Is the last tree about to be cut down?

Some actually think so!

The forestry debate has raged in Tasmania ever since the Wilderness Society found itself at a loose end after the end of the Gordon below Franklin dam campaign 25 years ago.

Given the duration and intensity of the debate, it would be reasonable to assume the community has a handle on the principal facts surrounding the industry. Such an assumption would be a mistake.

The results of an EMRS poll commissioned by Forestry Tasmania are shocking. A total of 600 Tasmanians were phoned in the last week of August and asked a series of questions about Forestry Tasmania.

They uncovered a startling array of urban myths that we believe can be traced back to public comments made by the Wilderness Society and their supporters.

These are the main findings:

• Almost one in ten Tasmanians (9%) think 90 percent of forests will be permanently stripped within 90 years, and a further 19% (nearly one in five) think about 40 percent of the forest will disappear.
• The truth is there'll be the same amount or more forest in 90 years than there is today.
  

• Approximately two out of every three Tasmanians (63%) think two thirds or less of the state's old growth forests are protected.
• The truth is 79 percent is protected.
  

• Nearly one in every two Tasmanians (47%) believe Forestry Tasmania uses 1080 poison to control browsing animals.
• The truth is Forestry Tasmania has not used 1080 poison for at least three years.
  

• 44% of Tasmanians think Forestry Tasmania uses atrazine to control weeds. 37% were unsure.
• The truth is Forestry Tasmania does not use these chemicals and has not since 1995.
  

• Two out of every three Tasmanians think state forest is being converted to plantation.
• The truth is no state forest is being converted to plantation. The practice of conversion ceased in December 2006.
  

• Nearly one in two Tasmanians (48%) think Forestry Tasmania uses chemicals to regenerate native forests.
• The truth is Forestry Tasmania regenerates every centimetre of state forest that is harvested without using chemicals, including fertiliser.
  

• One in ten Tasmanians think more than 90 percent of state forests will be converted to plantation and another 20 percent think that at least 40% of the state forests will be converted to plantation.
• The truth is the current ratio of four percent of state forest being under plantation will not change - or in other words 96 percent of state forest will remain native forest.
  

Clearly, Tasmanians are being misled and the critical question is, how? Firstly, if there is this high level of ignorance, Forestry Tasmania has to take some responsibility for that and must review whether it can improve its communications with the community.

Secondly, the performance of the media needs to be examined. Most information absorbed by the community is distributed via media outlets, either in the form of news coverage, talk back or advertisements. Clearly the media have not been able to convey the truth about forestry and it is my belief that many journalists are not prepared to examine with rigour statements made by some extreme conservation groups. Even over the past few days, there have been examples where claims have been aired unchallenged and presented as fact.

Thirdly, some of the questions asked in the survey were drawn straight from an advertisement that has been published for at least the past 12 months. This particular advertisement, placed by the Wilderness Society, potentially misleads readers into believing that harvested native forest is permanently stripped of trees or converted to plantation. It does so by quoting out of date figures and neglecting to mention that these practices no longer occur. It then asks people to give money so that these practices can be stopped.

The ACCC, which has put businesses on notice that it intends to pursue false environmental claims, was unable to pursue the matter last year on behalf of Forestry Tasmania, because the Wilderness Society was a charity and therefore not involved in trade or commerce. The ACCC made it clear that the Trade Practices Act would apply to Forestry Tasmania and that it should seek legal advice if it wished to place a counter advertisement. It is a loophole that, in our view, should be closed off.

The Wilderness Society acts just like a business - it generates $12 million in revenue each year and employs over 100 staff through donations, subscriptions and retail. It should abide by the same laws as the rest of the corporate world.

I am, however, delighted that Forestry Tasmania's reputation is still strong. The survey shows the majority of Tasmanians believe FT creates jobs in regional areas, adheres to international best practice, is respected, trustworthy and environmentally responsible.

I can understand why some people in the community are confused. The environmental movement often uses high profile actors and authors to reinforce their message. While these actors and authors are very good at what they do, they are just as vulnerable to misinformation as the rest of us. Their utterances can be well intentioned, but wrong.

I have attached the following tables for your information.









Back to Branchline

---