The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Peace in Tasmania’s forests? > Comments

Peace in Tasmania’s forests? : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 17/6/2010

Renewed efforts to address Tasmania’s forestry conflict must overcome the uncompromising fervour which sustains it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
Maaate (or is it Simon?)
@ "the figures I gave are from the table on p16. I.E. 929,000 Ha"

You must be looking at a different report - p.16 of Criterion 1 State of Forests Report 2008, gives no such figure that I can see.

@ "Old growth logging is still rampant."

Oh that's right, you can't argue the numbers so you just change the definition.... why am I not surprised.

As I said, old growth logging is a non-issue, the greatest threat is and always has been fire. Over 100,000 ha of Vic old growth forest was killed by fire in 2003 and 06 fires (State of Forests Report 2008, Criterion 1, p.10). Substantial further areas killed on Black Saturday.

@ "Oh, so mensuration now has an ecological component?"

If the annual harvested wood volume is x and the total wood growth of the whole forest is 9 times x, the harvesting is easily sustainable and the ecological component is also proportionally growing isn't it?

@ "You also assume .... the premise that the sole means of regeneration is through catastrophic fire events which is a demonstrably false premise as I pointed out earlier"

Perhaps you need to study Australian ecology.

@ "During 2006-2007 a total of 6,250 Ha of native forests was logged across Victoria. I'll bet that most of that had never been logged before ..... "

Well lets see, most harvesting in Central Victoria is fire regrowth which may or may not have been logged before, but has surely been heavily disturbed.

In Gippsland, there is a significant area of thinning of regrowth from past logging or fire. So your bet is probably wrong ...
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Wednesday, 23 June 2010 11:49:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maaate (Simon?) ..... Continued

@ "At least I'm not here to get rich or earn an income from what I do. I'm driven by a desire to leave a planet that is in as good, if not better, condition than when I got here. I hate to see greed and myopic self interest destroy nature needlessly"

This is where you have absolutely no idea. Unlike you, I'm driven not by ideology, but by training and experience over three decades. People don't take up the forestry profession to get rich - most earn very moderate wages - and niether do they take it up with the aim of "needlessly destroying nature". Believe it not, most have the same aim as you in wanting to husband the environment for the future.

The difference is that working in and around forests on a daily basis gives insights and forces pragmatic understanding of the fragility and resilience of nature, particularly in relation to fire and its inevitability. People like you seem unwilling to grasp that actively managing forests is essential to protecting forest ecosystems, and so push the simplistic notion that effectively putting a fence around it is the better way.

The economic use of a minor portion of the forest both provides essential materials for our society, but also employs people and funds activities that enhance the capability to manage fire. Evicting all use and attempting to preserve areas, makes it that much more difficult to maintain this management capability - and the results have been gradually coming home to roost since 2003.

You will undoubtedly view this as an arrogant comment, but I believe most of your ilk simply don't even know what you don't know. Ultimately, your efforts to close down all or virtually all forest uses will, if successful, reward you (and unfortunately the rest of us) with perverse environmental outcomes which are the antithesis of what you think you are striving for
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 24 June 2010 12:01:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maaate

@ "The current template whereby all native forests are logged in broadacre clearfells is untenable on numerous levels"

All native forests are not logged in broadacre clearfells. A large proportion is logged by seed tree system in which habitat and seed trees are retained, and as mentioned earlier, the selective thinning of advanced regrowth is quite substantional now in East Gippsland.

I accept that though that your propensity to question definitions means that you probably view everything as a clearfell.

In Vic in the late 1970's, up to 25,000 ha was being harvested per annum, with the majority being selective harvested in places like the Wombat Forest, the Box Ironbark forests, the Murray Valley red gum forests, and the South and East Gippsland coastal forests. All of these areas are now in parks or reserves (bar the Wombat SF where anti-logging activism forced the industry to close). So it is a bit hard to believe that anti-forestry fervour can be appeased simply by shifting from clearfalling to selective harvesting even if the silvicultural requirements of the remaining avialable and suitable forests allowed it.

@ "If the industry could restrict itself to operating in previously logged forest, ..... I could live with such an industry"

Whoa! Now if you are who I think you are (or even if not), I'll bet you fully supported the closure of timber industries in the Otways, Wombat and red gum forests. Yet timber production in those areas was already restricted to regrowth from past harvesting or disturbance, such as the regrowth of abandoned farmland. Sadly, its all a bit late now for those whose livelihoods were needlessly ended by anti-logging activism and for forests made more vulnerable to fire by the withdrawal of personnel and expertise that traditionally managed the threat
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 24 June 2010 4:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From 23 June 2010 11:49:05 PM

My name isn't Simon.

