This photo here shows the change in forestry methods by F/T, yet I couldn’t find any change.

So this must be the new selective logging process trumpeted by F/T.
It’s really a dynamic change here Mr. Bob Gordon, SELECT what is needed then just bulldoze the rest of what is left standing, then torch the lot.

This photo is deserving of National publication, this should then help to let the mainlanders understand more about our ‘world’s best practice’ forestry operations.

Not only will you find Hiroshima scenes like this in our State Forests, but a short drive down Tugrah Road in Devonport will give you exactly the same picture. And it has been allowed to be cleared for the timber and the rest piled up for a ‘green burning’ come Autumn, even though a larger area was already cleared for sub-division (adjacent to the newly cleared piece of land in question) which there has hardly been a building lot sold in the past 2 years!

Why are we, or more to the point Local Governments, allowing the clear-felling of the only remaining vegetated areas near major towns (on hilly country) for housing subdivisions which aren’t selling? And why aren’t unused or underused and already cleared farms sought to be subdivided instead?

I am sure many such farmers and landowners would jump at the prospect of subdividing their unprofitable land to sell for new housing. It is already cleared and in most cases flat which means it will be enormously cheaper to build on.

Tasmania must shake off its 18th Century “if it moves, shoot it - if it doesn’t, chop it down” mentality.

That is actually an adult in the image.

I took it last year in Launceston’s water catchment.

It is reasonable to assume that the colour of our water has something to do with the way forestry has not moved past the mining blitzkrieg mentality of years best forgotten, but still firmly entrenched in the mindless abyss of its generals.

Time for another study into Tamar River siltation…
at the taxpayer’s expense of course!!!

Profit? With so much destruction, our special timber sold for a pittance (or burnt)compared with it’s sale for craftwood, loss of soil, loss of farmland - which can be many times more profitable than forestry - and the wear and tear on our roads. Then there is the social impact.

I am sure an impartial assessment would give a very different picture of the profit and loss of forestry.

Another shining example of HOW Forestry makes it profits. Ghengis Khan would be proud!

I was going to say that it looked like a 19th century image but they had more care then, didn’t they?

This item is a priceless comment of point. It should be circulated widely.

Oh, this is terrible! Shocking! And it will look like this forever!
Bullshit. A timber harvesting site looks like this for a relatively brief period of time. In the scheme of things, it really does not matter.
The only things you need to worry about is whether the site in question was properly approved as a harvesting site, and whether the harvesting was done in acordance with the Forest Practices Code, which you can see here: http://www.ffic.com.au/images/documents/Forest_Practices_Code_2000_Complete.pdf  and whether it was done in accordance with its approved harvesting plan. The other thing you need to watch is whether the subsequent reforestation is conducted in accordance with that plan. If all those things are done properly, you have no cause for objection. If, on the other hand, you just don’t like it, well, tough! You are entitled to that opinion, but it is just an opinion.
I agree the photo is not a pretty site, but as I have said on another post, open heart surgery is not a pretty site either, but that is not a sufficient argument to say that it should not happen.
You lot may as well have had a photo of a potato field, just after the potatos have been dug, and there is disturbed soil and plant material strewn all over the ground, with pathetic wailing comments about the brutality of modern agriculture, and how we should all go back to being browsers and gatherers!
What else could I have expected from the same conga line of grizzling jerks and parasites?

Judas Iscariot would appear a saint alongside Woodworker. And he says he does it for nothing!

Is that the best you can do, Gerry? You can’t challenge the points I raise, so you seek to denigrate me instead!
Well, I can take heaps of that, and I will still come bouncing back.
Have a nice day.

Woodworker: you do your argument a disservice by comparing Tassie forestry operations with open heart surgery. I doubt if any hospital is still using surgery procedures from say 1950, but it is OK for Tasmanian forestry to be so wasteful and then set fire to this in a few months. Find me a photo of comparable forestry practices from canada or sweden or finland or even the good old USA. I bet you can’t because they manage their forests resources very differently don’t they. Hiding behind the forest practices code (written by forestry for forestry) doesn’t justify poor practices that I for one don’t support (but I do with my taxes).

