Tasmanian Boat building timber availability

[dopeydriver]

I hope AD doesn't mind , 'cuz I've sooled the Weekly Times on to this .
Rob J.

[HOOKED.UP]

I no longer support the so called "green" movement in Tasmania.

I am all for clear felling of old forests.

Big statemement I know and will probably get me into trouble with you guys.

"BUT", I have lived in the country since 1962 and am surrounded by trees.

Old trees are generally just that. Rotten in the butt, dead in the head.

Many are not even worth fire wood value.

There are a few exceptions ofcourse. But rare.

I have logged for boat building timbers, house timbers and shingles.

The best trees in Tas, seem to be about the 80 to 120 year old trees.

My only concern is for the really beautiful minor species, which grow in our Tasmanian Forests.

Theses are the prized boat building timbers, wood turning timbers and furniture timber.

The biggest long term money earner for this state is in timber..We don't have any other renewable resource on our tiny island.

Locking up our future is a waste of this state.

I also believe, Pinus Crapiata, should be banned.

We grow great hard woods and speciality timbers.

Why not capitalise on this natural resouce. No one is making more land. We need to make the best use of what we have, for the future.

Paul.

[dopeydriver]

Paul , I know where you are coming from.
Its those 2 words again "Common Sense" , and add another "management".
Locking the forest up isn't management , or Common Sense .
Its not using to advantage the best timbers , and its not weeding out the rubbish .
I know there are good people there who know how to manage the forests sustainably , lets take out the politics , and leave them do their job.
Regards Rob J.

[HOOKED.UP]

Hi Rob.

The problem with all conservation issues since the 1960's.

Is emotion.
It is really easy for the media to sell an emotional message in 30 seconds.

It Is much harder to relay "facts" to a group of people, who live in cities sand don't want to be bored by reality.

The other problem is the "pro loggers" are not supported by any media corporation, because there are no short term stories in facts.

Just the start of the discussion mate.

Paul.

[dopeydriver]

No argument from me Paul .
I could prattle on with my experiences , but I'm trying to keep this thread focused on this Tasmanian situation , and how it can be sorted out.
I agree with you , locking the forest up does nothing for industries relying on the timbers , or the forest itself.
I'm also no fan of MIS plantations either , they are a disaster .I'm living amongst a number of them now.
What is needed is intelligent management of forests , and intelligent replanting of appropriate plantations , like what I know as "landcare".
But I'm really trying to keep the focus on availability of quality boat building timbers , to sustain your iconic boatbuilding industry.
Regards Rob J.

[b.o.a.t.]

I'm not sure I can offer much in the way of positive vibes in this issue.

Firstly, politicians are involved who, in my experience, individually tend to be
decent intelligent people. However, as a group seem inordinately attracted to
herd behaviours. Particularly easily frightened by people making loud emotional
noises. So straight away, common sense is stuffed (in the taxidermic sense of
the word.)

Secondly, the clear-fell / wood chip industry is the Big Ogre of the Tassie
forestry scene. It is so big, & excites such strong reactions, for and against,
that all possibility of other forms of forest use are forgotten. Or worse,
deliberately sacrificed to 'get' the Big Ogre. It is quite possible that the
powers that be are fully aware of the loss of Tas specialty timbers, & are
quite happy for others to pay that price to obtain peace on the high profile
issue. Particularly a minority government near the end of its tenure. In a
couple of years, the very few who cared will have given up, and it'll be the
other mob's problem anyway.

On the whole, the Tassie peace deal is probably good for Big Forestry and
the greenies, even though extremists from both are still posturing about it.
Where it fails is lack of recognition for long-term sustainable selective
harvesting of specialty native timbers.

Agree with Hooked-Up on banning Pinus crapiata (and its cousins).
Green deserts.
Devoid of sound & life other than the few fungi which can decompose their
fallen needles & branches. They poison the soil beneath them, preventing
most local species growing in it for years after they are gone. Which is fine
if you are growing Pinus crapiata plantations. Awful if you've just got rid of
some of the mongrels...

cheers
AJ

[b.o.a.t.]

Wot 'e said.

Hi Rob.

The problem with all conservation issues since the 1960's.

Is emotion.
It is really easy for the media to sell an emotional message in 30 seconds.

It Is much harder to relay "facts" to a group of people, who live in cities sand don't want to be bored by reality.

The other problem is the "pro loggers" are not supported by any media corporation, because there are no short term stories in facts.

Just the start of the discussion mate.

Paul.

[dopeydriver]

AJ , no argument from me either .
EXCEPT , I don't believe we , or the Tasmanian boat builders need to accept being wiped off the map , in the greenies hunt for the bigger target.
Thats just a cop out .
They are going about it all the wrong way.
Instead , they should be making sure that there is a well managed and sustainable saw log industry . Its not hard , it was already in place.
Then if they want to lock horns with the wood chip industry , fine , but leave the rest of the forestry industries out of it.
If they can't manage that , then they are in the wrong job .
I think we know THAT already .
Regards Rob J.

