The government has argued that the days of subsidies are over, but who knows with future governments.

It took some months last year to discover that the new energy entity TasNetworks had been forced to funnel $30 million into FT's coffers to cover its losses.

In 2013-14 taxpayers propped up FT with $23 million and $35 million the year before. It suffered operating losses of $43 million ($14 million the year prior) is cutting staff, selling off some assets and does not make any financial return to taxpayers.

Why do we still own it? It sits on the books like a sentimental family heirloom, diminished in value.

Former Legislative Council president and highly respected deputy chair of the government's ministerial advisory council on forestry, Sue Smith, wants it sold and she has a point.

FT's product is now greatly constrained, in areas set aside for wood production. As a manager of our forests it is a tragic victim of political meddling by successive governments and of course the highly political environment debate.

The government may dig in its heels and maintain an expectation of a sustainable industry but the golden years of wood production on a large scale are fading. Future growth is a vain hope rather than an expectation.

FT has reducing revenue and net assets of $30 million ($70 million the year prior). The business outlook and health of the business make future government subsidies inevitable at some stage.

FT is selling its hardwood plantations, which must affect its ability to generate revenue. Tasmania is not wealthy enough to carry it. The functions could be better managed by private sector players.

Forestry Tasmania is no worse than a number of government businesses, protected by a sentimental public, hoarding our heirlooms. There should be a dispassionate debate about its future.

- BARRY PRISMALL, deputy editor