Archive for the ‘Listening Post’ Category

Tasmania’s Tarkine threatened by tin mining

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

Corporate Tin Miner:

“We will continue to be aggressive explorers with multiple rigs focused on exploration for the foreseeable future.”

~ Venture Minerals (corporate tin miner from Perth), in its Mt Lindsay-Investor Presentation,

(Nov 2011), p.31

‘The Tarkine’ – 430,000 hectares of ancient Tasmanian forest

Tasmania’s ancient Myrtle/Sassafras forest – threatened by loggers, logger ‘adventure tourism’, roads and now bloody tin mining!

[Photo by Peter Walton, Tasmanian Expeditions – Photo Gallery on The Tarkine, ^http://www.tasmanianexpeditions.com.au/index.php?section=photo_highlights&id=285742]

.

Cradle Coast Authority (CCA), North West Tasmania’s map

as part of a tourism development strategy.

.

A bid to restore emergency National Heritage protection to the Tarkine wilderness in Tasmania’s north-west has been launched by environmentalists to head off a ”Pilbara-style” mine in the rainforest. Several conservation groups lodged the nomination with the Environment Minister, Tony Burke, hoping he will count heritage values in his impending decision on the big Venture Minerals’ Mount Lindsay open cut project.

Emergency listings of The Tarkine have been granted four times since 2004!

Moss-clad Sassafras (Atherosperma moschatum) trees in the Arthur River catchment near Waratah, Tarkine, Tasmania

(Photo © Ted Mead November 2003)

[Front Cover of the 2004 book, ‘Tarkine‘ edited by Ralph Ashton, and available from publishers Allen and Unwin,and just purchased by The Habitat Advocate.

Available at: ^http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9781742372846]

…but that’s not how the ‘Tin Men‘ see The Tarkine…

This is how the ‘Tin Men‘ see the Tarkine… for its tin and tungsten.

(Source: Venture Minerals’ Mt Lindsay-Investor Presentation, Nov 2011)

.

…and this is how the ‘Tin Men’ see the Tarkine… for the vast mining lease area they are happy to exploit and lay to waste.

(Source: Venture Minerals’ Mt Lindsay-Investor Presentation, Nov 2011)

.

…and this is how the Tin Men see the Tarkine – for its ‘Super Mining Profits’ … 30 to 55% return!

(Source: Venture Minerals’ Mt Lindsay-Investor Presentation, Nov 2011)

.

The Mount Lindsay tin project is the largest of several mines planned around the Tarkine in an emerging new Tasmanian environmental battle. The Tarkine National Coalition said up to nine new open cut mines are in development there. Mr Burke allowed a previous emergency listing for the Tarkine to lapse a year ago when he said plans for a road through the wilderness were dropped. Environment groups objected because of what they said were increasing threats from mining.

Corporate Miner ‘Metals X’ getting well stuck into a Tarkine rainforest hillside at nearby Mount Bischoff

.

The 430,000-hectare Tarkine region is undergoing a protracted assessment for future listing by the Australian Heritage Council. But because the wilderness now lacks any listing, Mr Burke is unable to consider heritage values in an approval of the Mount Lindsay mine under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Instead, his decision is likely to focus on protection of endangered species such as the Tasmanian Devil. The Tarkine is the wildest remaining stronghold for healthy devils, stricken across the rest of the island by a deadly facial cancer.

The Tarkine is a refuge for healthy Tasmanian Devils to avoid the genocidal tumour disease

..but what could heartless commercial ‘Tin Men’ care?

Think of the ‘Super Mining Profits’ … 30 to 55% return!

.

The Tarkine National Coalition spokesman Scott Jordan said yesterday:

”Companies, including Venture, are using the removal of the heritage protections to ramp up exploration activities including roading and drilling that are having a significant effect on the values of the area.”

The coalition was joined by the World Wildlife Fund, the Australian Conservation Foundation and The Wilderness Society in seeking the listing. An Australian National University environmental law specialist, Andrew Macintosh, said emergency listings had been granted four times since 2004, but Mr Burke was not compelled to respond to the request. In a statement, Mr Burke did not respond directly to the emergency listing request, but said he would continue meeting with different groups on issues surrounding the heritage listing of the Tarkine. [Editor’s note: in fact there has been one emergency National Heritage listing (Dec 2009 – Dec 2010), one National Heritage nomination (2004), three emergency National Heritage nominations (Nov 2009, Mar 2011 and Nov 2011), and two AHC recommendations (2003 and Sep 2010)… so what’s it bloody take to get the message through?]

[Source: ‘Call for heritage listing of the Tarkine to head off tin mine‘, Sydney Morning Herald, 20111119, ^http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-for-heritage-listing-of-the-tarkine-to-
head-off-tin-mine-20111118-1nndq.html]

.

‘Jobs, jobs, jobs’ justification – but all for mainlanders, foreigners and short-termers

Typically, this miner (Venture Minerals) relies on the standard jobs justification to exploit, dig up, pollute and destroy the Tarkine Wilderness for tin. Venture Mineral is promising 700 jobs! But of those , 500 jobs involve construction – so short term fly ins from the mainland and overseas only during construction phase. The remaining 200 jobs are promised for the mine’s operations. But miners don’t train locals. This is not about Tasmanian jobs. These 200 jobs will be sourced from similar mines on the mainland and indeed from overseas all on on Federal Labor’s 457 Visa (Australian worker displacement) Scheme. Just look at OZ Minerals at Rosebery.

457 Visas: ‘..for employers who would like to employ overseas workers to fill nominated skilled positions in Australia, to employ overseas workers for a period of between one day and four years.’

[Source: ^http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/sbs/]

.

Venture Minerals is Perth-based at 181 Roberts Road Subiaco, another West Australian corporate miner exploiting Tasmania and taking the profits offshore. Venture Minerals forecasts $1 billion in revenue but it won’t go to Tasmanians. It will go back to West Australia and to its rich mine shareholders. Typically mining is eco-rape, pillage and plunder – wam, bam, thank you mam, then pissing off back to where one came, leaving another tin moonscape like Mount Bischoff.

Look at the mining legacies across Tasmania left as moonscapes:

Nearby Mount Bischoff Tin Mine – wam, bam, thank you mam!

Kara Mine in Hampshire
Mount Lyle’s sulphuric moonscape
Henty Mine
Briseis Mine at Derby
Pioneer Mine on Bradshaws Creek
Anchor Mine on Blue Tier
Gladstone Mine
Coles Bay Mine
Ben Lomond Mine
St Paul’s River Mine
Flinders Island Mines
Mount Heemskirk
Mount Balfour
Renison Bell
Stanley River
Mount Cleveland
Cox Bight
Melaleuca
etc

And of course the Tasmanian Minerals Council backs mining in The Tarkine. And of course it opposes national heritage listing of the Tarkine. The Tasmanian Minerals Council is only about the financial bottom line, exploitation of ore and perpetuating its own existence.

The Tasmanian Minerals Council claims that there are “already enough layers of protection across the Tarkine region, where about 80% of the land has been put in multiple use reserves that allow mining“.

What ‘layers of protection’? If 80% of the Tarkine is reserved form mining, how can that be for protection? – for protection of mining profits and royalties perhaps.

So Tony Burke, if you’re not to pre-occupied with resolving the future of the Murray-Darling, what time are you allocating for Tasmania’s ancient Myrtle forests?

.

‘Tasmania’s Tarkine wilderness is one of the world’s largest temperate rainforests.

This vast expanse is a wilderness wonderland of wild rivers, dramatic coastal heathlands, button grass plains, bare mountains, ancient Huon pines, giant eucalypts and myrtles and extraordinary horizontal scrub.

It is home to rare and endangered birds – like the Orange-bellied parrot and the White goshawk – and countless animals such as the Eastern pygmy possum. This superbly illustrated book captures the beauty of this unique wilderness.’

[Source: ^http://www.andrewisles.com/all-stock/publication/tarkine]

.

Orange-bellied Parrot

‘Here at Melaleuca, six days’ walk from the nearest road,

such moments of peace are typically broken by bird calls,

including the distinct buzzing of the orange-bellied parrot’.

[Source: ‘Scientists Race To Rebuild Parrot Population’, by Peter Ker, Sydney Morning Herald, 20110207, ^http://www.globalanimal.org/2011/02/07/scientists-race-to-rebuild-parrot-population/29032/]

Current status:

‘The Orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) is one of 18 birds listed as endangered under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. It is also listed as endangered under the Federal Act and has the dubious honour of being one of the most endangered birds Australia wide.
Why is it endangered? The Orange-bellied parrot is endangered because it is so rare (only 200 birds left) and its habitat is quickly disappearing.

There are only about 50 breeding pairs of this bird left!

..but what could heartless commercial ‘Tin Men’ care?

Think of the ‘Super Mining Profits’ … 30 to 55% return!

‘…It is a breeding endemic of Tasmania, which means that it only breeds in Tasmania. In fact it only breeds in one place in Tasmania and that is in our Southwest National Park. It arrives here in summer, nesting in eucalypt tree hollows adjacent to the parrot’s feeding grounds of extensive coastal buttongrass plains.’

[Source: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/webpages/bhan-54g3c5?open]

.

Tags: 457 visas, Cradle Coast Authority, Environment Minister, high priority drill targets, Melaleuca, Metals X, Mount Lindsay, Orange-bellied Parrot, Pieman River, super mining profits, Tarkine Tourism Development Strategy, Tarkine Trails, Tarkine wilderness, Tasmania, Tasmanian Devil, Tasmanian Minerals Council, The Tarkine, tin man, tin men, tin mine, Tony Burke, tungsten mine, Venture Minerals, wam bam thank you mam
Posted in Birds (Australian), Tasmania (AU), Tasmanian Devils, Threats from Mining, Threats to Wild Tasmania | 8 Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Blind-eyed cataclysm of ‘Catamaran’ forests

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

‘Don’t clear-fell History… let’s have another vision’

[^RechercheBay.org]

… but try telling Forestry Tasmania’s out-of-control logging thugs:

State Slaughter

Tasmania’s precious ancient Southern Forests at Catamaran, today 23rd November 2011

Out of Control State Logger ‘Forestry Tasmania‘ defies the 7th August 2011 moratorium on logging Informal Reserves.

Logging Coupe CM004C (above photo) is a breach of the 2011 Tasmanian Forestry Agreement, Clause 25

[Photo courtesy of Huon Valley Environment Centre ^http://www.huon.org/]

(click above photo image to enlarge, then click again to enlarge again)

.

Forestry Tasmania’s supposed ‘Sustainability Charter’:

‘The sustainability charter is a forest management plan that reflects FT’s role as stewards of the forest.

The document guides FT’s decision making over the next ten years,

and outlines how our commitment to sustainable forest management

and protection of the environment will be balanced with responsible economic and social outcomes.’

[Source: ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/sfm/sustainability-charter, Read Charter]

Ed: What Crap!

.

The fading farce of forestry’s promise

.

‘Catamaran Forests’ location in southern Tasmania, near Hobart

.

Old map showing relative position of Catamaran Forests (left) of Recherche Bay

^http://www.recherchebay.org/maps/index.html

.

Forestry Tasmania’s map of Coupe CM004C (black area), situated east of Moss Glen

[Source: ^http://www.huon.org/, [Read PDF map]

Forestry Tasmania is scheduling provocative new logging in areas that will impact the habitat of vulnerable species like the Tasmanian giant freshwater lobster, Tasmanian devil, Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle and the spotted-tailed quoll.

And do they have a care factor beyond their pay packet?

Gotcha Forestry Tasmania!

State Logger ‘Forestry Tasmania’ photographed today logging native forests at Catamaran inside the IGA’s excluded 430, 000ha Informal Reserves.

(Wednesday 23rd November 2011)

Catarmaran forests are IGA Informal Reserves as designated by the Independent Verification Process.

(click above photo image to enlarge, then click again to enlarge again)

.

Above is forestry reality, while the following is forestry greenwash…

.

Forestry Tasmania: ‘Vision’

‘Tasmania’s state forests will be a globally trusted source of sustainable timber and other forest products and services for this and future generations.’