[b.o.a.t.]

Questions - probably best answered by AD and/or other Tassie builders.

To what extent is your business dependant upon availability of exclusively Tassie
timbers like celery top, king billy, sass & myrtle compared with builders elsewhere?
Put another way, if you were forced to turn to plantation or imported
alternatives like hoop, pawlonia, NZ pine, etc, would it be the end of your
business? Or "just" (note the inverted commas) its heritage / uniqueness ?

Are all sources of these timbers locked up under the peace deal ?
Are there no other viable sources whatsoever ?

cheers
AJ

[dopeydriver]

As a potential client AJ , the wood means everything.
And why go all of the way to Tasmania to have a boat built out of an imported timber ?.
I am actively in the market now for a boat style that was built a lot in Tassie , the first thing I'm looking for is what timber it was built in , and then by whom .
Regards Rob J.

[bloggs1968]

Hi AJ,

I wrote a lengthy post in reply but the bloody thing disappeared when I tried to post it aarrgghh!

Anyway here's a second attempt - bit lengthy but a lot to try and explain..

Celery top pine is the most used timber in my business and is used for all structural members on boats to around 30'. It is a wonderful boat building timber - more like a hardwood than a softwood. It hold fastenings,glues, steams and finishes well and most importantly is stable in service thanks to the slow grwqoing nature of the species. A good boat log is around 400 years old.

A report commissioned by Forestry Tas in 2009 (Woodcraft Study) found that amongst 56 Tasmanian boat building businesses( there are more than this), celery was the mosed used timber (42%) with huon further down the list at 28% - so it's importance to the local industry is paramount.

Whilst we could use some other imported species in our smaller modern epoxy boats, in any traditional work it would be very difficult to find a suitable replacement. Rob has hit the nail on the head in his last post about the uniqueness/iconic nature of the Tassie boat building industry and it is true - people buy boats from here not just because of the skilled craftspeople but because of the timber.

Supply has been an issue here for a number of years. The 2005 Tas Community Forest Agreement locked up substantial tracts of forest where special timbers (ST) could be harvested from. The result was a reduction in available special timbers from just over 22,000 cubic metres per annum to 13,300 cubic metres per annum. The reduction in log volume has also seen a reduction in log quality which is a bit of a double whammy. Interestingly, celery top pine was the second most harvested timber with blackwood being the most harvested. The Woodcraft study and other anecdotal evidence showed that at 13,300 cubes per year of ST production, the industry demand was still not being met. The Woodcraft study also showed that one of the biggest impediments to the value adding industry progressing was that resource availability was perceived to be unreliable so many businesses were stockpiling timber to "future proof" themselves but this had the effect of stiffling investment (and cashflow!!)

The proposals being put forward by the ENGOs in this debate range from a further reduction of ST availablity to just over 6,000 cubic metres per annum to a full transition into plantation timbers by the industry

In addition, if areas finally set aside for ST harvesting have no infrastructure and are hard to access then the cost of the timber will skyrocket to the point of it being not commercially viable to use.

From July this year, the Tassie legislated supply of sawlog (300,000 cubic metres per annum) has been cut in half. As a lot of our special timbers came from coupes that were primarily targeted for eucalypt production there will be an obvious impact. The bottom line is that most of our fine timbers here are sourced from old growth or long term(180 year plus) regrowth - if we are not cutting old growth forest we do not cut special timbers.

In the end this doesn't just affect Tassie, a large proportion of mainland furniture makers and crafts people use this timber. Have a look at Kelty's interim report page 64 to see what the furniture makers are concerned about

Tasmanian Forests - Interim Report - for consideration

There has been a total disconnect in this debate between environmental and economic outcomes and it will have a disastrous effect on the wellbeing of families and businesses.

The $$ value of coversion of special timbers to end products is pretty amazing, some examples from the Woodcraft Study are;

. Production Furniture ‐ timber valued at $800 is transformed into a $2400Shelving unit;

· Designer Maker ‐ timber valued at $2500 is transformed into a $20,000 Table & Chairs setting for 8 people;

$800 flitch transformed into a $28,000 table.

· Small Products ‐ timber valued at $13.50 is transformed into a $225 Pepper Grinder;

· Boatbuilding ‐ CTP/Huon Pine timber valued at $30,000 to $40,000 is transformed into a $350, 000 boat;

· Musical Instruments ‐ timber valued at $200 is transformed into a $3000Guitar; and

· Scrap timber is transformed into 100 timber pens with a retail value of$2,495

All these value adding industries when lumped together contribute upwards of $300 million dollars to the Tassie economy with Boat building comprising 50-75 million of that alone ( source ABS 2006 census data) so we are not talking small change here.

