20 replies to this topic

[Whos_asking99]

Do you support ot hate them?

I support them, as dad is a forestry worker, be honest in your answers.

[Serrator]

Neither.

I do not support them directly, perhaps indirectly whenever I need lumber to build.

What's to hate? It is a job...and a very vital one. Without your dad and others harvesting a renewable resource our construction abilities would be vastly hampered and perhaps other resources would be at risk.

Now what I am seriously against is the harvesting of ancient type woodlands such as the Giant Sequoias here is the US and I am sure there are similar trees in Tasmania. I have no problem harvesting the more common trees from forests as long as they replant 2x what they take.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Mystic]

Hmmmmm, I can see a real can of worms opening here, but this is fine, as long as people rmember to respond with reason & logic, and keep their emotions in check.

Personally, I think Forestry Tasmania need to exercise a little more caution in their activities. especially with the pulp mill virtually assured of going ahead. Old growth forests are limited in their number, and should be preserved as much as possible for future generations. Once they are cut down, they are gone. Regrowth forests may appear to show healthy signs, though if a person looks critically at what they are seeing, they soon realise that the regrowth has brought much change to the ecosystem.

Here on the west coast, we have a lot of regrowth, and luckily, quite a few old growth forests. One example of regrowth that is easy to access is found along the trail to Montezuma falls. this area was virtually clear felled during the mining rush around 120 years ago, and whilst the rainforest that you walk through as you follow the path may appear impressive, it is obvious that all the trees you are seeing are quite slender, and it is only now beginning to regnerate effectively, with a decent canopy cover. It will take many more hundreds of years before this ecosystem returns to even a shadow of its former self. We must be careful in how we harvest timber and realise that our ecosystems are vital to more than just native animals, but to assuring our survival into the future.

In some ways the practices of Forestry remind me of old farming techniques. During a political campaign in 1988 I had the pleasure of addressing a meeting of the National Farmers Federation to discuss conservation. It was the only time I have ever spoken to a public gathering and returned to my seat in silence. If looks could kill, I would have been dead many times over that afternoon. what was most memorable though was a farmer who invited me to come watch what he was doing to his property with a bulldozer the comming weekend, where he planned to clear many acres of those "woody weeds" (what the rest of us call trees). 5 years later, I saw the same farmer on the television news complaining bitterly about how the government must act to save his property from the soil erosion that was being caused by salination. (Remove the trees and the water table rises, bringing salt closer to the surface, destroying soil quality and ensuring nothing will grow. If there are no root systems in place to hold the soil together it erodes and large cracks appear, eventually creating sink holes and worse. Once it has reached this stage, the soil is vitually useless, and a desert will begin to appear).

Unfortunately, we humans like timber, so there is a demand for it, but just like we also enjoy oil, soon things run out. The supply is not never ending.

The main argument for continued forestry though, appears to be employment related. I have seen the same complaint across Australia when greenies try to save forests. This appears to be linked to another attitude, which is the "this is how we have always done things" cry. Jobs can be created in other fields. The potential for tourism in Tasmania is huge, and we are nowhere near even beginning to understand the implications of what clever tourism management could mean for Tasmania. I am not talking about building more & more resorts, catering for the wealthy, but in catering for those people who want to see genuine wilderness, animals in their native habitat, etc, etc. Forestry workers are well placed to e retrained as ecotourism guides. Their understanding of our forests, gives them an interpretative edge on the rest of us. certainly we cannot employ everyone who is currently employed by forestry, though I am also not suggesting that we should abandon forestry enterprises completely either. we need to achieve a balance.

I think there is much more to this question than love them or hate them... we need to understand the differing positions and try to see each others point of view if we hope to have reasonable balances that address the needs of all people, and also, that understand the needs of the species that inhabit our forests.

Personally... love or hate... neither... I wish Forestry would act a little more sensibly and realise that sometimes we need to look at things differently and understand that just because we have done things a certain way for a very long time, is not a good enough reason to contue. Count the number of extinct species, the reduction in air & water quality world wide, and you may just understand that it is beyond the time to change our ways.