Forestry Tasmania: ‘Mission’

‘Forestry Tasmania manages state forests for optimum community benefit, using environmental best practice to create long term wealth and employment for Tasmanians.’

Forestry Tasmania: ‘Corporate Objectives’

To embrace science to achieve best practice environmental stewardship and maintain Australian Forestry Standard certification.
To create long term business and employment opportunities for the community by managing the forests for multiple use and encouraging down stream processing.
To achieve positive financial returns through sound, ethical business practice.
To build community trust through honest dialogue.

FT Values:

We care for people and their environment
We get things done.
We do what we say we will do.
We are proud of who we are and what we do
We think before we act.

Forestry Tasmania has the statutory responsibility for the management of 1.5 million hectares of State forest land. This land contains 39% of the Tasmania’s forests.

About half the forest managed by Forestry Tasmania are available (to us) for ‘sustainable’ timber production (aka clearfell logging, incineration then conversion to plantations – i.e no ecological future).

[Source: ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/about-us ]

.

And the forestry reality…‘Forestry Tasmania posts $12 million loss’

[Source: by Patrick Caruana, AAP, 20110829, ^http://www.news.com.au/business/forestry-tasmania-posts-12-million-loss/story-e6frfm1i-1226124330440] .

‘Forestry Tasmania has posted a $12 million loss, which it says is due to mill closures and the recent inter-governmental agreement on the sector. The state-owned company lost $12.09 million for the 2010-11 financial year, a marginal improvement on the previous year’s loss of $12.26 million. It will not pay a dividend to the Government.

Managing Director Bob Gordon said the closure of timber company Gunns’ mills around the state had hurt the company’s bottom line.

“Effectively, Gunns shut Triabunna, Burnie and the two Bell Bay chip mills at the same time in February-March,” Mr Gordon told reporters in Hobart today.

“In normal circumstances, that would’ve accounted for about two million tonnes a year of our sales, and they disappeared with about two weeks’ notice.”

Mr Gordon said Gunns was Forestry Tasmania’s single biggest debtor.

“We believe that Gunns owes us a bit over $25 million,” he said.

“Of that, about half to two thirds is in dispute. And by dispute, I mean Gunns aren’t paying us. But we believe that we’re on very solid legal, contractual grounds.”

Mr Gordon said the recent intergovernmental forestry agreement, which protects 430,000 hectares of high conservation value forests, was responsible for a substantial writedown in the company’s assets.

“The effect of the proposed extra reservations in the intergovernmental agreement led to writedown of about $100 million in the company’s forestry assets,” he said.

Mr Gordon said the company would now focus its efforts on new rotary veneer technologies, rather than sawlogs and woodchips.

He said Forestry Tasmania would look to open mills around the state capable of creating rotary veneer products in coming years.’

.

Bob Gordon’s last statement above…

“Forestry Tasmania would look to open mills around the state capable of creating rotary veneer products in coming years.”

Editor:

So if rotary veneer products are Forestry Tasmania’s new timber product strategy using only ‘Tasmanian Regrowth Timbers’, what the hell is FT doing today sending in its logging thugs to eco-rape Tasmanian old growth at Catamaran?

Is there a corporate dysfunctional addiction to ‘old-growth’? Is Old Growth Hate so systemic in FT as to be psychotic and so out of control?

Where is logger patsy Lala?

.

In Bob Gordons’ 2008 press release:

‘Forestry Growth Plan’

.‘In 2007, the local community celebrated with Malaysian-based company Ta Ann, as its first Tasmanian rotary veneer mill was opened.

When Premier Paul Lennon officially opened Ta Ann Tasmania’s Huon rotary veneer mill in May 2007, it marked the culmination of many years of planning and persistance by FT to attract private sector investment to our State’s wood processsing industry.

FT’s plan in developing the Wood Centre was to provide the foundation for companies such as Ta Ann to invest with confidence in Tasmania. We have now seen the reward of this foresight, with a major project brought to fruition and 60 new jobs created for the people of the Huon Valley.

Projects such as this, which develop innovative, high-quality products from regrowth timbers, will lead the way as the industry gradually makes the transition out of old growth timber.

This growth in jobs is not only good news for the Huon region, it is good news for Tasmania as a whole. Economist Dr Bruce Felmingham has estimated that the State’s economy will grow by some $32 million as a result of this increased employment.

The rotary veneer mill also delivered on Forestry Tasmania’s long-term plan to find new ways of adding value to Tasmanian regrowth timber.

This mill will produce high-quality veneer from regrowth logs that would otherwise be classified as pulpwood. This value-added product will ensure that Tasmania receives the maximum return from its timber.

Already, Ta Ann is receiving a very favourable response to Tasmanian eucalypt veneer through market trials with its Japanese customers. The product is highly regarded in this market for its strength and durability.

In fact, Ta Ann is unable to meet the market demand for this product from the Huon mill alone. We were pleased to see the official start of work in May 2007 on the company’s second veneer mill at the Circular Head Wood Centre.

Tasmania’s ability to supply sustainable wood products has provided Ta Ann with a competitive advantage in its overseas markets.

Ta Ann services major customers, who demand that the timber they purchase is verified as being harvested from sustainable sources.

Tasmania’s reserve system, which surpasses international benchmarks, and Forestry Tasmania’s certification under the Australian Forestry Standard provide this verification.

Forestry Tasmania will continue to develop the Wood Centre to its full potential as an integrated timber processing facility. The Wood Centre will ensure that every piece of timber brought to the site is used to its most valuable end. It will also continue to support the Huon community with investment and employment opportunities.’

Bob Gordon
Managing Director

[Source: Forestry Tasmania website ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/voices/bob-gordon, accessed 20111123]

Ed: And so today Bob’s logging thugs have been caught on camera logging Catamaran old growth.

.

Tags: Bob Gordon, Catamaran, Catamaran Forests, Coupe CM004C, Forestry Tasmania, Forestry Tasmania out-of-control, Huon Valley Environment Centre, logger patsy Lala, Recherche Bay, State Slaughtered, Tasmanian Forestry Agreement, Tasmanian Southern Forests
Posted in Tasmania (AU), Threats from Deforestation, Threats from Greenwashing, Threats to Wild Tasmania | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Logging Tasmania like there’s no tomorrow

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

‘The axe had never sounded’…

Recherche Bay aerial (Photo by Bob Brown)

Unprotected ancient native forests around Tasmania’s Recherche Bay
(Photo by Bob Brown)

.

Despite Tasmania’s Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA) on 7th August 2011 assuring immediate logging moratorium of native forests in agreed reserves, Forestry Tasmania continues to eco-rape and pillage protected native forests in defiance of this agreement.

IGA Clause 25 states:

‘The State will immediately place the 430,000 hectares of native forest identified in Attachment A (other than any areas that are not State forest), from the 572,000 hectares nominated by ENGOs through the Statement of Principles process, into Informal Reserves. The boundaries of this 430,000 hectares were verified through an independent verification process.’

The southern forests around Recherche Bay were agreed to be included into the Informal Reserves through the Independent Verification Process.

So by embarking on new logging in these Informal Reserves, clearly Forestry Tasmania is in breach of the IGA and operating out of the control of the Tasmanian Government. Forestry Tasmania is logging Tasmania like there’s no tomorrow, because it knows there it has no tomorrow. The business is seriously loss-making. It’s continuing unfettered destruction of Tasmanian native forests is akin to the calculated genocide of Sri Lankan Tamils in May 2009 by the Sinhalese Sri Lankan dictator Mahinda Rajapaksa. Forestry Tasmania’s manic mindset has it logging and woodchipping native forests until they’re all decimated. And Lala’s Labor Government doesn’t have the gumption to enforce the moratorium on its own renegade department.

Forestry Tasmania getting stuck into native forests near Tasmania’s Recherche Bay, May 2011

[Source: ABC, ‘Bid for forest peace funding’, 20110519, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/18/3220585.htm?site=hobart]

.

Not only is this organisation out of control, it has no market for its woodchip product. The logs are trucked to woodchipping mills only to be stockpiled with nowhere to go. With no income, it is a business heading for collapse. Unpaid wages will likely remain that way, when the doors are finally closed up. Meanwhile Tasmania’s remaining old growth forests are being logged and the ancient vital ecology decimated.

Loaded logging truck (New Norfolk, 20110929)

(Photo by editor, free in public domain)

.

Conservationists are this morning conducting a protest in a logging area in the far south of Tasmania, where world heritage value forests are being clearfelled.

Huon Valley Environment Centre’s Jenny Weber says:

‘Tasmania’s world heritage value forests continue to be logged despite yesterday’s controversial announcement that woodchips shipments have been postponed by Tasmania’s only export woodchipping company, Artec (Artec Pty Ltd, Lilydale).’

‘Ta Ann is driving logging in contentious forests, and woodchip logs are leaving these same forests regardless of a viable market for the timber. The Tasmanian taxpayers are subsidising a logging industry that is economically unviable and environmentally unsustainable.’

‘This morning at Catamaran, in threatened forest behind Recherche Bay, a conservationist is in a tree sit, and thirteen people are halting logging. Huon Valley Environment Centre is repeating it’s calls for the immediate end to logging in this forest that borders the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, (TWWHA).’

Logging in this area, identified by Forestry Tasmania as CM004C, commenced after the Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Premier Lara Giddings announced the Inter-governmental Agreement on 7th August 2011 would provide ‘immediate protection in informal reserves’ for forests such as these.

Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard

signing the Tasmanian Forests Agreement, 7th August 2011

.

Forestry Tasmania Coupe ‘CM004C’ is located within the 572 000ha of identified forests for legislated protection. Last week conservationists participated in a protest in the coupe, and it was revealed that the area is being clearfelled for Ta Ann, export peeler logs and woodchip logs.

Forestry Tasmania’s cable logging of The Weld Forest, 2009

Tasmanian Southern Forests

(Huon Valley Environment Centre)

(click image to link to slide show)

IGA Clause 26 states:

‘The State will ensure that, until the further independent verification process required under Clause 20 is completed, wood supply required under Clause 17 will be sourced from outside the 572,000 hectares of ENGO-nominated High Conservation
Value forest area unless the remaining State Forest area is insufficient to meet the contractually specified quality and quantity of wood supply. Where this is the case, the Tasmanian Government will ensure that wood supplies are sourced outside the 430,000 hectares placed in Informal Reserves. The Tasmanian Government will ensure that the 430,000 hectares of State Forest identified in Attachment A is not accessed’

.

Analysis:

There are copious hundreds of hectares of Tasmanian forest area available outside the 572, 000 hectares of ENGO-nominated High Conservation Value forest area.
The Lala Labor Government by not ensuring wood supply is sourced outside the 430,000 ha in Informal Reserves is not accessed, and thus in prima facie breach of the IGA. Lala Labor is deliberately and mischievously exercising selective deafness by not listening to ENGO accusations of the breach of the IGA terms. Labor as head wolf of the chicken pen, turning a blind eye to its fellow wolves while they help themselves to the plunder.
The Gillard Labor Government is in breach of IGA Clause 27, by failing to act on this trigger ‘to appoint independent expert specifically to review scheduling and other relevant data and attempt to reschedule harvesting activities so as to meet the requirements of contracts and maintain the interim protection of the 430,000 hectares’. The option of log anyway is not an option. The prescribed option under IGA Clause 27, is that the Commonwealth will instead compensate the contract holder for the value of lost profits and unavoidable costs.
Both Governments, by sitting on their hands as forests in the Informal Reserves are logged, are in breach of the spirit of the Agreement.

.

2009: ‘Woodchip stockpile in Tasmania a ‘health risk’

[Source: Matthew Denholm, Tasmania correspondent, The Australian, 20091014, ^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/woodchip-stockpile-in-tasmania-a-health-risk/story-e6frg6ox-1225786465432]

.

