The Tarkine wilderness and other pics

Now that the Greens have been trampled to let the miners loose in the Tasmanian Tarkine wilderness, a glimpse of the paradise that is about to be lost. My home town, Irishtown, is about 10 k down from Smithton in the top of this map.

Interesting commentary.

In an attempt to adopt the iconic Tarkine brand for its own perverted and duplicitous activities, Forestry Tasmania has changed the name of its tourist theme park attraction called Dismal Swamp near Smithton in Tasmania to Tarkine Forest Adventures. The Dismal Swamp slippery dip has been operating for four years and it attracted 24,000 visitors last year.

Another batch of nature photos, courtesy of Barry Williams posting on the skeptics email list. Each shot is a window to a set of pictures in each location. These are the set behind the California Coast window.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to The Tarkine wilderness and other pics

  1. . says:

    Some environmentalists comment, after I put them in the wrong thread:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VThQr8fDiLA

  2. Jc says:

    That’s a great great vid, Dot.

  3. Gab says:

    Good to see gillard doing Gina Rinehart’s bidding.

  4. Louis Hissink says:

    What’s the problem?

  5. Harold says:

    If the Greens weren’t so balls to the wall kooky it would be easier for them to attract support for causes like this which merit support. Unemployment doesn’t come into it, you don’t trash your environment for short term gain.

  6. Louis Hissink says:

    Harold,

    Experience tells me that things are blown out of all proportion – Rafe might assist matters by supplying maps ( the Obeid family in NSW might offer guidelines), and the boundaries of the proposed mining works.

    If the mining tenements are actually exploration licences, then this post is a doldrum in a tea cup.

  7. Alfonso says:

    40% of Tassie is untouchable reserve / forest.

    I guess they’re apoplectic about some tiny number of saw mill logs.
    Perspective Comrades please…..at least to avoid the laughter.

  8. brc says:

    Who’s the bald bloke with a goatee in all those pics?

    He’d have to be CFMEU, right?

  9. Fred Furkenburger says:

    I agree with JC dot that video is a wonderful depiction of …. some ….um … wonderful people ….who ….um … maybe …. have …. sort of … well … um … lost track of reality?

  10. Poor Old Rafe says:

    Relax Louis, I was joking.

    There are maps in some of the links, like this one, plus green rhapsodies.

  11. dd says:

    If the Greens weren’t so balls to the wall kooky it would be easier for them to attract support for causes like this which merit support.

    no, Harold. There are worthy environmental causes, but this isn’t one of them.

    Unemployment doesn’t come into it, you don’t trash your environment for short term gain.

    That’s just a slogan. The history of the human race is one of trancending and harnessing the environment. It’s what we do. We tame the wilderness and subvert it to our own ends. We build farms where there was grassland, create grassland out of forests, and forests out of desert. We have put humans on the moon, the north and south pole, and deep under the ocean. We don’t do things the way most species do things.

    Sure, there’s a tradeoff. I don’t want to drink polluted water or eat fish that are contaminated with heavy metals, for example. But if “don’t trash your environment” means “leave everything just as it is,” then you’re implying that all industrialisation and environmental change is bad.

  12. Driftforge says:

    40% of Tassie is untouchable reserve / forest.

    And then some. About 47% these days. Current government even has it as a key budget outcome to increase that by 1% a year.

  13. Louis Hissink says:

    Rafe, no joke – the bureaucratic crap I have to negotiate in the NT in order to explore can be somewhat disconcerting.

    But I am happy, this time, to add to your collection of “fishes”.

    🙂

  14. . says:

    dd you are bang on as usual.

    Try to get on a Senate ticket. We need smart people in Parliament. Not Christine Milne.

  15. WhaleHunt Fun says:

    Lot of good looking trees there. Any estimates of their net worth as woodchips?

    Keeping some bits aside to make handles for flensing knives of course.

  16. WhaleHunt Fun says:

    If the greenies lock up all the forests they cannot complain if people fall back on whaling as a source of income.

