Dear Cris: Since a few netters seem to be interested in my "deceptive timber industry PR," I thought you might like to review the following. Tasmania Alabama land area 6,358,300 ha land area 13,135,600 ha population 452,847 population 4,150,000 population density 0.07/ha population density 0.31/ha population doubles 60 years population doubles 130 years 53 % in non-forest 33% in non-forest (12% pasture cropland) 47% in forests 66% in timberland 40% forest owned by State 2% forest owned by State 22% forest owned by Crown 1.9% forest owned by USFS 13% forest in Crown Reserve 0.1% forest in USFS Reserve 13% forest owned by farmers 26% forest owned by farmers 4% forest owned by forest industry 25% forest owned by forest industry 3%forest owned by business 8% forest owned by business 3%forest owned by other individuals 37% forest owned by other individuals 2%forest owned by H.E.C. (overall about 2% of forests in (overall about 15% of timberland in plantations) plantations) Chris, the nice thing about internet is that it brings together people with different views and different backgrounds. Since you are from Tasmania, I compared the current situation in Tasmania with that in Alabama. As you can see, there are differences between the two regions. First, the people in Alabama have less much government land (state and Crown). Much of our timberland (62%) is owned by farmers and other individuals. In Tasmania, much of the remaining forests (75%) are owned by the government. The forest industry owns only 4% of the forests in Tasmania but about 25% in Alabama. It is my understanding that enlightened foresters and conservationists in the 1920s managed to get large tracts of forests in Tasmania dedicated to timber production under new forest legistlation of the time. Otherwise the forests would have been cut without control and without regeneration. Most of the areas that have now been reserved for National Parks came from those reserves. If the government gave each person in Alabama an equal share of government land, each person would get about 0.11 ha. However, if the government split up their forest land and gave each Tasmanian a piece, there would be about 6.6 ha per person. In other words, you would naturally have more interest in public land management practices in Tasmania than I would have here in Alabama. On an area basis, you would have 60 times more interest in the way your public land is managed. Another difference is the amount of land which is not in forests (or timberlands). If 53% of the land has been cleared by farmers (probably a bad assumption), then there is about 7.4 ha of cleared land per person in Tasmania. In Alabama, we only have about 1 ha of cleared land/capita. Why do Tasmanian's need so much cleared land per person?? Are you growing sheep instead of trees? Why not plant trees on old pastures and cropland like we do here in Alabama? In fact, about 15% of our timberland is now plantations (compared with 2% in Tasmania). I doubt there is a direct correlation but note that we have a history of tree planting and have 56% of our land in natural forests. In Tasmania, were tree planting was not deemed necessary until recently, they have a lower population density and still have lowered the natural forest to about 46% of their landbase. Does planning ahead by planting high yielding plantations help forestall the exploitation of natural stands? I assume you do not get upset with the way the forest industry manages their land. I suspect your concern lies with the way the government manages public land in Tasmania. In reality, the government in Tasmania has set aside more land in reserve (both as a percentage and in total) than we have here in Alabama. If anyone should be complaining about a lack of reserved forests, it should be us in Alabama. You have about 0.85 ha locked up per person. In Alabama, we have locked up about 0.003 ha/person. David South School of Forestry Auburn University, AL 36849-5418 dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu 205-844-1022 205-844-1084 (FAX)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0