging comment about the myth of sustainable forestry the sales guy made a very rude comment about the results of letting a woodchipping operation run the timber industry.

OCG are barking up the wrong tree. The way to solve the friction is to remove the corruption, incompetence and stupidity from the process and see what it looks like. Accomodations with thugs, bullies and the like never work out. The way forward is a royal commission, nothing less.

As for MARY’s comment’s, pot pot kettle, kettle. The Chipman character has been representing “timber communities” for years. What was the proportion of his income that is contributed by those he supposidly represents, Mary? How is it that the only time we hear from him is when the issue has a negative impact on his real masters affairs?

Day after day we see log trucks trundling down the road on the way to the chippers. A casual glance will reveal that a fair percentage of these loads consist of long straight trees, like hydro poles,not plantation sticks. Any farmer will tell you that you can’t sell carves and be a prime beef producer, but that is exactly what Forestry Tasmania is doing. Every time you see these log trucks carrying immature trees to the chipper, you are seeing the demise of the Tasmanian timber industry.

“OCG” sound like some kind of disorder. Must say I agree with posters 3,4,5,6,7,8 &9. OCG - barking up the wrong tree in advocating support for the plantation industry.

Brenda, this outfit doesn’t seem very responsive so here’s one list from an OCG marketing piece…

OCG’s members include
Judy Tierney, former ABC presenter
Peter Cundall, media personality
Assoc Professor Graeme Wells, Economist, University Of Tasmania
Graeme Wood, Founder, Wotif.Com
Frank Giles, Small business operator and farmer
Dr Phillip Pullinger, Environment Tasmania Director.
Peter Skillern, former Director, Tasmanian Liberal Party
Rod West, Business Entrepreneur
Roland Browne, Lawyer
Dr Stuart Godfrey, Climate Scientist
Essie Davis, Actor
Vica Bayley, Tasmanian Campaign Director, The Wilderness Society
Lesley Nicklason, Nurse Pyengana

Perhaps they’ll update this?

I,ve had no problems getting a response from OCG.
Telephone or email.
Some great people in this lineup who have been good friends of the Tamar Valley throughtout our fight against the pulp mill.
Why not just go to the website and join?