[Whos_asking99]

I agree with everything said there, it all comes down to a balance, but really, in the end theres gonna be a group that will end up disappointed, either the greens or forestry.

But yea, that farmers problem boils down to himself in the end.

You mentioned that forestry needs to act a bit more sensibly, but look at how the extremist greens go about their business, chaining themselves to log trucks, come on!
The drivers are trying to earn a living, then these extremists start calling them murderers, and what if one of the drivers cant stop in time? Then does that mean the driver is a murderer? or is it the victims fault? and who decides?

Yes, it all does come down to a balance....

[Mystic]

Can't say that I agree with a lot of the methods used by the greenies. I also think they they lose a lot of potential supporters by endangering themselves and others through some of their more extreme actions. Two wrongs never make a right though. We could discuss what each side is doing wrong for years to come and not cover half of the actions taken by both sides. Forestry recently said, basically, oops we accidentally logged an old growth forest that was protected. The fact is that in the modern world, things like this happen, and people tend to get carried away.

If you read my post about falling in love with Tasmania, you will see that I walked away from social activism because it was basically a waste of time and energy. I had ministers of Govt. who would say to me... yes, what you say is correct, yes it would be better for society to inmplement such practices, but it will never happen because it would be political suicide to support such changes. We have reached a point in social evolution where power & money are far more important than anything else. Sadly, this is the real cause of many of our troubles.

It is not a matter of who is right, or who is wrong, that is irrelevant, what matters is sustainability of our planet. If ensuring the future survival of our planet means that some sources of employment have to go, some forms of business enterprise have to be closed, then that is what we must do. It is not an easy truth to accept (and I am not speaking just about forestry here either), but when you only have one litre of water to last 5 days, you simply cannot drink more than 200 ml per day. You have to adjust your desires to match the reality of limitations with supply.

A little secret I learned many years ago - the secret to getting everything you want, is to want what you need.

[Shane V]

Balance is the key to fulfilling what we need and what we want. Do you need that decking on the back of your house? Do you need that expensive Huon Pine coffee table?

Nowadays we can build houses with steel frames, so do we really need wood for them? Are there other products which can be used instead of wood for what you need?

I understand that people need employment; we all have to eat and pay bills, but there are other ways to create employment out of forests and as Anna has said above the people involved in forestry could be used in other ways.

What I don't like is the old growth forests being logged. There is very little left and in some countries it is disappearing at a fast rate. I would hate to see it happen here and I am glad that we have the WHA to protect our old growth forests.

We have many trees where we live. I love looking out the window and seeing all the green, it is relaxing. We have one of the highest rainfalls in the state and I put that down to having so many trees around us. We sit here and watch as the rain is produced. It is amazing.

The greenies I think take things a bit far with the stunts they pull. It is one thing to have a peaceful protest another to cause damage to other people?s property and putting themselves and others in danger.

The drivers are trying to earn a living, then these extremists start calling them murderers, and what if one of the drivers cant stop in time? Then does that mean the driver is a murderer? or is it the victims fault? and who decides?

All difficult questions to answer. I think the poor driver would cop a lot of crap and would end up in prison. That is not fair on the driver or family, especially if it was in the situation that you describe. The law and judicial system would decide the person?s fate.

For me personally I don?t support them and I don?t hate them. They do give employment which helps families to live but if there were other ways in which that employment could be used I would prefer for them to do that.

Just one question remains for me?

When will the environment take precedence over money?

[Whos_asking99]

Well, fact of the matter is, we are always going to be needing wood in some form or another...whether its paper, boxes or tables, as to your last question...how many days till we invents super fast growing trees?

Glad we are all still friends here, thought I was going to be eaten alive.....

[Mystic]

Way are we "always going to need wood"???? Best paper is created from hemp, as is cardboard. Tables can be created through a myriad of other materials. Buildings, and all other things we use wood for can be replaced by sustainable resources and technologies.

the fact is that we do not NEED wood, but we WANT it, there is a vast difference between what a person needs, and what they want.