Anyway AJ and others, I appreciate the forum discussion and I sincerely hope that some form of sustainable, long term outcome will come of the current debate.

regards,

AD

[dopeydriver]

Thanks AD.
At the risk of a little thread drift , I've been reading about the irrigation infrastructure fund , and the stalling tactics of the Federal Government , to actually hand over the promised funds.
They should have been delivered over a year ago.
But it hasn't stopped the politicians using it as their personal slush fund , to the tune of $500,000,000 or so !.
That fund is of vital importance to the MDB , and the people who use the water , farmers , businesses , communities , and the rivers themselves all need this money spent as it was promised and intended.
The reason I bring this up is that if they do to the Tasmanian promises what they have done to the IIF promises , you are gonna be in big trouble !.
Regards Rob J.

[Bernt]

Hi I am new to this forum, I'm very interested in this subject. I have been building on wooden boats in the Netherlands but the industry was becoming very small. Since moving to Australia almost 8 years ago I have been into furniture and yacht interiors. Three years ago I moved to Tassie with one of the major attractions its beautiful timber.
I have been worried about availability especially since I operate my own small mill and come across the very limited quality log supply.
I am interested to know what people think about this: In my opinion specialty timbers are very cheap at the moment. If you look at timber prices on a world wide scale I think maybe too cheap. For the sustainability of those timbers wouldn't it help if the price was higher. Celery top pine for example is one of my favorite timbers. For boats I regard it as high as teak or mahogany the traditional timbers but its almost a quarter of the price (or less). Same with huon pine, for how scarce it is, it's still pretty cheap. If the price was higher those timbers would only end up in the higher value adding industries. And really, if you look at the figures AD mentions, would a higher timber price really make a huge difference to final product price? Maybe if the price was more in line with its real value, not so many nice 100x100 CTP posts end up being used for verandas and select grade CTP for flooring. Maybe then a very nice sawlog will get cut up for what boatbuilders need it for. Eventually when prices do go up it will be worth doing selective logging and picking only the trees that are worth milling up for high value adding industries. At the moment 8 out of 10 logs I get would have been better of still standing but it is a by product of eucalypt logging (clearfelling). One good CTP sawlog should be worth enough to justify getting it out of the forrest. I am under the impression that sawmillers also sell high grade timber with standard grade to keep the standard up, it would also be hard to find an outlet for the 8 out of ten logs that don't produce boat grade timber if CTP was not so popular by builders for decking, cladding and posts.
In the end maybe a stop to the old growth harvesting practices at the moment is the best way forward even though at the short term if will limit supply, if things can move towards a selective logging in the long run we might end up with better sawlogs (sadly at a higher price) since we can let them grow to 400+ years old. The only people who should have a problem with this are those who don't do much value adding.
At the moment for every cube of high grade CTP I want to cut I end up with at least 4 times that in a lower grade, I have to buy many more logs then I should need so maybe if we move to selective logging the real price of good sawlogs won't even be that different. Now it seems almost more logical for me to focus on cutting a lower grade and sell the occasional high grade board
with it to keep my customers happy. (Builders seem to prefer clean timber as well) Which of course is not good for boat builders.

[dopeydriver]

Well Bernt , my opinion is extremely jaundiced , so easily discounted , I guess.
I started making furniture over 50 years ago , and I still have all of it.
And that is where I got the love of wood , I guess.
The interest in wooden boats came along 20 years after that , and actual involvement in wooden boats 20 years after that .
And yes , I've done my research , I've got every relevent book I can get my hands on in my library.
The boatbuilding industry , the boating industry itself in Tasmania is quite remarkable , and the big part of that is the timbers that were used , the iconic Huon , Celery Top , King Billy all were used to great advantage on the island of Tasmania , to build their boats , which are still prized , greatly.
Yes , the timbers were used at an unsustainable rate , and this had to be addressed .
Yes , a lot of the CT trees left are probably the rubbish that was passed over time and time again.
Pricing the timber higher , well , I'm not going to get in to that argument , but what I do believe is that there should be an availability , first and foremost , for the boat building industry to be looked after .
But that is just me , my opinion , if the state is of the opinion that furniture is of a higher value than traditional boating , then so be it .
As far as furniture goes now , I would never have a tree cut down , to make furniture , there is plenty of secondhand timber available , often just for the asking.
I was given an old disassembled house load , about 4 years ago , absalutely beautiful straight hardwoods most I have still got.
But whatever the outcome , there has to be serious work done to keep the Tasmanian wood industries going . Locking them up isn't going to achieve that.
Regards Rob J.

[Bernt]

Hi Rob
I agree that availability is vital to keeping this industry alive. If these timbers are so unique and valuable to us, a different method to supply this timber might be the way to go. If timber will have to end up costing more because it won't be considered a by product of eucalypt. harvest that might be to best solution to ensure non of it gets wasted. If you look at the way timber gets harvested elsewhere in the world, maybe in the future we see helicopters involved getting this valuable resource out, but not at $200/ton.
For the moment I am sure people have hoarded lots of it (I am guilty too) to keep the industry going for a while, if the prices go up investors might finally sell some of this.
As for use, I regard boatbuilding, furniture making, instrument making all the same that they can really ad value to the timber. But at these prices we will end up seeing lots of it go overseas, already there is tasmanian blackwood furniture for sale in Hobart made in China. I am hoping that as prices go up availability goes up.