Forestry practices in Tassie are like getting a cappacino made with instant coffee, Ok a few years ago but you’d expect better now.

Ned, (#11), your argument is full of shit. There is constant and on-going research into the many aspects of the science underlying forestry, and into its practices and management. I suggest you have a look at the following:
http://www.warra.com/warra/pub_html/publications_list.html
It is the publications list from the Warra Long Term Ecological Research Site, which is located in the Southern Forests. The warra site (google that) seems to be down at the moment, but there is plenty to see from the publications list, or you can see other material from the forestrytas site. These feed into the current practices employed by forestry, and have been the basis upon which such things as small group selection and aggregated retention have been based. Many things have changed forever since the 1950’s. I gave you the link to the Forest Practices Code, 2000. Did you even look at it? Many things prescribed in that were unimaginable in the 1950’s. There has also been the adoption of the Australian Forestry Standard, the Sustainability Charter, and many other things, such as abandoning the use of 1080 on browsing mamals, and the abandoning of conversion of state forest to plantations in 2007.
On that list of publications you can see research on how much coarse woody debris to leave after harvesting for invertebrates, and many other biodiversity conservation measures, as well as on fire and regeneration. In particular, I would draw your attention to the following: Turner, P.A.M., Grove, S.J. and Airey, C. 2007. Wildfire chronosequence project establishment report. You might find that instructive. It is certainly a lot more enlightening than the pathetic sophistry of your comment, which reads like the ramblings of a brainless dickhead.

#10.Is that the best you can do, Gerry? You can’t challenge the points I raise, so you seek to denigrate me instead!’ woodworker

My comment stands.

‘The only things you need to worry about is whether the site in question was properly approved as a harvesting site, and whether the harvesting was done in acordance with the Forest Practices Code and whether it was done in accordance with its approved harvesting plan. The other thing you need to watch is whether the subsequent reforestation is conducted in accordance with that plan.’

I own a 66 acre stand on Quamby Bluff. Next to this was a 100 acre stand of old growth timber containing huge myrtle trees and many other species, and there was a notice on the entrance saying ‘This is a nature reserve. No plants or soil to be removed.’

Unfortunately, the old man who owned it was persuaded to sell it, and the next thing I knew, we were informed by Gunns that they were about to log it. I asked to see the forestry plan for the coupe, as I was aware that it contained some rare material and was also one of the sources of Quamby Brook, the water supply for Westbury. I received phone calls and a letter promising this, but the next thing I knew, I received a letter stating that logging was about to commence. I then asked again to see the forestry plan and was simply informed, ‘It was not available’, from which I deduced it had never been done. Logging commenced a week later.

After logging and burning, it has subsequently been turned into an e.nitens plantation.

A huge stand of speciality timber has been utterly destroyed and all of it has either gone to the chipper or has been burnt. It would take about seven hundred years for this type of forest to re-establish, but that is not an option now.

So much for woodworker’s comments.

Woodworker (#12) I’m still waiting for you to show me the same forest practices being used to those countries I listed. Come on rise to the challenge show me worlds best practice.

Throwing is the WARRA project is just a red herring and again adds nothing to your argument (again!!!). One little reseach project by Forestry Tas whilst Forestry Tas continues to allow the use of the practices shown in the original photo (and the burn off). I particularly liked the goal of the WARRA project “Where necessary, to develop alternative management regimes”. They might be a long time coming. The WARRA project is just an industry using directed research to justify itself. I saw that MOST of the research is published in “Tasforests” yes that fantastic internationally renowned journal, undoubtedly peer reviewed but the person in the next cubicle in Forestry Tas. Come show me the photos woodworker.