I will never eat a person, nor criticize them for standing up for what they believe in, as long as they can accept that there are always many different ways of looking at things, and sometimes there are no right answers to questions

[Whos_asking99]

True...but we will always WANT wood, no way of changing that.

[Shane V]

NO doubt the scientists are working on fast growing trees as we speak. They have already grown genetically modified food crops, which grow faster and are drought resistant.

Why does there always have to be a right and wrong answer? We all think differently, we all have our own opinions and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm glad you asked the question and also glad you have your own opinion on it.

[Mystic]

True...but we will always WANT wood, no way of changing that.

Although we may always want it, there is one sure fire way of ensuring we don't get it... log all the old growth forests on the planet, pretty soon, we won't have any left, then no matter how much we want it, we won't be able to have it.

We want Tasmanian Tigers, but they don't exist.

Consider the story of oil. when I first started driving, petrol was around 30 cents per gallon, (that's around 4 litres). Look at the price today, look at the way we are now rethinking the widespread use of oil and the urgent need to find alternatives. if we keep ripping out timber the way we are, it will not be long before the same problem appears. In reality, the problem already exists, excessive carbon in the atmosphere is partly caused by the lack of trees on the planet to filter the air.

One thing we must always remember, trees are our lungs, without them, the planet will die very quickly. I f you doubt me look at the scientific evidence surrounding global warming, increased carbon, and the depletion of the ozone layer (though that last one many scientists deny due to political reasons).

[Whos_asking99]

Well, really there is no right-wrong answer with , well, i spose you could call it morals, loose term though

Some people say their right, others say the Others wrong, gets confusing after a while.

But yes, I respect everyones view, just as long as they present it properly.

*EDIT*

I dont doubt that Anna, its very obvious, doesnt take much research to relise that.

[Mystic]

Just have to clarify one point... you said

well, i spose you could call it morals, loose term though

No, I do not have morals or ethics enter into this debate at all. i am an ethicist, given that my uni degree has a double major of philosophy & sociology, and my specialty in philosophy was ethics. Do not get me started on this.

Suffice to say, this issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with morals.

Do not get me wrong, I am certainly not against tree felling when it is required or when it is sustainable.

Take a look at my backyard right now, just took these pics a few minutes ago...

These were a beautiful old English oak tree that was across the road from our place until recently. The tree was causing all kinds of damge to pipes and such, and had to be removed. Personally I think the tree had been there longer then the pipes (it was at least 200 years old) and should have had precedence. Society will not accept that, and the person who owned the house where it grew would not accept that. The tree had to go. A few salvaged pieces, that will be used when they dry out.

Sometimes, trees must be cut down. But clear felling of old growth forests...that is a different story, and nothing can justify it.

[Whos_asking99]

Yea. I'm against clear felling of old growth as well, and I think the majority would agree that.

But should old growth take precedence over peoples safety?



Don't worry, I'm not chickening out of this chat, but I will be going away for 4-6 days from today, so I wont be able to post for that time....
Have fun all.

[Mystic]

In what way do you mean "people's safety"? If you are talking about the dangerous methods used by protesters, then I have already made it clear that is something I don't support. I don't see how old growth forests could otherwise endanger people.

On the other hand, the development of the pulp mill will put approximately another 200 logging trucks on our roads each day, and that definitely is a danger to the public.

Enjoy your time away. Anywhere interesting that you are going?

[Whos_asking99]

Hi;

I was saying that if an old growth tree was in danger of falling on a house, or over a road endangering lives...should it be cut down?

I was away for longer than expected, went up the coast, stayed at Launceston with family for a night, went to Bakers Beach, spent a night there, spent 3 with family up at Yolla (please don't ask to me explain where that it is....), then 2 at Deloraine and home today.

[Mystic]

Sounds like a nice trip (and I have been to Yolla )

Trees fall down, but I think when we are discussing the forestry industry in Tasmania, we are talking about much more than instances of a single tree generating a possible danger. The issue at stake is the wholesale clearing of forests, not single trees.

As I stated above, I watched with sadness, but understanding, as a beautiful old english oak was cut down across the road from me. Not a native tree, but part of the historical past of this region. The acorn did not arrive on its own, someone had to drop it there, or plant it.

