Replying to David South:
David,
Thanks very much for your information and the time you put into
supplying it. Here is my reply:
>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
.
.
.
>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.
Data meets data. Here are some figures presented on an over-head projector
by Forestry Tasmania while they were trying to convince a group of
residents that a local forest area was being clearfelled for sawlogs not for
puplwood: (Figures probably refer to cubic metres, not tonnes.) (I added
in the ratio column calculated from the other columns.)
Mersey District (in northern Tasmania)
---------------
Working Category 1 Pulpwood Ratio of
Circle saw log saw to pulp
----------- ------------ -------- -----
Forth Corr 2,000 20,000 1:10
Devonport 2,300 28,000 1:12
Mersey 3,500 27,000 1:7.7
Western Tiers 2,100 21,000 1:10
Tunbridge 1,500 8,500 1:5.7
Deloraine 4,100 40,600 1:9.9
Steep Country 4,000 35,000 1:8.7
----------- ----------- ------- -------
19,500 180,000 1:9.2
Presently there's a 300,000 m3 legislated requirement for cat 1 saw log
annually for Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania use chippers to contract
loggers to get logs and so on. So its difficult to differentiate between
government land or private land. Also the government is (or has)
not permiting Freedom of Information on Forestry Tasmania, so
once again is it government or private?
>
>
>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.
I believe someone has already replied to you on the park land. Basically from
his reply I understood that the main park land was previuosly considered
unsuitable for agricultural production and therefore not really ventured into.
>
>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.
Only when they are not on new plantations. But even then I see no excuse for
them using chemicals which go onto the community's area. E.g. atrazine.
Similalrly with unfenced use of compound 1080 (an "herbivore"-icide).
Chip companies have such huge
profits that they could invest in alternatives like tree guards or fencing or
even plating larger (less vulnerable) nursery stock using composted (weed
free) soil. The native mammals and some birds are suposedly protected
but coupe sizes are about 60-80 hectares a time, the mammals, birds and
reptiles from which are deleted (directly or by loss of habitat). Also
1080 is not specific within herbivores. That's just a little gripe of mine
but I have other life forms' benefit in mind. Also they never plan to
replace the big trees with big trees because they're not going to be
around at harvest time if it's a 200-300 years away.
There is a bit of Pro-Silva type done on private land and I support that.
(It's not done by Forestry Tasmania or chipper interests though.)
Other things which are objectionable I have stated before. I'm sure you
don't want me to repeat.
>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.
>
Regarding locking up, do you mean locked up in paper production or in parks?
If it's locked up in paper production then it's also exterminated
(predominantly clearfell here, especially in wet areas), not just
detained for it's other uses.
Regards,
Chris.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Discalimer: The views, statements or data expressed here are my own and
do not necessarily represent those of anyone else, nor my employer.
--
---------
Chris
(Dr Christopher Dean, PO Box 550 Mowbray Heights, TAS 7248, Australia)
(Email: cdean@heartland.bradley.edu)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0