Comments on: Data crunch: how many (con) jobs are there in Tassie forestry?

By: A Flanagan

A Flanagan — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:04:53 +0000

I am a graduate of the ANU. I am also a forest scientist. I am appalled that this article even managed to be published as it would not have met the standards I had been taught to apply. A bit more analysis and research would have highlighted the error of assumptions within the article.
I draw your attention to Dr Jacki Schirmer’s article at http://theconversation.edu.au/still-here-why-tasmanian-forest-industry-job-figures-are-misleading-10827.

This clearly demonstrates the employment figures are around 3,400. These are real people, not just numbers, whose livelihoods are being undermined by affluent people in places such as Canberra. Tasmanian forest workers deserve respect and they deserve the right to work- especially where such work is legal.

Tasmanian forest workers are part of an industry that generates wealth and supports the wider economy. This is fundamentally different to the health sector, which consumes wealth.

Wood and forest products are in demand. Australia continues to import timber from tropical countries and forests which contain some of the highest biodiversity values. These forests are being unsustainably cleared because Australian consumers cannot get Australian timbers. This is the reality of the market.

So, if we truly wish to conserve global biodiversity values, we will start to support forestry in Australia, recognise the wealth generating (carbon, biodiversity, water, livelihood,..etc) benefits associated with such activities and stop undermining the value of a sectors importance to people.

By: Nigel Catchlove

Nigel Catchlove — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:08:09 +0000

I’ll answer Hugh McColl’s question. Wood Product Manufacturing 1771, Pulp, Paper and Converted Paper Product Manufacturing, 476 and Total Tasmanian forest industry employment 3410 (excluding employment in craftwood, furniture making and boat building dependent on special species timbers)
Data source: ABS Census of Population and Housing 2011 as per article at: http://theconversation.edu.au/still-here-why-tasmanian-forest-industry-job-figures-are-misleading-10827

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:01:16 +0000

Yorick Piper, you make a claim that the “…bulk of ‘forestry’ industry jobs are in milling and processing.” Do you have any evidence to back this claim? The article indicated that direct employment in forestry and logging (which seems to include truck drivers) was currently somewhere under 1000. Exactly how many people do you believe are employed in “milling and processing”?

By: Nigel Catchlove

Nigel Catchlove — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:20:13 +0000

The real numbers as recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics rather than an interpretation by a former adviser to Bob Brown. http://theconversation.edu.au/still-here-why-tasmanian-forest-industry-job-figures-are-misleading-10827

By: NT

NT — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:44 +0000

This story has been running in a number of publications for a week or so now. Well done Crickey for regurgitating misleading figures and counting jobs in only part of the supply chain for Tasmanian timber products. A more comprehensive analysis of this issue can be found at:

http://theconversation.edu.au/still-here-why-tasmanian-forest-industry-job-figures-are-misleading-10827

By: michael crook

michael crook — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:09:21 +0000

good article,thank you. It is a bit like the very very few jobs on the mainland in mining and coal seam gas. we dont need either of these industries as the net benefit is very definitely a negative.

By: Yorick Piper

Yorick Piper — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:14:47 +0000

This is a highly missleading article. The bulk of ‘forestry’ industry jobs are in milling and processing. These workers are at the heart of the debate in tasmania, in sawmills, peeler mills, even wood chipping facilities. And if a pulp mill ever gets up there will be another 1500+ jobs there. To ignore these jobs when discussing this debate is very poor journalism at the least.

By: Microseris

Microseris — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:56:29 +0000

UB, conversion of forests is probably more wet to damp however it is not just about key indicator species of each vegetation community. Age, complexity, edge effect and high water requirements of regrowth forests have a major impact on humidity and therefore flammability.

Old growth mountain ash forests of Tarra Bulga National Park were showered with ember rain for several hours on Black Saturday and whilst there were several small spot fires, none established and the park did not burn. Compare this to the devastation of the central highlands where estimates of remnant old growth stands approximate 1%.

By: dazza

dazza — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:29:50 +0000

0.5% of Tasmanian workers seem very very vocal, and now these loudmouths have been caught out, at long last. How dare they put their own interests in front of the interests of the rest of the population not only in Tasmania, but Australians in general.
Media also have a lot to answer for, especially when the editor of the ‘Australian’ has declared war on the Green Party, and consistently shows total disregard to scientific reviews/observations for a reason no one knows. Maybe it’s because the media is self regulated, therefore who’s going to ask!!

By: Harry1951

Harry1951 — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 05:48:17 +0000

It’s astonishing that there is ignorance of the minor contribution of the Tasmanian forestry industry. Old perceptions die hard I can only conclude. It would appear that a “back to the drawing board” is needed by the Tasmanian Government. I don’t envy their task.

By: ulysses butterfly

ulysses butterfly — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:41:44 +0000

With the megafire impact on Victoria related to 50 years of conversion of wet schlerophyll to dry schlerophyll forest over huge areas of landscape, it would be criminally negligent to log any more wet forest in Tasmania, NSW or anywhere.