  17. Up The Workers! says:

    Dismal Swamp?

    I spent a week there one afternoon.

    The place is poorly named.

    No swamp in sight!

  18. GeorgeL says:

    Beautiful country about the only enhancement required is a bloody huge open cut mine.

  19. Louis Hissink says:

    Beauty is a rain forested, green, strangling vegetal existence ?

    Suggests a brain strangled and twisted to a haggis-like state, before consumed in the presence of a serious malt.

  20. Talleyrand says:

    The Tarkine website notes at the bottom of the page(s)

    “To monitor the development and integrity of sensitive and appropriate eco-tourism infrastructure
    to ensure that the Tarkine Wilderness is prioritised ahead of profit and protected from greedy, underhanded, subservient and self-serving ventures.”

    Is Rudd writing their scripts? Bob Brown? These programmic specificity guys are really self-ridiculing loons.

    There is also outrage over the Tarkine’s Tassie Wedge Tailed Eagle, which of course is much more in danger from wind turbines..

    The Mine exploration can occur within the current technological abilities of humans to have both a small footprint mine and a park which preserves the majority of the site.

  21. WhaleHunt Fun says:

    Chip it, Ship it.
    Greenies get caught up, good.

  22. Tel says:

    I’ve often thought that the fundamental problem of mining in Australia is that the concept of property rights is not applied.

    Miners get to lease the land, rather than needing to buy the land. A lease means no particular interest in long term value, only short term returns. Purchase means you have to think about resale value. Of course, the value of a green “paradise” wilderness is subjective but we have a market for the purpose of discovering prices.

  23. Tel says:

    Sure, there’s a tradeoff. I don’t want to drink polluted water or eat fish that are contaminated with heavy metals, for example. But if “don’t trash your environment” means “leave everything just as it is,” then you’re implying that all industrialisation and environmental change is bad.

    I dunno, when I see an open cut mine in the middle of the Pilbara, I think it looks like a big, red, dusty hole, but then again, most of the Pilbara looks like a big red dusty hole, so essentially no change.

    On the other hand, some of the wilderness in Tasmania is very beautiful, but that’s subjective so if other people don’t like it, they don’t have to go there. The real problem is that these things become a political tug of war, rather than a rational evaluation of how much people are willing to personally sacrifice in exchange for what they think is precious.

  24. Harold says:

    dd how many forests can you name which used to be desert? Unfortunately we do a lot more of the forest-to-desert/grassland conversion than vice versa.

    We can be sensible about what and how we “harness”. A rainforest can be harnessed as a natural wonder, or it can be woodchipped and sent to Japan. I know which I prefer.

  25. Bronson says:

    Harold you don’t wood chip rainforests. Chips are the least value product in the forest and rainforest timbers are far to valuable as solid timber and veneers to line the board rooms of big mining companies.

  26. dd says:

    dd how many forests can you name which used to be desert?

    here for example,, although any irrigated orchard in an arid climate is functionally a forest in a desert.

    But this was just you clutching at straws. You studiously ignored my main point and homed in on a detail you thought I’d over-reached on.

    A rainforest can be harnessed as a natural wonder, or it can be woodchipped and sent to Japan. I know which I prefer.

    Sure. But that’s just an aesthetic judgement. You personally, would like to keep forests as theme parks for your personal enjoyment and aesthetic pleasure. You don’t care that people in other parts of the world would like to put that wood to good use because it offends your personal sense of beauty.

    But this aesthetic sense is awry. A recently logged hillside is certainly pretty damn ugly. But that’s temporary; soon the logs and stumps and mud will be gone and you’ll either have forest again or pastureland. Most people don’t find rolling pasture very ugly – in fact it’s very appealing – despite the fact that at one point in time was freashly logged.

    But anyway, industry often doesn’t look very good locally. That’s how it goes. Go out the back of your favourite restaurant and see whether it offends your sensibilities.