The woodchip stockpile in Burnie could pose a “significant health risk”, according to an expert opinion being assessed by health authorities. Tasmanian Director of Public Health Roscoe Taylor said the advice that the stockpile would at times contain Legionella bacteria is being examined.
“I have actually asked someone to have a look at it — we’ll be taking a look at it,” Dr Taylor said.The advice from Legionella expert Trevor Steele concludes the bottom layer of the stockpile on Burnie’s wharf would “undoubtedly” contain Legionella at times. Dr Steele warned the bacteria’s dispersal via dust could pose a significant health risk to townsfolk near the wharf and to workers at the port.

“It (the bottom layer) will at times undoubtedly contain Legionella and these could multiply there given the right conditions,” he said.

“This layer would also act as a source to contaminate newly arrived woodchips, setting the stage for a new cycle of Legionella growth.

“Dispersal of dust … containing these organisms could pose a significant health risk to susceptible persons working in, or residing in, adjacent residential or business districts, as well as to susceptible workers on the Gunns site and in the port area.”

Dr Steele was commissioned to provide the advice by Royal Hobart Hospital physician Frank Nicklason. Last week, Dr Nicklason apologised to timber company Gunns for his 2004 statement that the woodchip pile “almost certainly” had Legionella present that could blow across Burnie. However, he said his concerns about the potential for public health risks from the pile — initially sparked by several Legionella cases in Burnie — remained.

Dr Nicklason said he accepted that Gunns’ sampling in 2002 had not found Legionella in the pile. However, he said Dr Steele’s findings, from July this year, contributed to his concern and warranted further investigation.

Gunns’ own advice, conducted independently in 2002 and released under Freedom of Information, found that the available evidence “suggests strongly” that the bottom layer is “not a reservoir for Legionella”.

However, Dr Steele, formerly director of clinical microbiology at the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide, disagreed.

“To claim that the sacrificial layer did not contain Legionella on the basis of two tests of small samples is misleading,” he says.

He agreed the bottom layer, because it was relatively undisturbed, was unlikely to pose much risk to the community, but that this did not mean there was no risk, since Legionella there could contaminate new woodchips.

When asked whether Gunns stood by its own findings, a spokesman said: “We don’t have to: Dr Nicklason has stood by it.

“At the time Dr Nicklason gave this apology he was in possession of the Steele report. His attempt to retract his apology by reference to this report is hypocritical, disingenuous and beggars belief.”

Dr Nicklason said his “carefully worded” apology — made as part of settlement of defamation proceedings — merely acknowledged that Legionella had not been found in samples taken by Gunns, and that its report had concluded there was “no available data” to implicate woodchips as a microbial health risk.

There are few detailed studies of Legionella in woodchip piles, although Dr Steele has found the bacteria present in all forms of composting and degrading wood products, including woodchips.

On the basis of his work, Dr Steele believes that conditions in woodchip stockpiles are ideal for Legionella and other micro-organisms that require moisture and warmth.

Legionella is thought to spread by people inhaling the bacteria contained in tiny water droplets, known as aerosols, or in dust.

Over the years, there have been complaints about dust and debris blowing from the stockpile to the Burnie CBD, adjacent to the port.

These have been focused on days of easterly winds, which occur about 20per cent of the time, and when woodchips were being loaded on to ships.

The 2002 Gunns report, conducted by Adelaide environmental health expert Richard Bentham, pointed out that survival of Legionella in aerosols was “highly dependent upon ambient weather conditions”.

For this reason, Dr Bentham concluded the health risks from the Burnie pile were “most probably confined to employees or contractors working on the site” and that transmission beyond the port area was “unlikely”.

However, Dr Steele says Legionella “could survive well in dust travelling long distances, even in adverse climatic conditions”. He cites instances of up to 20km.

.

Recherche Bay – a brief background

.French explorer D’Entrecasteaux led his ships to grateful shelter in Recherche Bay, southwest of Hobart, in 1792 and 1793, recording “ancient forests, in which the sound of an axe had never been heard”. Barely 200 years later, the forest of Recherche Bay is being threatened by the sound, not merely of axes, but of bulldozers and chainsaws.In spite of public protest and National Heritage listing, the green light to log the area has been given.

24/1/06 Entrepreneur/adventurer Dick Smith offers $100,000 towards the purchase of Recherche Bay plus a $1.9 million no-interest loan to be paid back within 12 months.
5/11/05 Over 5000 people rally in Hobart for the protection of Recherche Bay. Bob Brown launches a bid to purchase the peninsula, asking people to pledge units of $1,000 to raise the money. Bob pledges $5,000.
6/10/05 Senator Ian Campbell announces Recherche Bay will be placed on the National Heritage list but says logging will still go ahead.
19/8/05 Launch of Bob Brown’s photographic exhibition and book, Tasmania’s Recherche Bay
27/4/05 Actor David Wenham and director Robert Connolly fly over Recherche Bay and visit the tall trees in the Styx Valley, stating their support for conservation.
20/4/05 Tasmanian Greens leader Peg Putt calls on French scientists to help save Recherche Bay
17/4/05 1000 people rally on site to protect Recherche Bay
Nov, 03 Tasmanian Heritage Council recommends the protection of the north east peninsula for its cultural significance.

[Source: ^http://www.leatherwoodonline.com/wild/2006/recherche_bay/index.htm]

.

1993: ‘Campaign over Recherche Bay scores win’

[Source: Bob Elliston, Hobart, Green Left Weekly, 19931117, ^http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/34677]A five-year campaign to save part of historic Recherche Bay, in south-east Tasmania, has been won, with all parties involved having achieved a satisfactory resolution. The agreement was announced on February 8 by Labor Premier Paul Lennon.Thanks mostly to the support of well-known philanthropist Dick Smith, the tireless negotiations of Greens Senator Bob Brown and the decency of owners David and Robert Vernon, 142 hectares of forest will now be purchased by the Tasmanian Land Conservancy for $2.21 million.Recherche Bay had been under the threat of logging by Gunns Ltd since a contract with the owners was signed in 1998. The bay became home to a French expedition to observe the Earth’s magnetic field in 1792 and 1793. Had logging gone ahead, today’s very destructive logging techniques would have destroyed any chance for useful archaeology of the site to be conducted.Under the deal, Dick Smith will lend the Conservancy group $2 million, $100,000 of which is a personal donation. The state government, which initially supported the Vernon brothers’ decision to have the area logged, has now agreed to assist with $210,000 towards the cost of the land. In addition, the government will waive the $80,000 it would have collected in stamp duty. donations exceeding $238,000 have already been pledged.Although the small forest will not be harvested, no jobs will be lost. More jobs are likely to be generated in services supporting the local community and scientific interest.

However, the deal is not without its critics. Terry Edwards, CEO of the Forestry Industries Association, is distressed that the forest will continue to grow, rather than be turned into cash for Gunns. Newly appointed federal forests minister and Tasmanian senator Eric Abetz has also criticised the agreement, describing it as “a grubby deal”. According to Abetz, the area “has no heritage value”.

.

‘Impact of Bushfire on Sooty Owls and Powerful Owls’

[Source: Rohan Bilney, Report on Sooty Owls and Powerful Owls for the Supreme Court proceeding number 8547 of 2009 – Environment East Gippsland v VicForests, pp.12-13]

Greater Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa)

.

‘Fire is likely to kill individual owls and small mammals, and remove potential habitat in the short-term, potentially resulting in long-term impacts.

‘How owl populations adapt or respond to fire is largely unknown’

‘Fire can consume hollow-bearing trees, while also stimulating hollow formation, but as hollow formation can take decades, frequent fires are likely to result in a net loss of hollow-bearing trees from the landscape (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). This is likely to cause detrimental effects to all hollow-dependant fauna (Catling 1991; Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002; Garnett et al. 2003).

‘Sooty Owls typically occupy habitats subject to infrequent fire regimes such as wetter forest types, possibly due to higher densities of hollow-bearing trees in such landscapes. Frequent fire regimes also simplify habitat structure, which can cause deleterious impacts on terrestrial mammals (Catling 1991; SAC 2001), which includes increased predation rates by feral predators due to the loss of habitat refuge (Wilson and Friend 1999). Overall, it therefore seems likely that owls and small mammals will be negatively impacted by frequent fire regimes. It is likely, however, that it will be the impacts of fire on prey densities that dictate how the owls respond to fire.

Brown Mountain ancient old growth logged, incinerated, razed by VicForests

(Photo by Environment East Gippsland)

‘Most species are not adapted to fire per se, but adapted to a particular fire regime, which include fire aspects such as intensity, frequency, seasonality and scale (Bradstock et al. 2002). Due to variations in the life history requirements of species and their ability to survive fire, particular fire regimes can advantage some species, while being deleterious to others (Bradstock et al. 2002; Gill and Catling 2002; Keith et al. 2002). Due to the varying ecological responses to fire, it is important for biodiversity conservation that we not only understand species responses to particular fire regimes, but to ensure that appropriate fire regimes are maintained across the landscape. As prescribed fire is used as a management tool for reducing fuel load to minimise fire risk, it is important that its effects on biodiversity are well understood.

‘Unfortunately, knowledge on how native species respond to particular fire regimes is poorly understood, especially for fauna (SAC 2001, 2003; Clarke 2008). So, in the absence of this crucial ecological information it is virtually impossible to implement appropriate fire regimes which will result in minimal negative ecological impacts, let alone enhance biodiversity. Fire, both prescribed burning and wildfire, can present a threat to owls if conducted at inappropriate seasons, frequency, intensity or scales. It is therefore difficult to quantify the threat. The threat of inappropriate burning at high fire frequencies is likely to be mainly concentrated around human assets and populations, while fires in more remote forested areas will be subject to less frequent fires (DSE 2004). Fire also affects the entire owl population because all habitats occupied by owls is flammable.

‘Victoria has experienced three catastrophic fire events in the past 7 years, and combined with prescribed burning, approximately three million hectares have been burnt in this time.‘

‘This equates to approximately 2/3 of potential Sooty Owl habitat in Victoria. How populations of Sooty Owls and many other forest dependant fauna have been affected by these fires remains poorly understood or unknown. The ability for forest fauna to recover is therefore being hampered by further prescribed burning, and recovery is also hampered by reduced fecundity caused by a decade of drought, and for the owls, low prey population densities.’

.

The ‘Bushfire Fighting Principle’ corrupted by blinkered economic rationalism

The traditional principle of bushfire management is to put out bushfires…one would think. Yet this simple concept has been hijacked, bastardised and corrupted by successive governments as a consequence of systemic under-resourcing. Government under-resourcing has contributed to the deadly human toll in recent years.

The corrupting of this core bushfire management principle has morphed into a blanket one-size-fits-all defeatist policy of broadscale prescribed burning – burning the bush before it burns. The bushfire management tradition of ‘suppression‘ has been economically rationalised and politically supplanted by the proactively sounding notion of ‘prevention‘.

In Victoria, the fundamental job of putting out bushfires has bureaucratically morphed into a ‘Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land’, with its two general principles…

.Fire management planning on public land must address the threat of wildfire, guide the use of prescribed burning, and provide for the achievement of integrated land management objectives such as human safety and environmental management.’ (Clause 50)

‘Fire management activities must be undertaken in a participative manner where the responsibility for reducing the likelihood and consequence of wildfire is appropriately shared between public and private land holders and managers.’ (Clause 51)

What happened to the fundamental principle of bush fire fighting?

To put out bushfires!

Instead, vast areas of remaining native bushland and forests across Australia are being deliberately burnt to the point where critical faunal habitat is sterilised – only the trees remain, while the rich underlying vegetation, demonised as ‘hazardous fuel‘ is incinerated and repeatedly prevented from regrowth. Wildlife habitat has become a fuel hazard targeted for burning by the very custodians charged with wildlife conservation. And out of the Victorian Royal Commission into the Black Saturday bushfires, the anticipated kneejerk response by bushfire agencies to commence Prescribed Burning Armageddon against the bush has started as many genuine conservationists have feared.

And what has been the full realised cost of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires – valuing human lives, human injuries, ongoing trauma, livelihoods, wildlives, livestock, private property, natural assets, on top of the direct operational response cost, the indirect costs of contribiting agencies, the donations raised, capital costs, the opportunity costs, the investigation costs, the Royal Commission costs? No one has come up with a figure. These values were outside the Victorian Royal Commission’s terms of reference – so what real value was it? Economic rationalising of emergency management is costing lives and contributing to species extinctions.

.

Victorian Government Policy of Bushfire Lighting

The Victorian Government’s delegated custodian on natural areas across the State is the infamous Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), with a reputation for lighting most of the bushfires it euphemistically labels as ‘prescribed burning’ wherein it finds unburnt bushland and prescribes its own burning regimes. When such custodial agencies restore the word ‘conservation‘ back into their title, some respect may return.

DSE’s ‘Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land‘ was revised in 2006. It relies upon background premises that since “much of the Australian continent is fire-prone”, that “fire occurs naturally”, that “many species of vegetation and wildlife have adapted to living within the natural fire regime” and that “Victoria’s Indigenous people used fire as a land management tool for thousands of years”. The Code justifies that “Victoria’s flora, fauna and the ecosystems they form are adapted to fire of varying frequencies, intensities and seasonality.” Victoria’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 has objectives to ensure “Victoria’s native flora and fauna can survive, flourish, and retain their potential for evolutionary development”. Now the integrity of this Act is under threat. Perversely DSE’s Code of Practice argues that deliberate burning of bushland and forest habitat will help Victoria’s native flora and fauna to survive, flourish, and retain their potential for evolutionary development.

Crap!

DSE stretches its rationalising propaganda further, claiming that excluding bushfire can have “negative consequences for Victoria’s flora and fauna“. And this is where the hijacking, bastardisation and corrupting turns from mythology into unsubstantiated falsehood and misinformation. No document exists to zoologically prove that native fauna will suffer such negative consequences if it does not have a bushfire range through its habitat. As a result, the Code of Practice implies that bushfire is ok for all Victorian bushland and forests – DSE conveniently convinces itself that the urgent moral imperative for DSE to suppress bushfires is extinguished. So now it lights more fires than it puts out.

The Code also premises that “often these wildfires can be difficult to suppress”. Well no wonder with an grossly under-resourced, firetruck-centric volunteer force.

.

‘DSE holds fire management workshop in Bendigo’

On 22nd June 2011, DSE staged a workshop of stakeholders to discuss some recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s February 20o9 bushfire tragedy. According to the website ‘Friends of Box-Ironbark Forests’, in attendance were representatives from the CFA, local government, The Wilderness Society, Bendigo Field Naturalists Club, Friends of Kalimna Park, North Central Victoria Combined Environment Groups [NCVCEG], Apiarists Association and DSE attended a workshop on June 10 to learn about the process for implementing the findings of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Though Friends of Box-Ironbark Forests (FOBIF) was not invited to this workshop, we were represented by members of some of the other groups.

Once again DSE’s Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land (COP) is to again be reviewed and updated, except its premises have not changed, so what’s the point? The following notes taken on the issue of Fire management Zones/Prescriptions is telling of how disconnected DSE is from wildlife habitat conservation:

‘Fire Management Zones (FMZ) have been reviewed recently. An interim zoning is to be released soon. With little time left the group briefly discussed the merits of fire management zones, and how they might relate to the risk model. It was highlighted that the residual fuel load is an important aspect, but further detail as to how was not provided.

NCVCEG made the point that the current diagram used by DSE to represent the relationship between ecological outcomes and fire management outcomes across the four FMZ is misleading, encourages poor planning, discourages biodiversity management in zones 1 and 2, and neglects to recognise that fire management outcomes may be achieved in all zones, especially where integrated planning and alternative practices (to prescribed burning) are established.

In relation to FMZ the Apiarists pointed out that Box Ironbark forests generally have very low fuel levels in comparison to heavily forested regions where many lives were lost during the fires in 2009. The merit of burning areas used for honey production was questioned and the long term impacts of severe burning on Box Ironbark forest ecology was raised.’

[Source: Friends of Box-Ironbark Forests, 20110622, ^http://www.fobif.org.au/2011/06/dse-holds-fire-management-workshop-in-bendigo/]

.

Yet at the same time DSE points out that… ‘biodiversity is in decline‘

In its ‘Victoria’s Biodiversity Strategy 2010–2015: Consultation Draft‘ DSE reminds us that two hundred years of (immigrant deforestation), severe droughts, major bushfires and the impact of climate change, has severely affected Victoria’s species and ecosystems. DSE professes:

Victoria is the most cleared and densely populated state in Australia. Victoria has the highest proportion (48%) of sub-bioregions in Australia in poor condition, with four out of Australia’s five most cleared bioregions found in western Victoria (CES 2008).
Approximately half of Victoria’s native vegetation has been cleared for agricultural and urban development, including 80% of the original cover on private land. Victoria is losing native vegetation at a rate of some 4,000 hectares per year, mostly from endangered grasslands (DSE 2008).
Victorian landscapes are the most stressed in the country (NLWRA 2001). One third of Victoria’s major streams are in poor or very poor condition. Two thirds of wetlands have been either lost or degraded and nearly half of our major estuaries are significantly modified. Flows at the Murray mouth are estimated to be a quarter of what would naturally occur (VCMC 2007).
44% of our native plants and more than 30% of our animals are either extinct or threatened (CSIRO 2004). The highest number of threatened species in any one region in Australia occurs in north western Victoria.
Exotic species represent about 30% of the Victorian flora with 1,282 species considered naturalised and a further 214 species considered incipiently naturalised in Victoria. This has increased from 878 naturalised species in 1984. It is estimated that an average of 7.3 new plant species establish in Victoria per year, and this number is increasing by a rate of 0.25 plants per year. Approximately 90% of the native vegetation in Melbourne is impacted by weeds, with more than 50% considered severely degraded. There are 584 serious or potentially serious environmental weeds in Victoria with 129 very serious (CES 2008).
Over 100 marine species have been introduced to Port Phillip Bay.’

[Source: Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment, ^http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/biodiversity/victorias-biodiversity-strategy/biodiversity-strategy-renewal/draft-victorian-biodiversity-strategy-2010-2015/current-state, Clause 2.2 ‘Biodiversity is in decline‘]

.

State aware but doesn’t care

The Victorian landscape has undergone massive changes in the past 150 years. As a consequence of environmental degredation and destruction of indigenous flora and fauna:

Over 60% of the state has been cleared, and much of what is left is seriously degraded by weed invasion;
Of the two thirds of the state which is privately owned, only 5% retains its natural cover;
Soil erosion and salination have become serious problems;
Over 35% of our wetlands have been drained;
Close to 80% of rivers and wetlands have been substantially modified;
Almost all native grasslands have been eliminated or modified;
Many other vegetation communities are almost extinct, or critically endangered;
Over 900 exotic plant species have been established in Victoria, many of which are weeds, and scores of noxious exotic animal species are now widespread;
23 native mammal species have become extinct in Victoria.

[Source: The Southern Peninsula Indigenous Flora & Fauna Association Inc., ^http://www.spiffa.org/victorias-biodiversity-crisis.html]

And the Victorian Government is well aware.

DSE acknowledges that the ‘clearing of native vegetation (across Victoria) and habitat has also led to the loss or decline in wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation has meant that wildlife are more at risk from predators, harsh environmental conditions, and human influences (e.g. roads) as they move between remnant patches. Isolated patches support fewer and lower densities of wildlife, increasing the chances of population extinction in individual patches as a result of the impacts of chance events upon genetically simplified populations. Habitat loss and degradation also increases the susceptibility of wildlife to severe environmental conditions, such as fire and drought, and broader processes, such as climate change and changing rainfall patterns.’

DSE acknowledges that ‘while maintaining or restoring ecosystem function will help to reduce the rate at which species decline, we already have a legacy of species that are at risk due to past ecological disruption, and a latent ‘extinction debt’. Victoria’s past land management actions have resulted in the loss of species and created and ongoing risk of future losses. Many existing threatened species occur in remnant or fragmented landscapes where the work required to recover them is intensive, expensive and long-term. In extreme cases it is necessary to remove part of the remnant population to captivity until critical threats have been mitigated.

DSE acknowledges that ‘effective threatened species recovery requires:

Effectively dealing with threats to reduce the rate at which species become threatened;
Conducting recovery efforts in situ by managing the processes that degrade their habitat or directly threaten them, including, where required, support from ex situ conservation programs;
The best available knowledge and an adaptive management approach, including adoption of the precautionary principle when required;
Co-operative approaches to recovery, with an effective and efficient mix of incentives and regulations; and
Planning and regulatory frameworks to provide clear and consistent policy, process and outcomes.’

Yet in the same breath DSE goes on to reinforce its ‘fire is good for wildlife‘ propaganda – ‘a substantial proportion of Australia’s unique biota is dependent, to varying degrees, on fire and the variety of fire regimes for its continued existence and development.‘

[Source: DSE’s ‘Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land‘, Clause 2.3.8 ‘Challenges relating to fire management’]

.

‘Fuel reduction burns threaten species’ – or Black Saturday incompetence an excuse for broadscale State Arson

[Source: Peter Vaughan, Monash University, Melbourne, 20100531,^http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2010/05/fuel-reduction-burns-threaten-endangered-species/]

‘Conservationists are concerned that fuel reduction burns in East Gippsland will threaten endangered species and reduce biodiversity.

On March 16, fire managers from the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) ignited a fuel reduction burn in the Dinner Creek catchment of Waygara state forest, approximately 14 km West of Orbost. The fire quickly gained intensity, aided by a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius. It burnt most of the environmentally sensitive vegetation within the fire zone along four kilometres of the Dinner Creek.

DSE Fire Manager for the Orbost Region, Steve de Voogd, said that the Dinner Creek fuel reduction burn grew hotter than intended. The fire was meant to burn 2206 hectare of coastal forest and leave a mosaic of burnt and un-burnt areas within the fire’s containment lines.

According to Mr de Voogd, the DSE is now under community pressure to reduce the risk of wildfire through fuel reduction burning, and that must take precedent over ecological considerations.

“Although there is probably room for more fire ecology planning, it is incumbent on the DSE to take action because the consequences of doing nothing may be worse,” Mr de Voogd said.

Most of the hollow bearing trees in the burn zone, which were home to a number of endangered species protected under state and federal law, were destroyed.

Dr Rohan Bilney, an expert on Australian forest owls and spokesperson for the Gippsland Environment Group, said that the program intended to burn large areas of coastal forest without adequate ecological planning, monitoring or research, which threatened crucial habitat and food sources for the forest’s owls species.

“The coastal forests of East Gippsland are the strong hold of the Masked Owl, a species listed as threatened under two laws: the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act and the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Most of East Gippsland’s Masked Owls live in the coastal forests now being subjected to intense broad area fuel reduction burns by the DSE,” said Dr Bilney.

Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae)

.

The Masked Owl Action Statement, prepared under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, estimates only 150 pairs of Masked Owl exist in Victoria. Of that total, 100 pairs are found in East Gippsland and most are concentrated in the coastal forest.

DSE Manager of Biodiversity in East Gippsland, Dr Steve Henry, said that the current DSE fuel reduction fire strategy allows for large fires but burning on such a scale leaves few options for the protection of important ecological values.

“If there are some areas that contain specific environmental attributes that we want to protect, we could exclude them from fire with a bulldozer line. However that is expensive and often very destructive on most of these large burns. The main management technique used is the way in which the lighting pattern of the fire is done, sometimes that is not as effective as we would hope,” he said.

Mr Henry said that funding constraints have not permitted the DSE to conduct detailed ecological studies of the coastal forests, including the effect of fire on the environment.

A post-fire ecological survey is currently being conducted by the DSE in selected fuel reduction areas.

The Dinner Creek fire was just one of 48 fuel reduction burns planned by the DSE for the region during 2009-2010. Like other fuel reduction burns, the DSE must comply with the Victorian Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land.

The primary objective of the Code is to protect of life and property, while minimising negative impacts on natural and cultural values, and abiding by threatened species legislation, are also included.

The Code of Practice also states that the DSE must prepare a Fire Ecology Strategy that includes input from ecological experts and full consideration of all available scientific research.

If little ecological research exists, fuel reduction burning can be conducted under the rational that it may reduce the future risk of wildfire.

In the absence of scientific data, the DSE will continue to plan fuel reduction burns from computer desktops, utilising the ad hoc data collected as part of the Environmental Vegetation Class mapping projects of the late 1990s.

While political pressure continues to increase, the DSE fire policy will remain focused on protecting the community against the spectre of Black Saturday.’

Burn it in case it burns, because we don’t have the resources for wildfire suppression

.

‘Climate change, fires and logging -the deadly combination for Victoria’s species’

[Source: Environment East Gippsland, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/?q=node/446]

.

‘Two hundred years ago the Sooty owl was abundant and fed on about 18 species of ground prey in Gippsland. Today they have only two or three to chose from. Other species are under similar pressure.

Many of our native animals have become sparser in numbers and their range has shrunk. Some, like the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Federally listed but not State listed), are now isolated in small “island” populations which are dangerously close to extinction mainly due to threats of fire and predation. Fires destroy understorey cover, making it easy for foxes and dogs to wipe out small populations of ground dwelling animals.

The 2003 fires and the recent December ’06 fires have destroyed the habitat and ground cover over about 2 million hectares of Victoria’s forested country. This has had a horrifying impact on ground mammals, birds and hollow dependent species.

Scientist and Quoll expert, Dr Chris Belcher, has calculated that this species’ Victorian numbers were reduced by 33 – 45% as a result of the ’03 fires. The December ’06 fires would have reduced this again to even more precarious numbers.

The isolated colony of Long Footed Potoroos discovered around Wonangatta (or Wongongara?) will most likely have been killed as a result of the recent fires.

The Helmeted Honeyeaters had five small and isolated populations left but the 1983 fires wiped out four of them. Yellingbo is still likely to burn and our faunal emblem will be extinct on this planet.

Bandicoots are very fire sensitive. There are small and vulnerable populations scattered in Gippsland. In 1994, fires burnt 97% of the Royal National Park and Bandicoots no longer survive in this area. The safety of thick ground cover does not return for years, meaning foxes and dogs heavily predate any survivors.

East Gippsland is the last stronghold for many of our rare and endangered fauna. It is a wetter environment and has much higher floristic diversity and therefore animals.

Climate change will now make fires more frequent and intense in SE Australia (CSIRO). Governments must adapt management of natural areas to account for this reality as it is for agriculture, water and energy.

The greatest pressure on Eastern Victorian species has been in the Critical Weight Range from 35 gms to 5 kg. Many ground dwelling animals are extremely susceptible to fire. Potoroos, Quolls, Bandicoots, native rodents (the rare New Holland Mouse, Smokey Mouse etc).

The predation rate after a fire is huge and patches of unburnt forest within the fire zones are absolutely essential to help populations survive predation, recover and disperse in time. These areas are critical to protect from further disturbance.

The recovery of species after a fire is now very different from 200 yrs ago. Populations are more isolated, salvage logging further destroys their chances, there is less diversity of prey species for the higher order predators like owls and quolls to turn to if gliders and possums are impacted by fires (or logging the hollow-rich forests).

Logging ecologically diverse forests favours the return of biologically poor tree communities such as silvertop and stringybark. The forests with mixed gum and box throughout can have 20-50 times higher animal densities. Significant vegetation changes due to massive landscape disturbance such as clearfelling, makes endangered species recovery from fire even more unlikely.

In the 1990s, East Gippsland supported seven times more threatened species than other areas in Victoria. This made the region seven times more important for our endangered species’ survival. Since the fires of 03 and 06, it is not unreasonable to suggest that East Gippsland is the last refuge and last chance for these species to survive extinction. Extinction can happen very quickly.

Species which are fairly general in their roosting, nesting and feeding needs can often survive (as they have in other areas of the state) but the many specialist species which rely on large areas of diverse and thick forest are highly likely to vanish forever.

This is why the hasty and unscientifically mapped areas of newly reserved forest require careful refinements. The needs of the state’s threatened species must be made the priority. Independent biologists and on-ground local knowledge (not VicForests) must be used to finalise the new reserve boundaries, with the long-term impact of the recent fires as a major guiding factor.

The Bracks Government suggested there be no net loss of resource as an adjunct to the mapped reserve areas. This is an impossible and irrational qualification as fires can take out large percent of the forest and therefore wood resources in one season. Commercial use of forest should be allocated only after biologically essential considerations have been adequately addressed.

Another point made in pre-election promises was to make sure the new areas are mapped and industry changes are resourced so as to adhere to the terms and spirit of the RFA. This then should see the government honour its long overdue commitment to carry out research into the impact of clearfelling on threatened species, to identify sustainability indicators, carry out five yearly reviews and ensure threatened species are protected. None have been honoured in the last 10 years!

The recent court ruling regarding the EPBC Act should also give the state government substantial opportunity to begin to alter protection measures for Federally listed species in East Gippsland.

The conscience of this government cannot put the very limited future of several sawmills ahead of a large number of entire species. Continued logging of intact original forests must not be the overriding priority. The ability for species to cope with the escalating impacts of climate change and fires from 2007 onwards has to now be put ahead of politics and union threats. These species survived well in Australia for over 40,000 years. The clearfell logging industry has been around for less than 40 years. Political priorities have an even shorter lifespan.’

.

Tags: DSE, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, fuel reduction program, habitat trees, hazard reduction, hollow trees, hollow-dependant fauna, Masked Owl, Powerful Owl, prescribed burning, Sooty Owl, State Arson, State Logging, VicForests, Victoria's old growth forests, Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment
Posted in Gippsland (AU), Owls, Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

The Lala Swindle – ‘corruption-in-confidence’

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

The following article is a selected summary of relevant information sourced from the Tasmania Times (TT) online newspaper from articles and reader comments (October 2011) concerning the revelation that Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings unnecessarily paid $34.5 million of taxpayers money to industrial logger Gunns as compensation for it exiting native forestry.

Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings (2011- )

What will be her legacy ~ accountable and faithful to the people of Tasmania?

The Charge:

Previously secret communications between Gunns and Forestry Tasmania, obtained by the Liberals under Right to Information laws, blows a massive hole in (Tasmanian Labor Premier) Lara Giddings’ claim that she had no option but to pay Gunns’ $34.5 million in compensation for exiting native forestry. (NOTE: The $34.5 million = 23m for Gunns residual rights and $11.5m to settle the dispute with FT.)

A letter, dated 18 April 2011, from Gunns Chairman Chris Newman, to Forestry Tasmania Chairman Adrian Kloeden, reveals that Gunns not only wrote to Forestry Tasmania to formally terminate their native wood supply contracts (917 and 918) in April this year, they also offered to terminate the contracts on a “full release and indemnity basis.”

In part, the letter reads: “Gunns therefore wishes to terminate CoS 917 and 918…To the extent that FT requires formal notice, please treat this letter as notice of termination under clauses 3.3(b)(i) of Cos917 and 3.3(b)(ii) of CoS918.

“While Gunns remains ready, willing and able to perform its contractual obligations under CoS 917 and 918 during the notice period, we consider than an immediate separation would be in the interests of Gunns, FT and the Tasmanian forestry industry generally…“I therefore propose CoS 917 and 918 be terminated on a full release and indemnity basis in respect of any and all outstanding issues.”

Mr Newman also offered to help Forestry Tasmania gain access into the (immoral and greedy) Chinese Woodchip Market, including introducing FT to Gunns’ customers and also offered to hand over roading infrastructure to the value of $200 million over to Forestry Tasmania.

Asian appetite for woodchips cares squat about the forest source,

cares squat about the means.

Tasmanians understand: Asian corporate culture is single bottom line:

Personal ends justifying any eco-social means to maximise personal economic wealth!

.

A Tasmanian Case to Answer:

Tasmania’s traditional Coat of Arms

‘Ubertas et Fidelitas’? …”fertility and faithfulness”

.

The significance of this letter cannot be under-estimated. Under the hand of Gunns’ chairman, Gunns voluntarily wrote to Forestry Tasmania to terminate its contracts ‘immediately’ on the 18th of April 2011 requesting an ‘immediate separation’ which clearly would have extinguished the Premier’s so-called “residual rights”.

This is supported by the advice of Forestry Tasmania Managing Director Bob Gordon In a subsequent Ministerial Brief dated 10 May 2011 from to Bryan Green, where Mr Gordon informs the Minister that this offer to terminate on a “full release and indemnity basis” from Gunns would “extinguish” the need to negotiate in good faith new terms of agreement for supply, the so-called “residual rights” that Ms Giddings has claimed as the reason for the $34.5 million in compensation.

Given this correspondence, it appears inconceivable that Lara Giddings could have been advised by the Solicitor-General that the Government was obliged to pay Gunns to extinguish the contracts. Ms Giddings now has no option but to release the Solicitor-General’s advice on the matter.

Tasmania’s Resources Minister has played down correspondence between Gunns and Forestry Tasmania, which the Opposition says raises questions about Gunns’ right to government compensation for pulling out of state forests. The Opposition obtained a letter between Gunns and FT under Freedom of Information Laws, which shows Gunns offered to terminate its contracts. Liberal spokesman Peter Gutwein says it contradicts the Premier’s argument, that she had no choice but to pay Gunns.

“The Premier now has no leg to stand on,” he said.

.

Community insights and informed analysis:

‘If all the above is genuine, and I can see no reason why it should not be, then the matter needs to be taken further. Much further. Lara and her “advisers” need to peruse all correspondence, memoranda and diary notes etc from Gunns in relation to their claim as to why there should be a payment to them by the taxpayers. Should there be a deliberate deception, or a deception by deliberate ommission that resulted in a serious financial advantage to Gunns then all avenues of recourse should be explored. If criminal charges are appropriate then so be it. It all would depend on the nature of the claims/submissions put forward by Gunns. There should also be cross referencing with any correspondence on the matter by Forest Tasmania. A formal investigation is surely warranted and the reason for the indecent haste in coughing up the taxpayer’s hard earned to Gunns and FT needs now to be justified.

Oh Lara. What a patsy you are. Your only contributions to the negotiations in this “complex” matter were to first publicly announce that “…we need Gunns..”, and secondly to publicly announce that you had $45 million in the “envelope” to resolve the “complex” matter. Brilliant. Just brilliant Lara.’
~ Len Fulton (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

Woodchip stockpile – same colour as the chainsawed ancient Myrtle above

‘Very interesting documents. Regardless of whether you support the pulp mill or not there is something extremely fishy about this payment to gunns and all australian taxpayers should be screaming for the tabling for scrutiny of all documentation regarding the justification of this payment. Just on these produced documents and the fact that gunns had already closed down x no. of mills dismissed employees and placed triabunna on an approx. 8 week closure at the time the payment of compensation was dubious let alone some $34mil for the remaining life of the contract/s. This has a bad smell about it – now this previously “keep quiet” info is out Mr Gutwein what are you going to do about it?’
~ Ian (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

.

‘Liberal complacence has helped foster the culture that has allowed our government to use excuses like “commercial in confidence” to not keep the public informed. So while Peter Gutwein is bouncing up and down on this issue, will he actually do anything, or remain as noticeable as a fly on the backside of an elephant?
~ Salamander (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

.

‘Very revealing letter. I’ve previously argued that, if required, the Government should be prepared to buy back Gunns timber rights. Now, it seems, there was no need to buy them back at all because they had already formally relinquished them. This sheds a very nasty light on the way the Government rushed to pay Gunns double the initial offer. It also brings up questions about the $25 million that FT were apparently owned and why the Government felt it necessary to settle this matter to “avoid expensive legal arguments”.
The expense argument always seemed spurious. When there’s $25 million in dispute, surely it’s worth thrashing the matter out in court? On the other hand, the trouble with courts is that all the facts are likely to come out. I bet the Greens are having some interesting discussions at the moment! On the one hand there’s nothing to be gained by pulling the pin on Lala, but on the other hand, how far can they afford to let their reputation be trashed before they’ll never be able to recover the ground lost?’
~ Steve (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

‘So Mr Gutwein, what are you going to do about it?