“ p.16 of Criterion 1 State of Forests Report 2008, gives no such figure that I can see. “

Try 2.1, Table 1, p6 (if that fails, both references are correct for versions currently available online)

“you just change the definition.... why am I not surprised. “

After bureaucrats changed the scientific definition of rainforest to suit their agenda it became apparent that the technical “definitions” provided by the timber industry weren't worth the paper they were written on. I've explained why I don't favor concentrating on a narrow growth stage as the only forest type worth preserving. What part of “If it hasn't been logged before, don't log it” don't you understand?

Referring to OG: “Substantial further areas killed on Black Saturday.”

All the more reason to put remaining old growth (that would be older aged unlogged forest) into the reserve system.

“...the ecological component is also proportionally growing isn't it?”

No Mark, if you take unlogged forest and put it into an estate that is logged every 60-80 yrs it is not fulfilling its biological potential. That forest estate is in a perpetual state of arrested development i.e. in ecological deficit.

“Perhaps you need to study Australian ecology.”

So a bit of charcoal in the soil profile is evidence of short interval catastrophic fire events across all forest types? How do you explain forests that haven't seen fire for 500+ yrs and look the same today as they did when Cook landed? (some of the individual trees probably haven't changed too much in that time either) That'd include those high rainfall elevated forests Mark, you know, the ones you are turning into virtual monocultures. How do you explain trees across the state that are 500, 1000 or 1500+ yrs old?

cont...
Posted by maaate, Friday, 25 June 2010 12:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...

Why weren't they killed in these catastrophic fires that ravaged the landscape at the intervals we have seen in the past century or 80 yr intervals of current logging regimes? Why did the pioneers and explorers write so many accounts of forests made up of huge old trees? How does a bit of charcoal in the soil justify destroying a 500 year old forest and then destroying it again every 80 years? And boy, with the rate of fuel build up we better burn it every 3 years just to be safe! The problem with dogma is that it constricts the intellect until people just stop thinking altogether. I've read the texts, where is the evidence?

According to your logic and account of land management Mark, if we cut down forests, bulldoze and burn them every 80 years we'd be mimicking natural processes and aboriginal practices.

Just keep peddling that false logging/fire meme as hard as you can. And while you're at it keep burning coal and oil, and keep logging the wet forests and rainforests that naturally suppressed and limited megafires, and keep transforming forests in general into tinderboxes through logging and indiscriminate fuel reduction burns because the fire industry is a fantastic sideline for the timber industry. Why eke out a living woodchipping when you can get payed premium rates from the taxpayer honey pot and sometimes get to act like a hero on the fire front? I find the relationship a little perverse. A bit like the pyromaniacs who join the CFA.

Am I being intentionally offensive? No more offensive than your posturing as an "authority" and the "the voice of reason". Your rants about "green ideology" could be seen as a projection of timber industry dogma and a cult like mentality. I'm just testing that dogma and orthodoxy and have found it a little brittle.
Posted by maaate, Friday, 25 June 2010 12:23:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: 24 June 2010 12:01:20 AM

"you probably view everything as a clearfell."

Seed tree coupes are about as close as you'll get.

"it is a bit hard to believe that anti-forestry fervour can be appeased simply by shifting from clearfalling to selective harvesting"

You only need to make operations acceptable to 80% of Australians rather than objectionable to 80% of Australians.

I supported the Wombat Forest Community Forest Management (CFM) and thought it was disgraceful the way it was white-anted from every angle. Different regional communities and campaigns have their own agendas. I've followed the issue intently since the 80's but I'm not in, nor do I represent any formal group. I used to do a bit of formal campaigning but now it's less structured. I'm now just one of the hordes of everday people who objects to the current practices of the timber and fibre industry. I'd like to see a system whereby plantations look like forests rather than one where forests look like plantations. I don't have any inherent objection to logging in forests. It's a matter of what, where, how, when and why. Obviously I believe that's a reasonable request for access to a public resource. If you can stop making people like me angry you will be able to go about your business in relative peace. By the nature of what you do you will always have some opposition. They're not the ones you need to worry about. Extreme positions will alienate themselves.

It's all about proportion. The industry seems to lack that judgment. You say we're wrong. We say you're wrong. The court of public opinion will decide.
Posted by maaate, Friday, 25 June 2010 1:11:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy