‘Selective logging for wood chips’. That was the
new concept I learned on the day. This ‘ecocide’
doesn’t even need to take place. What is happening in this water catchment is
intolerable. Tasmania has the highest rate of cancer
in the world because of the actions of a few people.
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates24.html
After they clear-fell, plantations go in and are sprayed with carconogenic Atrazine. All in Lancestons water catchment. This is what corruption buys you Tasmania.

Danielle should learn from Forestry Tas own website…“Tasmania’s state forests are sucking carbon from the atmosphere at the rate of around one million tonnes per year, thanks to Forestry Tasmania’s management strategies.”

SO it’s thanks to FT that all that carbon dioxide is being taken up. I reckon Bob Gordon deserves a pay rise for making all that carbon dioxide get taken up by the trees. Brilliant job.

See also http://forestsnowtasmania.blogspot.com/

Richard Barton seems to be conveniently forgetting the loss of carbon with the initial clearfell, and the continued loss with each succeeding cycle of trees. 
From pulp, currently around 13 years.  And don’t try to say the carbon in the pulp is locked up!  How long does paper last?

Yo John, no, not forgetting anything. Simply advising what Forestry Tasmania says on their own website.

Their management practices are responsible for the uptake of a million tonnes of CO2 per year. They also point out that “In time native forest harvesting will come to be regarded as the ultimate in sustainability and its products will achieve eco premium prices.”

Look, if Forestry Tasmania says it, surely it must be so, after all they’re the ones with the science.

When we hear and read that old, dense, slow grown wood is less valuable than super fast young tree sticks,  then our alarm bells should ring at high pitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How much energy is inclosed in one cubic meter of slow grown wood?
The energy equivalent is what its true value represents, this 20 year deal stinks to high heaven!!!!!!!!!
How much do they pay for 500,000 to /pa. of the so called forest waste for the power plant?
Who regulates the “waste” amounts?
Nothing at arms length down here, all one big landgrab, one big take, one big stuff up the island!
Where is the science and fair go in this? Other industries, climate considerations, erosion issues, landscape values…
Dear oh dear, if we can not stop these developments,Tassie will be run down, for the short term profit for a few and community and future generations getting done over.
How stupid are the people if they do not grasp these simple explanations that every moment, every day the sun shines on chlorophyll carbon is being sequestered. These 1000 little stems per hectare are just tiny in comparison to a mature, mixed multi-story forest.

Despite the scientific information about climate change and the need to capture the sun energy Australians and Tasmanians get ripped off by the people that see that young, puffed up fibre is more than double the price of mature, native, dense wood. How stupid is this society, not to take legal action against the culprits?
I better calm down, as I need my strength in days and month to come.

Seems to me R. Barton (Post #4) is a tad naive if he believes what is on the FT web site. 

After some years of observing & studying the forestry industry, attending FT organised forest & industry tours,as well as their seminars, talking with loggers working in an active coupe, not to mention a CRC seminar specifically on carbon conservation in forestry, all I can say is that FT’s announcements need to be taken with a truck load of salt.

Specifically on conserving carbon in native forests, the CRC speaker (from Edinburgh University, as I recall) made several points, including,: disturb the soil as little as possible and leave the (so called) trash on the surface to mulch into the soil.

The Tas. forest industry relies on a PhD thesis of Max Gilbert of the late 1950s to justify their clearfell, burn & sow policies to grow eucs.  They have used his work selectively.  That system is certainly the way to GERMINATE eucs., but in my opinion not the way to GROW eucs.

When Tas. foresters show some understanding of agronomy, I will have some respect for their work.

Responsible Forester (Post #5) mentions the value of old, dense slow grown wood.  As it happens, I picked up a current price list from McKay Timber on Friday last.

Kilndried, Dressed All ‘round hardwood 100x38 is $8.12/ lineal metre which I calculate as $2136/ cu.m.

300x50 DAR is $51.65/l.m., which I calculate as $3443/ cu.m!

Hang on to your old, big trees folks.  They’re worth money!!

“Tasmania’s state forests are sucking carbon from the atmosphere at the rate of around one million tonnes per year, thanks to Forestry Tasmania’s management strategies.”

Thanks also to Forestry’s management strategies we are cutting down 3.5 million tnnes of trees for Gunns and turning them into carbon dioxide. Add to that the 40% of wastage that is destroyed on the forest floor and you have 4.9 million tonnes of wood, which as green tonnage, is 25% carbon. that equals 1.225 million tonnes, which when combined with oxygen gives you 4.496 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide back into the amosphere every year.

This is set to more than double as soon as the Pulp Mill comes on line, but as we cut the trees down for this lovely mill of ours, the ability to absorb this 1 million tonnes that Bob is so proud of reduces.

He can now feel so pleased that he has found a way to excuse himself from blame but has helped to destroy the planet. Well done Forestry. Great job of spin!

’Selective logging for wood chips’.

The latest practice consists of taking a piece of virgin forest and clearfelling fifty percent of it in strips, leaving the unfelled strips to ‘seed and regenerate’ the bits they have felled. After the initial logging, they then burn the cleared strips, and so far they have generally managed to destroy the uncleared strips as well in this ‘controlled burn’.

This practice will allow them to return in a couple of years and declare the whole area as ‘regrowth’ and then fell the remaining trees.

Why can’t they be more honest and just declare their policy in a nutshell? ‘We want the forests and we have the power, so we are going to take them, and all of you can get just go and get stuffed’.