Are you quite rightly going to demand the return of all the ill-gotten monies from Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania? Are you also going to demand FT collects monies owed by Gunns Ltd to them? Are you going to demand all the IGA (Julia Gillard’s Intergoverment Agreement) monies be shared amongst everyone except these two companies as was intended?’
~ Russell Langfield (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

‘This isn’t the first or the biggest apparent fraud Tasmania has seen – the land swap was far bigger and the pulp mill approval business was more blatant – but it’s still very unusual to see the LibLabs falling out on something like this. The Tas justice system was magnificent in snatching Bryan Green from disaster, but do they have they the moxie to save the government’s bacon here? I suspect that Tas Inc’s closets are too dank to support an explosion, but I hope I’m wrong.’

~ John Hayward (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

‘These damning documents show that the potential financial scam perpetrated upon the Australian and Tasmanian taxpayer is even worse than that stated by Peter Gutwein. Firstly, a further 10% GST has been added to the payments made to Gunns and FT increasing the amount paid in so-called settlement to $37.95M. On top of that, FT has effectively written off the $13.5M balance of the $25 million reputedly owed to it by Gunns under the ‘take or pay‘ provisions of its wood supply contracts bringing the total amount gifted by the taxpayer to at least $51.45 million.

Tasmanians must be told why, and on whose advice, was Gunns’ termination offer made on 18 April 2011 not accepted by FT and what part did the Premier and her Deputy play in this? What was the role of the Solicitor General and what were the circumstances that led to the Premier claiming the need for payment to extinguish Gunns’ “residual rights”?

What is the legal precedence and basis for the taxpayer settling a financial dispute between a private company and GBE over which the Minister has limited jurisdiction and no apparent financial control? The scale of this matter is beyond the scope of the feeble Integrity Commission and is so serious that it demands a full criminal investigation.

Finally, given that the release of this documentation has the potential to bring down the Government, the motives of the usually recalcitrant FT for being so forthcoming to the Shadow Minister for Forestry’s request are extremely suspect and demand that FT is put into administration pending the outcome of investigations.’
~ PB (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

‘As per Chris Newman, Gunns ….“I will not recount Gunns’ various complaints of defective performance and non-performance by FT ….” Why? Not consistent with Gunns previously pretending the woodchip driven industry was sustainable let alone ‘worlds best practice’! Can the public see a copy of those complaints? Surely they are not all ‘commercial in confidence’.

“The reputation and marketability of Tasmanian native forest woodchip product is, and has always been directly affected by FT’s forestry management practices …” You forgot to add … and Gunns greedy easy street deal to woodchip bio diverse forests into oblivion. “FT was aware of the damage that its forestry practices were causing to the reputation of Tasmanian woodchip products …” Oh so FT’s forestry practices haven’t been a beautiful shining example afterall … I’m shocked at having been so deceived!! “Gunns therefore wishes to terminate CoS 917 and 918, noting our agreement that construction of the pulp mill did not commence by 30 November 2010.” You mean Gunns deliberately didn’t make a commencement of the mill to get out of the contract or used the companys own incompetence and failure to grab a government payout?

“Ünless a commercial resolution can be reached, I fear that these disputes will ultimately result in court proceedings.” Is that called holding the state to ransom … or bribery perhaps?

“I therefore propose that CoS 917 and 918 be terminated immediately on a full release and indemnity basis in respect of any and all outstanding issues.” So that’s what Gunns meant as per their ASX market update.

“3. Mutual release between the company and Forestry Tasmania from certain current and future claims arising out of those agreements.” “At the same time, FT will receive the benefit of a substantial infrastructure, worth in excess of $200 million, established by Gunns in anticipation of harvesting pulpwood from State Forests pursuant to CoS 917 and 918.” Is that where the touted $200 million figure for the so-called locking up of native forests originally came from? And you mean to say those native state forests being established, (albeit in reality little more than plantations) after wiping out the original diverse forests, weren’t actually being grown for future sawlogs, but indeed for nothing but pulpwood … thought so!

Bobby Gordon to embattled Bryan Green …. “It is unlikely the exchange of letters between Gunns and FT will become public.” … Why, something to hide perhaps? Obviously Labors Braddon office shredder mustn’t have been available.

“In the event that stakeholders become aware of the termination notice, Forestry Tasmania intends to release the following statement….” Is that called conspiring?

Let’s call it as it is, the $23 million for ‘residual rights’ and the Labor Gov gifting Gunns $11.5m to virtually pay itself via FT wasn’t to buy back HCV state native forests, it was hush money! Gunns are undoubtedly as successful as a trap door in a canoe. Gunns would be better off to start manufacturing butchers chopping blocks on wheels which they could pass around to their shareholders, directors, contractors, workers and political allies. Afterall, apparently they are attributing any future succusses on continuing to mobilize a self-serving carvery …

Citizens’ justice – doing away with privilege, the French way

[Source: http://www.toonpool.com/user/589/files/it_chops_383035.jpg]

Caught in an avalanche of their own making, Gunns have at least successfully pulped themselves …Gunns and Forestry Tasmania and indeed blokes like Bryan Green and the Tasmanian Labor Government have been treating the public like fools for far too long … just desserts is the same ridicule and contempt they have shown the state of Tasmania.’
~ Claire Gilmour (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

‘Other than the pyrotechnic display contained in this letter there are other incendiary devices. Such as the Gunns Chairman admitting that “construction of the pulp mill did not commence by 30 November 2010” That’s very different from the findings of EPA director Schaap. There is also a clear accusation that FT abused its monopoly position in the Tasmanian pulp wood market.’
~ Karl Stevens (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003

‘Has Gutwein called the Federal Police? If not, why not?

His inference is that The Commonwealth, and the State of Tasmania has been defrauded and if so it is very difficult to see how the Premier and Prime Minister are not parties to the act. In the absense of that call to the police being made, Mr Gutwein is nothing but another useless mouth we are feeding for no discernable benefit. Time to piss, Peter, or get off the bloody pot.If you don’t, many of us will return to our default position which is that we are governed by a coalition of liblab with the greens used as a smoke screen.’

‘Your party’s voting record backs that view to the hilt.. On reflection I would go further: Either it is fraud and therefore conspiracy to commit fraud, or it is extortion. Either way, it has all the hallmarks of something the federal police should be investigating. Why the Feds? Aside from the obvious reason it is federal money involved. My bet is that Gutwein will do nothing substantial because the bottom line is the Libs are run by TasInc who want the mill built right or wrong by anyone because they can make a dollar out of it. They fund both wings of the liblab machine. Such is the nature of party representatives. They know what the voters want, but serve the party interests first because that is where their loyalty lies. You get what you vote for. That gaping hole in the mills risk profile has not and will not go away regardless of any of this. It just keeps getting larger.’
~ Simon Warriner (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111004

.

‘Having also read all the FOI it is interesting to see that Gunns had already terminated the wood supply agreements and that after the 15th of October the agreements were finalised. Also the $200 million of roading and bridge assets that they told FT they would be giving them would have reverted to FT ownership after 45 days under the agreement anyway. It appears that the rush to give Gunns money was important because after the 25 th October there would have been no reason to pay them anything. The briefing docs to Bryan Green show that he was fully cognisant of the deal ending.’
~ Pete Godfrey (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111004

.

Subsequent revelations…

.

‘No advice on $34.5m Gunns deal: Tony Burke’

[Source: Matthew Denholm, Tasmania correspondent, The Australian, 20111022, ^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/no-advice-on-345m-gunns-deal-tony-burke/story-e6frg6nf-1226173569723]

Federal taxpayers paid $34.5 million to Gunns to extinguish its rights to log Tasmania’s native forests without Canberra first seeking advice on whether the payment was legally required. Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke told The Weekend Australian he had not sought legal advice on whether the payments were necessary to extinguish Gunns’ contractual rights.

“I didn’t seek any advice on that,” Mr Burke said. “Legal advice on that was sought by the Tasmanian government.”

The state Liberals claim the payment was not legally required because Gunns had already voluntarily handed back the contracts to harvest 210,000 cubic metres of sawlogs each year. Tasmania’s Labor-Green government, which brokered the payment to Gunns, is refusing to release its own legal advice on the issue. However, Premier Lara Giddings insists the advice backs its stance that the payment was needed to remove Gunns’ “residual rights” over the vital contracts.

Their surrender was key to the protection of 430,000 hectares of forests under the $276 million federal-state forest peace deal signed by (Prime Minister) Julia Gillard in August (2011). However, Gunns had said it was leaving native forest logging regardless and documents obtained by the Liberals under state right-to-information laws show that on April 18 the company gave “formal . . . notice of termination” of the contracts.

Despite this, on September 15 deeds signed by the Tasmanian government granted $23 million in funds provided by Canberra to Gunns and a further $11.5 million—also federally sourced—to Forestry Tasmania. Mr Burke said yesterday the money had been provided to the Tasmanian government to “facilitate” the peace deal, also known as the Intergovernmental Agreement on Forests. Late yesterday, federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig and Tasmanian Deputy Premier Bryan Green announced an additional$45 million voluntary exit package for Tasmanian forestry contractors. “This package will assist eligible contractor businesses to exit the native forest harvest, haulage and silvicultural contracting sectors,” he said.

Meanwhile, Forestry Tasmania continues in earnest its wholesale massacre and incineration

of Tasmanian Old Growth for woodchipping pittance

(Upper Florentine Forest old growth, photo taken 28th September 2011)

.

‘Minister dodging questions on Forestry handout. Mill buyers. Gunns quizzed’

[by Kim Booth MP Greens Forestry spokesperson MR, 20111019, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/minister-dodging-questions-on-latest-forestry-handout/]

The Tasmanian Greens today said the Forestry Minister Bryan Green has failed to explain to the Tasmanian people why he approved another $1.1 million in public funding to prop up the failing forestry industry. Greens Forestry spokesman Kim Booth said there’s no credibility to the Minister’s claim that the industry could afford the transportation costs to Triabunna, but somehow could not afford to go the remaining 146 kilometres to Bell Bay without receiving public subsidisation.

“If the woodchipping industry is so unviable that it cannot even afford to pay the cost of transporting logs 146 kilometres, it is about time that the Minister realised that the industry is just not viable,” Mr Booth said.

“The Minister must first justify then explain why he thinks woodchippers of native forests should be paid with public funds and should take priority at a time when other areas are having to do it tough by cutting services.”

“As for the question of the supposed ‘log jam,’ the question must be asked why Forestry Tasmania is causing these trees to be cut down if the operators cannot even afford to transport them to the point of sale?”

“Every other transport business in the state must survive on its own resources, and there’s no doubt that all the other struggling transport operators in Tasmania would love a handout. So why is the woodchipping industry treated so differently?”

“How many million dollars of public money will this Minister rob from the public purse and give to his industry darlings before he wakes up to the fact that public money if for public benefits like healthcare, not to prop up unviable private businesses.”

..The Tasmanian Government’s logo…’explore the possibilities’…at what cost?

A return to Tasmania’s traditional coat of arms would be very appropriate.

.

Any State that uses 1080 is backward and internationally sends a message of being so.

It’s tourism marketing should have its brand tarnished so. Tasmania’s ecological image deserves to be as bad as New Zealand’s. NZ’s Department of Conservation drops 1080 indiscriminately out of helicopters in spades.

‘Pure’ New Zealand has a reputation for aerial poison of its native forests using ‘1080 poison’

.

The natural forest vista harbours a sterile faunal ecosystem. Tourism doesn’t care. It’s promotional photos still convey its target ‘pristine’ image, irrespective of the faunal carnage below the tree canopy.

‘Satellite Pristine’ – a ecologically contestable concept, eh?

I am sure that Guantanamo adopted a military ‘spit -and-polish’ image from the front gates too.’

The entrance to Camp Justice, the site of the U.S. war crimes tribunal compound,

at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba (Reuters)

.

by Tigerquoll

Suggan Buggan

Victoria 3885

Australia

.