At around the age of 400 years, most trees will fall in Tasmania, through a number of natural causes. Trees do that. We cannot use the potential risk as a justification for the removal of an old growth forest. An individual tree, perhaps, but not an entire forest.

[Whos_asking99]

haha thats good then, your the first person (outside of family) that I have talked to thats been to Yolla, and sorry for not posting in a fair while, went away over the weekend.

Well I personally reckon (and this is just my opinion) that when a tree gets sick or is in danger of falling over in a residential area, then it has to be felled, for safety reasons, we had two big eucalyptus trees around the house, they had to come down unfortunatley, they were sick and posed a serious danger to people.

[Shane V]

That is a totally different argument all together. You are now talking about single trees nowhere near a forest.
At the start of this debate you said,

Do you support ot hate them?

I support them, as dad is a forestry worker, be honest in your answers.

besides your father working for them is there any other reason you support them?

[CoastalCanuck]

I'd like to weigh in here, may share some insight and commonality.

I grew up on the south west coast of Canada, a temperate rainforest. As you well know I'm sure there are only a handful on the planet. My father managed a sawmill for some thirty years, as did one of my uncles, manufacturing lumber has put a roof over the heads of most of my family since 1940. I began working in a mill before I was out of school, and work in a mill today. Here, its a good living. Our climate is a little colder than yours and trees grow a little slower. Our land base is far larger and we have only experimented with forest plantations, we are very envious of your industry's ability to self sustain.

I have spent a lot of time in forests of Douglas Fir, Spruce, Hemlock, and Cedars that have stood for +,-1,000 years. I have also made a lot of lumber out of them. The later can't be done without a nagging conscious, not even as your living. I have seen more than my share of activism, irresponsible practices from both sides as well as the gov't. Concessions were made on all sides, but without the activism, the irresponsibility would run unchecked. I've visited valleys that were 'saved' by people chaining themselves to trees, spiking them, and blocking roads. I took my father for a drive once, to see the Carmanah and Walbran Valleys, despite our professions, there's no argument that some things should be preserved, if for no other reasons than respect for the ability of nature, and the right of our children to witness it.


Not long ago I left the coast, and moved into the interior, where the fir, spruce and pine don't have the luxury of age, the fire cycles are part of the complex balance. In the last decade, the warming of the climate here has meant winters haven't been so severely cold and a small bug, Rocky Mountain Pine Beetle, has proliferated unchecked in our predominantly pine forest. By 2012 some 80% of the interior forest will be gone, an area a little larger than the State of Tasmania. We try to cut and process the wood while there is still value, but the shear scale and volumes are incredible. The town I live in has 4 major mills all next to each other. The amount of logs we consume each day is unlike I've ever seen on the coast. The mill I work in produces over 2 million board feet of lumber every day, 5 days a week. We also have 2 pulp mills and a Medium Density Fiberboard plant. We consume over 500ha of forest every day. We have a land base so large that we can continually harvest for 50 years, before we start at the beginning again. That was the theory, until all the trees are being killed at once.

Despite the need to consume the trees as they die, for fear of the mother of all forest fires, the US recession has dried up our markets and lumber prices are at all time lows. Almost half of the operating mills have closed in the last year, poor markets, poor quality fiber, surging fuel costs, poor international trade agreements and now we have massive areas of dead trees. The coast industry crippled by allowing the sale of raw logs to the US, (not even Russia allows the export of raw logs), poor foresight, irresponsible profiteering by industry and labor unions, a slight change in climate and a delayed reaction to an epidemic, have resulted in what once was the forestry capital of the world to be humbled, a fraction of what it was, pushing a low grade product, and selling its jobs.

Management of the resource is critical, I've learned in my 20 years in the industry. There has to be a sustainability plan for jobs, an expansion plan for industry, and a preservation plan for the people and environment. All three must co-exist and co-operate. We haven't done a very good job of it here, and now I'm looking elsewhere in the world where I can offer my skills and perhaps lend some insight and lessons learned.

Cheers, if you took the time to read all that!