  27. WhaleHunt Fun says:

    ” evaluation of how much people are willing to personally sacrifice ”

    Very much people if they are greenies and the sacrificial rites are highly uncomfortable.

  28. WhaleHunt Fun says:

    If the locals can be overruled about building a useful dam because the sodden swamp valley is a thing that is so precious it belongs to the world, then the same applies when the locals are keen to not build something.

    So if they insist on saving this forest, let’s see the bloody Franklin dammed.

  29. Poor Old Rafe says:

    Harold there are more trees in North America now than there were when the red indians owned it.

    Probably the same story in Australia if you look across the board and not just at the bits that have been heavily harvested. There is a thing called regrowth as well.

    At lunch yesterday a friend told me about a man who has spent the last couple of decades invoved in planting 15 million trees.

  30. manalive says:

    This thread is obviously a greenie baiting exercise.

  31. Harold, go to the desert around Lake Eyre and set up an irrigation system to turn it back to forest.
    See how far the Greens let you go.

  32. Grover says:

    As the world gradually becomes more and more populated these untouched areas will become rare and the unique beauty will attract tourist from around the world .I guess in economic terms ,the less there is of these natural untouched areas the more demand to see and appreciate them making them even more valuable.

  33. Tel says:

    dd how many forests can you name which used to be desert? Unfortunately we do a lot more of the forest-to-desert/grassland conversion than vice versa.

    http://www.nigeriaintel.com/2011/11/12/and-the-sahara-expands/

    There’s been a lot of work in converting the Sahara by planting trees, but sadly it hasn’t worked. It does look like such a project would be possible but the economic development of those countries prevents it because people just cut those trees for firewood.

    The coal that gets mined in Nigeria tends to get sold overseas, and petroleum products are too expensive for most Nigerians. Nigeria has a strong central government with big revenues from oil, and it is Democratic, so it has all the things that modern Western politicians claim make a great nation. Maybe next year.

  34. Andrew says:

    Greens have done very well in decimating the Timber industry in Tasmania which has consequences for the rest of the country.

  35. Will says:

    As the world gradually becomes more and more populated these untouched areas will become rare and the unique

    No

    They become more common due to increases in prosperity.

    Societies can afford to set aside areas of “natural beauty”.

    If you ever got lost in such an area of “natural beauty” I would suggest that your opinion on the beauty would change radically as you starved to death.

  36. Gab says:

    World population “growth“.

  37. brc says:

    Grover, that’s crap on multiple levels.

    1. The world is hugely empty and full of wilderness. Casually staring out the window of any plane flight on any continent will show more bush than anything else. Even china and India have wilderness.

    2. Tourists, in the main, don’t give a crap about these types of places. They care about amenities and price. The most popular tourist spot in Australia is the gold coast, which has precious little natural environment left. Now, you might argue that the gold coast is terrible, I might even agree with you, but you cannot argue that tourists prefer Tasmanian wilderness to hotels, bars and shopping, because it clearly is not true.

    The most visited national park in this country is noosa national park. There is a reason for that – tourists can enjoy a quick walk to check it out between a morning latte and an afternoon beer. So unless you’re going to give approval for a noosa to be built on the coast of tasmania, complete with airport, roads, hotels, bars and canals, then the Eco-tourist thing is a complete failure.

    In reality eco-tourism is all about locking places up to keep out the riff-raff by only allowing very high priced accomodation : “national parks for me, but not for thee”

  38. dd says:

    I guess in economic terms ,the less there is of these natural untouched areas the more demand to see and appreciate them making them even more valuable.

    Yeah, what brc said.
    There’s some eco-tourism but it’s a niche industry, with a niche market. Nothing wrong with catering to niche markets, but eco-tourism is touted as the next big thing, and an economic saviour for Tasmania. It’s not and this is a lie. The plain facts are that tourists follow infrastructure and human footprint (selectively of course…. the Snowy Mountains Scheme isn’t exactly a drawcard)

    If your reasons are moral and aesthetic then be honest and say so. Don’t pretend it’s for economic reasons, or try to pretend that there is no economic tradeoff, no cost to the decision. There is a cost.