Tags: 1080 poison, aerial poisoning, Camp Justice, Eastern Tasmania, Guantanamo, New Zealand aerial baiting, New Zealand Apples, rain-shadow, satellite pristine, Tasmanian apples
Posted in Tasmania (AU), Threats from Poaching and Poisoning, Threats to Wild Tasmania | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Backward chinese TCM drives a Rhino extinct

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011

It’s past time that the barbaric and backward chinese culture of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) was recognised by the world’s civilized countries for what it is, an evil cult against wildlife, and so criminalised along with Female Genital Mutilation forthwith. Neither serve any purpose except barbaric harm.

TCM superstition claims that rhino horns cure typhoid fever, convulsions, cancer, rheumatism, gout, snakebites, hallucinations, headaches, carbuncles, vomiting, food poisoning, and ‘devil possession’. What backward quackery! Even the the rhino’s skin and faeces is used by TCM witchdoctors. Being superstitious and backward is one thing, but such ludicrously is driving and perpetuating the chinese illegal wildlife poaching of rhinos and elephants for their horns. Is this why the chinese regime is spreading its influential tentacles across Africa?

Dried Tiger bone, Moon Bear bile, ground Elephant horn

All packaged and sold in an innocuous TCM grocer,

belying the world’s most barbaric cult against wildlife

.

Today we learn that the last Javan rhino subspecies in Vietnam was found poached for its horn. It is now extinct.

The Javan rhino is Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. In 2009 only ten individuals of the subspecies Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus remained in South Vietnam’s rainforest region.

Javan one-horned Rhinoceros extinct as from yesterday due to poachers paid by the TCM witchdoctor cult

‘Vietnam has lost its fight to save its rare Javan rhinoceros population after poachers apparently killed the country’s last animal for its horn, pushing one of the world’s most endangered species closer to extinction, a conservation group (World Wildlife Fund) said Tuesday (25th October 2011).

Vietnam’s Cat Tien National Park has had no sightings, footprints or dung from live rhinos since the last known animal living there was found dead last April, shot through the leg with its horn chopped off, the WWF said. Genetic analysis of rhino feces had confirmed in 2004 that at least two rhinos were living in the park, raising hopes that Vietnam’s population might survive.

Only 40 to 60 Javan rhinos now remain in Ujung Kulon National Park in Indonesia. They are the last known living members of the species, with none in captivity.

Vietnam’s Javan rhino population had been shrinking for decades as land conversion and a rising local population threatened the animal’s habitat, but poaching and a lack of effective park management and patrols hastened the decline, said Christy Williams, coordinator of WWF’s Asian Elephant and Rhino Program.

“It appears that protection is not being given a high priority by the Vietnamese government,” he said. Park director Tran Van Thanh said that while some of his rangers failed to fulfill their duties, it is impossible for them to stop all of the estimated 100,000 people living near the park from hunting exotic animals when the average farmer there earns around 150,000 dong ($7.50) per day.’

[Source: ‘Javan rhino goes extinct in Vietnam after last rhino poached‘, by Mike Ives, Associated Press, 20111026, ^http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1026/Javan-rhino-goes-extinct-in-Vietnam-after-last-rhino-poached]

The subspecies Rhinoceros. sondicus inermis once found in Bengal, Assam, and Myanmar is now extinct. The subspecies Rhinoceros sondaicus sondaicus lives only in Ujung Kulon National Park, Java, and has less than 60 individuals remaining.

.

The Yin and Yang philosophy may suggest a wholesome healthy balanced approach to alternative medicine, but according to the Australia Herbal Medicine Centre (a Chinese run practice in Sydney’s Chinese-centric Ryde)..”Chinese Herbal Medicines are mainly plant based, but some preparations include minerals or animal products.”

“Some of the conditions which may be treated by Chinese Herbal Medicine include:

Chronic headaches
Skin disorders
Irritable bowel syndrome
Constipation and diarrhoea
Insomnia and fatigue
Common cold and influenza
Anxiety, depression and stress
Allergies
Rheumatoid and osteoarthritis
Premenstrual syndrome and painful menstruation
Excessive menstruation
Infertility
Impotence and prostate disorders
Disorders associated with menopause
Loss of appetite and common digestive disorders
Fluid retention”

[Source: ^http://www.traditionalchinesemedicine.com.au/services-chinese-herbal-medicine-sydney.php]

This all sounds impressive, but question is: Which remedies contain wildlife parts and so require illegal poaching? …sorry not on the label?

TCM is an evil backward cult inciting wildlife poaching and the key driver of wildlife extinctions around the globe. TCM ethically needs to be immediately banned, its barbaric practices made illegal and its products containing animal parts declared illegal wildlife trafficking and so an illegal import. Poaching endangered animals is far worse than mass slaughter of non-endangered animals or even the mass slaughter of humans. Species Extinction is the worst crime on the planet, because a whole species is threatened with extinction, not just a few million humans or so out of 7 billion.

The Sydney Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine [http://www.sitcm.edu.au/] needs to immediately and publicly renounce any use of wild animal parts in its practice, else be immediately criminalised as an ecologically destructive cult.

Rhino Horn is not medicine – chew your nails instead. Go and see a real doctor!

.

Tags: Australia Herbal Medicine Centre, backward chinese, evil cult, Female Genital Mutilation, illegal wildlife trade, Javan Rhino subspecies extinct, rhino poaching, Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus, Sydney Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, TCM, TCM witchdoctor cult, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tran Van Thanh, Ujung Kulon National Park, Vietnam Rhino extinct, wildlife extinction, world's most barbaric cult, WWF's Asian Elephant and Rhino Program
Posted in Africa, Rhinoceroses, Threats from Poaching and Poisoning | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Drop bear task force poisoning Tasmania

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll as a comment on the Tasmanian Times 20100202:

.

1080 ‘blue carrots’

.

Six years ago, the Tasmanian Greens tabled their Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Amendment (Ban 1080) Bill 2004 to ban the use of 1080 poison (sodium monofluoroacetate) against native wildlife. But it excluded “persons directly employed with the Fox Task Force, up until the period ending 1 October 2006.”

‘Fox Task Force‘ …what a scam! Talk about dodgy jobs for mates at DPI. All they come up with is shit. It could be Drop Bear shit! They may as well be called it the Drop Bear Task Force and dress ’em up in black special forces attire and give ’em paint guns.

1080 must be banned in Tasmania outright including this fraudulent drop bear mob. I’d like to see an FOI on how much the taxpayer has funded them since they were set up. $10 million? We could have found a cure for the Devil’s face tumor or housed hundreds of homeless youth in Tasmania by now.

Tasmania’s “Department of Primary Industries and Water is the only importer of 1080 into Tasmania and only authorised officers of the Department handle the poison.” So the 1080 buck stps with DPI. DPI’s head needs to show cause, whoever the latest ‘acting’ secretary is! DPI has had so many name changes, ministers and bosses, DPI staff must be running the show. GM Environment was Warren Jones in October, so he can take the can, unless he’s been sacked as well.

According to DPI’s latest annual report, its Environment branch has a mission “to ensure best practice in environmental management and pollution control”…blah blah blah.

Well best practice in environmental management is exercising the precautionary principle, which in lay terms means if you’re not sure don’t intervene. Well ban 1080 until you can deliver a fox to the Hobart Town Hall!

.

Tasmanian native Pademelons killed by 1080 poison

Source: http://www.redbubble.com/people/cradlemountain/art/3160948-why-is-1080-poison-not-good-for-tasmania-and-the-world

.

‘By the year 2000, the Tasmanian Government poisoned 30 million native animals by allowing forest and farming industries to kill all marsupials (other species were sacrificed along with the slaughter).
Here I was collecting bodies and found nine different species affected, dead. This little female wallaby was clasping onto grass and had made a circle in the ground while dying in pain. I could not get the grass out of her little paws.’

A live and healthy native Tasmanian Pademelon

.

1080 is immoral

1080 (sodium monofluroacetate) is a cruel and indiscriminate poison used to ‘remove’ unwanted populations of animals.

Banned in most countries, 1080 is still used liberally throughout Australia and New Zealand to control so-called ‘pest’ species, and reduce ‘browsing damage’ caused by native animals on private land. Its use is indiscriminate, which means that it kills not just the target feral animals but every animal in the area that eats off the forest floor.

1080 poison is a slow killer. When ingested (usually through baited food) the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. Herbivores take the longest to die – up to 44hrs, while carnivores can take up to 21hrs before finally succumbing to final effects of the poison. The speed of death is dependent on the rate of the animals metabolism.

.

A Slow & Horrific Death

Witnesses to the deaths of herbivorous animals, such as macropods, have reported:

“Affected wallabies were sometimes observed sitting hunched up, with heads held shakily just above the ground. Generally they appeared non-alert and ‘sick’, with shivering or shaking forelimbs and unsteady balance. Most individuals then experience convulsions, falling to the ground and lying on their backs and sides, kicking and making running motions with their hind legs before dying. Many individuals also ejaculated shortly before death, and, with others, exuded a white froth from their nostrils and mouth.”

Carnivorous animals such as dingoes, dogs, foxes, and cats become very agitated, as they tremble, convulse and vomit.”

[Source: ‘The World League for Protection of Animals’, ^http://wlpa.org/1080_poison.htm]

.

Also, 1080 is indiscriminate, it kills all carnivores including Devils, and endangered quolls and dogs.

“Under state poisons legislation, 1080 is a Schedule 7 poison and is available only to specialised or authorised users who have the skills necessary to handle it safely. Under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Regulations 1995, products containing 1080 are also declared to be ‘Restricted Chemical Products’. As such, the products can only be supplied to or used by ‘authorised person(s)’. Individual states set the authorisation criteria taking the APVMA’s and state regulatory requirements into account.

Despite these regulations, poisoning of non-target wildlife and domestic pets is common and farm animal species can also be at risk. In NSW, an estimated 14,000 baits are laid per Rural Land Protection Board per annum, and 2002-2003 figures on 1080 use released by the Tasmanian Government indicated Forestry Tasmania used 23 per cent, farmers 47 per cent, and private forestry 30 per cent. In the same year, the Tasmanian Government also released statistics stating that 97,000 wallabies and brushtail possums had been poisoned by 1080, primarily through baiting programs aimed at targeting browsing and grazing native animals as part of forestry management. Phasing out of 1080 in Tasmanian forests has since commenced.

Canines are particularly susceptible to 1080 and the lethal dose for dogs has been calculated at 0.05mg/kg. Once consumed, it is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, impairing cellular respiration through disruption of the citric acid cycle with resultant CNS anoxia and cardiovascular disturbance. 1080 can also be absorbed from the respiratory tract and through cuts and abrasions.

1080 has no specific antidote and even in animals treated symptomatically, is usually fatal.”

[Source: ‘The Veterinarian’, ^http://www.theveterinarian.com.au/features/article685.asp]

.

1080 poison is as vicious as laying 19th Century steel jaw traps around Hobart parks, or giving kids air rifles to play with at school.

It is incumbent on the public’s trust in the ethics and responsibility of the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (etc) to show proof of foxes or else ban 1080 poison outright across Tasmania.

Else it will be some perturbed fox myth that ends up killing Tasmania’s devils, quolls, wallabies, the forester kangaroo, just like the 19th Century myth that Thylacene’s killed farmers’ sheep so deserving their redneck extinction.

The DPI always claims recent physical evidence of foxes. If so, then show recent proof to the public, not old specimen carcasses from a zoo. Show the Tasmanian public also independent zoological proof that using 1080 cannot harm non-target species!

.

Victoria following Tasmania’s backward example

‘Authorised persons in Victoria can now purchase 1080 pest animal bait products from accredited retailers or licensed perishable bait manufacturers.

Two categories of 1080 pest animal bait products are now available in Victoria:

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) registered 1080 pest animal bait products (‘shelf-stable bait’) such as dry oats and dried meat baits. Retailers of these baits must have Agsafe Guardian 1080 accreditation.

Perishable 1080 pest animal bait products (‘fresh’ bait) such as carrot and liver, manufactured using 1080 aqueous solution registered with the APVMA for that purpose. These bait products are not registered with the APVMA but are supplied under an APVMA permit. The manufacturer of these bait products is also the retailer. These persons must meet specific training and accreditation requirements and be licensed by the Department of Human Services (DHS).