    Hand-waving about eco-tourism muddies the water and obfuscates the very real economic trade-offs involved in environmental protection.

  39. Andrew says:

    I guess Bob Brown will be tying himself to a tree in the Tarkine Wilderness. I say the miners just leave him there.

  40. Gab says:

    Around 3% of the world land mass is occupied by humans. 40% of land mass is being used for agriculture. Protected areas account for 12% of land mass but in 2011 signatory countries to the “Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to increase total protected area coverage to 17 percent of land”.

  41. dd says:

    You know, this is a pretty bad outcome for the greens. By pushing the government so hard to make a decision, they’ve in fact caused it to give the green light for development.

  42. thefrollickingmole says:

    Harold

    Kalggorlie and the area around it was known as “the treeless plain” during the gold rush era. They built 100s of kilometers of rail spurs further out in the bush for bringing back timber.

    It used to do everything, cooking, props for mines, heating, nearly any source of power was “wood driven”.

    Tech changed that, instead of a tonne of wood we use 10l of petrol or a KW of electricity.

    The area around Kal now had a lot of scrub/bush, some of it is even national park, despite being quite denuded of trees 150 years ago.

    If a section of the tarkine was mined how many decades do you think it would be before it would be virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding area?
    A lot of green bumf is “I like the way it looks now” dressed up as “Muh Grandchildren”.

    And another point, when you conspire to lock up every bit of hundreds of thousands of acres it vastly lessens your ability to claim “iconic” status for a particularly pretty 10 acres in the middle of it.

  43. Harold says:

    Just checking out your link dd…

    “This pollution-reducing forest planted over the summer is soaking up harmful excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing beneficial oxygen”

    “Once the trees are mature, it’s possible that they could become a renewable source of biofuel to reduce dependence on fossil fuels”

    Now who’s the greenie?

  44. dd says:

    Don’t troll, Harold.
    I guess my point stung and you have no response to it.

  45. Louis Hissink says:

    Biggest laugh was decades ago at Alcoa in the WA south west and their bauxite mining. One panel was rehabilitated by Alcoa and the idiot greenies (for idiots they are) reckoned that the rehabilitated panel was virgin bush untouched by the unclean mining people. The scheduled panel for mining was described by them as the result of bauxite mining. The idiots got it totally back to front then, and nothing has changed since.

  46. Mk50 of Brisbane says:

    No people in the Tarkine?
    Check.
    Taswegia’s a place where the term ‘uncle dad’ is considered normal?
    Check.
    The joint is run by greenfilth for their private benefit?
    Check.
    taswegia’s a welfare sewer?
    Check.

    Cool. Now I know where to put the nuclear waste dump.

  47. Ellen of Tasmania says:

    Thank you dd and brc. And thank you to our state government for a moment of extreme good sense.

    What is it with greenies and trees?

  48. Harold says:

    No dd sorry I’m just not putting too much effort into a thread where no one is interested in addressing the issue honestly for fear of being labelled green. To say that humans have provided a net boon to forests, as some are suggesting there, is just loony.

  49. Mk50 of Brisbane says:

    Harold… words fail me. You DO know that large tracts of Europe are re-afforesting, ditto the USA, ditto Canada (just what they need, more freaking pine trees), ditto Australia? parts of Asia are also reforesting and even the worst loggers like (spit) Rimbunan Hijau (spit) are being pressured to change their ways by home grown conservation groups (not communist greenfilth vermin, actual conservationists).

    Human deforestation is a factor of human poverty. Until 1810 98% of the human race was in poverty as they had always been, and we were deforesting the planet. Since 1820 the 1st and 2nd globalisations, international maritime trade and all of teh other miracles of capitalism mean that the % of the race in poverty has plunged to below 20% and the last great pool of human poverty is Africa, where it is a cultural structure far more than anything else.

Comments are closed.