In order to purchase 1080 pest animal bait products you need to complete a Course in Minimising the Risks in the Use of 1080 Pest Animal Bait Products for Vertebrate Pest Control and obtain a 1080 endorsement to your Agricultural Chemical User Permit (ACUP).

These changes are designed to make it easier for you to purchase 1080 pest animal bait products. They enable users to purchase 1080 pest animal bait products from local accredited retailers during normal business hours, enable a greater range of 1080 pest animal bait products to become available to users, and make the manufacture, supply and use of 1080 pest animal bait products safer.’

[Source: ^http://dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farming-management/chemical-use/agricultural-chemical-use/bait-system, accessed 20111025]

.

South Australia following Tasmania’s backward example

‘The Controlled Substances (Poisons) Regulations,1996 allows land owners access to 1080 baits (sodium fluoroacetate) for the control of rabbits, foxes and dingoes/ wild dogs on their own property.

The current Label, Directions for Use and Material Safety Data Sheet are reproduced here for each bait product.

The Directions for Use include the following documents:

Record of notification of neighbours before commencement of baiting programs
Checklist to be used when a person first receives baits
Poison laid sign design

Authorisation to use the baits requires the land owner (or their agent nominated in writing) to sign an Approval to Possess 1080 Bait form supplied by a Natural Resources Management officer. Non-compliance with the Directions for Use is an offence under the Controlled Substances Act, 1984 and the Agricultural and Veterinary Products (Control of Use) Act, 2002.

For information on the supply and possession of 1080 bait, contact the Environmental Health Branch, Department of Health on (08) 8226 7117 or (08) 8226 7137.

For information or advice on suspected cases of misuse of 1080 bait products or to report that non-target animals may have been poisoned by 1080, contact PIRSA Biosecurity – Rural Chemicals on (08) 8226 0528.

[Source: ^http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/biosecuritysa/nrm_biosecurity/pest_animal/1080_use_in_sa, accessed 20111025]

.

Tags: 1080 poison, DPI, Fox Task Force, sodium monofluoroacetate, Tasmania's "Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmanian Pademelon
Posted in Kangaroos and Macropods, Tasmania (AU), Threats from Poaching and Poisoning, Threats to Wild Tasmania | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Habitat Topics

Welcome to Habitat Country
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."

Recommended Links

Action Bioscience

Activists Rights

African Wild Dog Conservancy

African Wildlife Foundation

Amazon Rainforest

Ancient Forest Alliance

Animal Defenders International

Animal Info. on Endangered Animals

Animal Justice Party

Antarctic Ocean Alliance

Arid Lands Environment Centre

ARKive (endangered species)

Australia World Heritage List (UNESCO)

Australia's Threatened Species

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Fauna.com

Australian Geographic

Australian Native Plant Society

Australian Paper Watch

Australian Platypus Conservancy

Australian Registry of Wildlife Health

Australian Seabird Rescue

Australian Stable Population Party

Australian Student Environment Network

Australian Wildlife Carers Network

Australian Wildlife Conservancy

Australians for Animals

Badger Protection League

Badger Trust

Badger Watch and Rescue

Bagheera (Endangered species)

Ballaarat Wildlife Park

Biodiversity International

Birdlife Australia

Birdlife International

Birdwatch Ireland

Blue Marine Foundation

Blue Mountains Bird Observers

Blue Mountains Birding

Blue Mountains Conservation Society

Blue Mountains Wildplant Rescue Service

Bob Irwin Wildlife Fund

Bookend Trust

Born Free Foundation

Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation

Botanical Gardens Conservation International

Buffalo Field Campaign

Buffalo Field Campaign blog

Bush Heritage Australia

Bush Warriors

Butterfly Conservation

Cairns and Far North Environment Centre

California Gray Whale Coalition

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Cat Action Treasury

Cave Hill Conservation Campaign

Center for Earth Jurisprudence

Center for Plant Conservation

Chipstop

CITES

Coalition Against Duck Shooting

Code Green Tasmania

Colong Foundation for Wilderness

Conservation Council ACT Region

Conservation Council of South Australia

Conservation Council of Western Australia

Conservation Evidence

Conservation International

Convention on Biodiversity

Cool Forests

CREO (recent extinctions)

Cruelty Free Shop (The)

CSIRO Publishing

Cybec Foundation

David Suzuki Foundation

Defenders for Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife (savewolves)

Devils in Danger

Eaglehawk Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre

Earth Justice

Earthcare St Kilda Inc.

Earthwatch Institute Australia

Earthways

Earthways Foundation

ECO

Eco Ranger

Ecology Project International

Ecos Magazine

EDGE of Existence Programme

EnAct International

Endangered Species Link

Endangered Wildlife Trust

Environment East Gippsland

Environment Institute ANZ

Environment Tasmania

Environment Victoria

Environmental Defenders Offices

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Law Foundation

Environs Kimberley

Essex Badger Protection Group

Ethical Paper

Eurobodalla Regional Botanic Gardens

F.A.M.E.

Fauna & Flora International

Film Makers for Conservation

Florentine Protection Society Inc.

Forest and Bird

Forest Media

Forest Network

Forest Peoples Programme

Forest Policy Research

Forest Protection Portal

Forest Rescue

Foundation for Critical Thinking

Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife

Foundation for Rabbit-Free Australia

Four Paws International

Friends of Five Forests

Friends of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment

Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Friends of the Earth (UK)

Friends of the Earth Australia

Gilbert's Potoroo Action Group

Ginninderra Catchment Group

Global Raptor Information Network

Global Trees Campaign

Goongerah Environment Centre

Great Barrier Reef Blog

Green Belt Movement

Greenpeace Australia

Gunns 20 Case

Habitat Destruction

Habitat Network

Hancock Watch

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

Healesville Sanctuary

Help for Wildlife

Herts and Middlesex Badger Group

Humane Society International

Huon Valley Environment Centre

Iberia Nature

Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association

Inland Rivers Network

Institute of Wildlife Research

International Anti Poaching Foundation

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Intl Community of Ecopsychology

Intl Union for Conservation of Nature

Invasive Species Council

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Kakapo Recovery

Kanuguba

Keep the Habitat

Kew Gardens

Keystone Conservation

Kimberley (Save the Kimberley)

Kimberley Wildlife Carers and Associates

Kimberley Wildlife Rescue

Lake Pedder Restoration Committee

Lawyers for Forests

Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Linnean Society of London

Markets for change

Mass Extinctions

Melbourne Water Catchment Network

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Molonglo Catchment Group

Moon Bears (Korea)

My Environment

National Birds of Prey Trust

National Geographic

National Geographic Network

National Geographic Wild

National Institute for Amazonian Research

National Parks Association of NSW

National Parks Conservation Assoc.

Native Forest Action

Native Forest Network

Native Forests

Natural Edge Project

Natural History Museum

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature

Nature and Society Forum

Nature Conservation Council of NSW

Nature Conservation Trust

Nature's Crusaders

Naturschutzbund Deutschland

Nepenthes (defending rainforest)

North East Forests Alliance

NZ Birds

NZ Ecological Restoration Network

NZ Ecological Society

NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust

NZ Trust for Conservation

Observer Tree

Orangutan Foundation International

Otway Ranges Environment Network

Our Common Ground (Tasmania)

Photos and Feathers

Preserve Our Islands

Primate Info Net

Purves Environmental Fund

Queensland Conservation Council

Quercus

Race Against Extinction

Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Rescue

Rainforests (mongabay global website)

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands

Raptor & Wildlife Refuge of Tasmania Inc.

Rhino Resource Center

Rising Tide Australia

Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Sahara Conservation Fund

Save America's Forests

Save Biogems

Save Ralph's Bay Inc.

Save the Badger

Save the Blue Tier

Save the Cassowary

Save the Kimberley

Save the Koala

Save the South Sister

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

Saving Rhinos

Saving Species

Sea Shepherd

Sierra Club

Sierra Forest Legacy

Six Degrees

Smithsonian Museum (Natural History)

Society for Conservation Biology

Society of Wildlife Artists

South East Forest Rescue

South East Region Conservation Alliance

Southern ACT Catchment Group

Still Wild Still Threatened

Strait 4 Devils

Sussex Wildlife Trust

Ta Ann

Taiga Rescue Network

Tarkine National Coalition

Taronga Conservation Society Australia

Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.

Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill Inc.

Terra Nature

The Central Highlands Alliance

The Change Agency

The Forest Activist Network

The Forest History Society

The Kerulos Center

The Kimberley Toadbusters

The Last Stand

The Last Tree

The Monkey Sanctuary

The Nature Conservancy

The Rainforest Information Centre

The Wild Foundation

The Wilderness Society

THINKK

Tigers in Crisis

Total Environment Centre

TRAFFIC (wildlife trade)

Tree Council (Ireland)

Tree Council (UK)

Tree Project

Trees for Life

Trees Not Gunns

Trust for Nature

UN Environment Programme

UN FAO on Global Forests

UNESCO World Heritage

University of Ulster (Natural Science)

Vegan Society (The)

Victorian Rainforest Network

Voiceless

Vulturejam

W.I.R.E.S.

Water S.O.S. Tasmania

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Western Alliance for Nature

Western Wolves

Wielangta Forest

Wild Futures

Wilderness Truths

Wildlife Art Society of Australasia

Wildlife Australia

Wildlife Conservation Society

Wildlife Mismanagement

Wildlife New Zealand

Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia

Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales

Wildlife Victoria

Wildscreen

Wolli Creek Protection Society

Wolves and Humans Foundation

Wombat Awareness Organisation Ltd

Woodland Trust

World Commission on Protected Areas

World Database on Protected Areas

World Land Trust

World Rainforest Movement

World Society for the Protection of Animals

World Wildlife Fund

WWF New Zealand

The Habitat Advocate

Archive for the ‘Listening Post’ Category

Tasmania’s Tarkine threatened by tin mining

“We will continue to be aggressive explorers with multiple rigs focused on exploration for the foreseeable future.”

.

.

Emergency listings of The Tarkine have been granted four times since 2004!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

‘Jobs, jobs, jobs’ justification – but all for mainlanders, foreigners and short-termers

.

.

.

.

‘Tasmania’s Tarkine wilderness is one of the world’s largest temperate rainforests.

This vast expanse is a wilderness wonderland of wild rivers, dramatic coastal heathlands, button grass plains, bare mountains, ancient Huon pines, giant eucalypts and myrtles and extraordinary horizontal scrub.

It is home to rare and endangered birds – like the Orange-bellied parrot and the White goshawk – and countless animals such as the Eastern pygmy possum. This superbly illustrated book captures the beauty of this unique wilderness.’

.

Orange-bellied Parrot

There are only about 50 breeding pairs of this bird left!

.

Blind-eyed cataclysm of ‘Catamaran’ forests

State Slaughter

.

Forestry Tasmania’s supposed ‘Sustainability Charter’:

.

.

.

.

Gotcha Forestry Tasmania!

.

.

Above is forestry reality, while the following is forestry greenwash…

.

.

Forestry Tasmania: ‘Vision’

Forestry Tasmania: ‘Mission’

Forestry Tasmania: ‘Corporate Objectives’

FT Values:

.

.

And the forestry reality…‘Forestry Tasmania posts $12 million loss’

.

.

Editor:

.

.

Ed: And so today Bob’s logging thugs have been caught on camera logging Catamaran old growth.

.

.

Logging Tasmania like there’s no tomorrow

‘The axe had never sounded’…

.

IGA Clause 25 states:

.

.

.

IGA Clause 26 states:

.

Analysis:

There are copious hundreds of hectares of Tasmanian forest area available outside the 572, 000 hectares of ENGO-nominated High Conservation Value forest area.

Both Governments, by sitting on their hands as forests in the Informal Reserves are logged, are in breach of the spirit of the Agreement.

.

.

2009: ‘Woodchip stockpile in Tasmania a ‘health risk’

.

.

.

Recherche Bay – a brief background

.

.

1993: ‘Campaign over Recherche Bay scores win’

.

.

Further Reading: