I wouldn't object so much to selective logging of ancient trees if they didn't trash the whole adjoining forest as with clear felling. That alters the forest ecology with changes to microclimate and water retention. Small animals are then killed by poison, bullets or traps. In the subsequent burnoff the carbon stored in the undergrowth and forest floor is converted to atmospheric CO2. Should they pay carbon tax? In some cases more than 50% of the giant logs turn out to have splits so they are only suitable for chipping, not sawing. Hardly a dignified fate for a senior citizen.

Recently carpenters have been complaining that plantation timber is not fine grained enough. Then they must go back to year 1650 in a time machine and plant enough seedlings for the present. It may not have been such a problem if so many magnificent trees hadn't been logged, chipped or burned for a pittance. Visitors from Europe think Tasmanians must be deranged for placing little value on such magnificent trees.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some of these people found something useful to worry about.

Obviously some people have it too easy, & have far too much time on their hands

Trees cant talk. Let alone tell tales.

Hasbeen
It might be true that what worries the author is not worth worrying about, and that people like him have it too easy and spend too little time doing useful things. But you'll need to do more than simply assert it to convince anyone.

Houellebecq,
Trees can't tell us things? Yes they can. If they are old enough.

The author appears to be a lover of imaginative tall stories.

It is extremely unlikely that three logs on one truck coming from the one operation in Blue Tier area on 1 March would not have been myrtle.

Given the size described they are most likely to have been eucalyptus regnans presuming from description they were logs in the round they would not have been Bell Bay bound but heading to a Tasmanian sawmill, either Gunns at Western Junction of Morgans at Travellers rest.

However if they were Myrtle saw logs they would be marketted by Island specialty Timber http://www.forestrytas.com.au/shops/ist/pages/special-species-timbers/myrtle at about $400 per cubic metre in log form.

So don't feel sad for the tree that was at the end of its life cycle, it could provide some one with a sturdy shelter or beautiful piece of furniture for another 500 years.

And the children will be able to run around in the native forest and climb regrowing trees till they are great grand parents because forest do grow back even and despite the excesses of the tin miners, who are so often lauded in the same florid prose as demonises the foresters.

For actual facts on myrtle and other Tasmanian specialty timbers why not check http://tasmaniantimbers.com/tas-timbers.html

Native forestry, esp in Tasmania, has arguably been by far the most misrepresented environmental issue for decades. David Leigh's article continues this unfair demonisation through factual errors (or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation?) and a determined avoidance of any discussion of scale and perspective.

Between 80 - 90% of the Blue Tier is in conservation reserves that will never be logged. Ditto for Tasmanian 'old growth' forest in general.

The term 'High Conservation Value' forest is a term invented by environmental activists as a means of encompassing greater areas of forest (in fact it is effectively used to encompass all forests that are not already reserved) - but has no scientific definition (which allows it to be misused).

There has to be a villian - so of course, it is Gunns fault that large old Myrtle trees are being 'exported to Chinese sawmills'. In fact, this is not happening, although as I understand it, Forestry Tasmania (not Gunns)are exporting some low grade eucalypt logs.

Finally, contrary to Mr Leigh's assertions, a balance between conserving most native forests and harvesting some for timber and fibre is, according to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007), a better carbon abatement outcome then trying to preserve all forests and driving increased use of non-wood substitute materials which embody far greater carbon emissions in their life cycle.

As a boy I was told similar stories about the poor bear-cub or rabbit who died because I wouldn't eat my soup.

How much did the government pay you, David, directly or otherwise, for placing this story on OLO with the intent of making us all feel guilty, thus justify the government's existence and coercive actions?

Sometimes, to find real value, we need to cut through the mindless utilitarianism that plagues the modern mind. David Leigh's account of a single majestic tree does this eloquently.

The responses are interesting too. Cinders and Mark Poynter remind me of two yapping lapdogs prancing around the carcass of a giant vanquished by their master. There's something perverse and repulsive in these antics. When a dignified silence is called for, perhaps some recognition of a great natural resilience and beauty, they regale us with asinine whining.

The last time I engaged with my old sparring partner Mark, on his misleading use of statistics relating to forests, and the farcical proposition that clearfelling forest sequesters carbon, he did a runner.

Check it out... http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/use-up-to-date-research/show_comments

The author should be aware that not all trees live indefinitely in the absence of man. Many fall over time for natural reasons, viz. blown over by gales, struck by lightning, crowded out by other trees, tree rot, vermin attack, etc

Mark, the term “High Conservation Old Growth Forest was, as you so rightly point out, invented by environmentalists. That was out of sheer frustration from the forest industry changing the rules to suit themselves. “Old Growth, as now defined in Tasmania, is forest that has had some re-growth in the past 100 or so years. Even if a lighting strike has caused enough damage to create re-growth it is no longer defined as old growth. In the protected Tarkine Wilderness area, there were no Eucalypt species, just Myrtle as a canopy and Blackwood, Sass-A-Fras and leatherwood as an under story plus forest floor vegetation. According to the Tasmanian forest industry, if a forest has more than 6% Eucalypt it is also no longer “Old Growth” or ancient forest. I did note, when I last visited the Tarkine, huge areas of old growth forest being clear-felled and converted to Eucalypt. One wonders how long it will be before the 6% mark is reached and it becomes open slather in the Tarkine, especially as Mr Burke has now given the green light for mining in the area.
There are so many changes to the rules, where Tasmanian forestry is concerned that environmentalists have to keep inventing new terms, in order to save the forests from the greedy destruction. Most Tasmanians, myself included, do not have a problem with logging of native forests. It is the scale and sheer waste of the Tasmanian operations that sickens environmentalists. In a typical logging coupe, around 96% of all trees clear-felled end up at the wood chipper and only 4% are used as saw logs. It is true that some of the smaller and less attractive logs go to china, because the Chinese have managed to find a way of using them for solid wood products (that does not say much for Tasmanian ingenuity).

maate

If coming to a conclusion that it is pointless to continue engaging with someone such as yourself who argues irrationally and deceptively, is dismissive of facts and relies on conspiracy theories, as well as being borderline abusive, .... then I suppose I am guilty as charged of doing 'a runner' as you put it. Some of us have better things to do, and it is time-consuming to do the factual homework for the likes of you, only for it to be simply ignored.

All that people such as Cinders and myself are trying to do is put forth a little perspective in regard to often outrageously errant claims such as the central implication of David Leigh's article that logging is destroying the Blue Tier's forests. Clearly this can't be true if 80 - 90% are already reserved and will not be logged. If David had researched the subject properly and included all the facts, we would have no need to comment.

Rather than pristine forest the area around the Blue Tier particularly Lottah, is hardly undisturbed as this historical photo demonstrates: http://catalogue.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/item/?subject=Lottah&i=9&id=PH30-1-1883

What MWPoynter is referring to is the statement from the IPCC which is easy to find and quote:
“In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.”

It seems nonsense to continue to quote or publish poorly researched articles from the Tasmanian times. When such a publication is clearly conflicted by the green groups opposition to the pulp mill despite it saving over a million tonnes of Greenhouse gas and meeting the Independent expert group detailed assessment that it’s treated waste water will have NO adverse environmental impact on Bass Strait. One of these experts used to be a key member of the Wilderness society’s wild country Science Panel.

The other half of the green movement want to trade their support for the pulp mill for locking up another 600,000 ha of native forests to expand the 1.4 million ha forest reserve that exists today including the best bits of the Blue Tier.

They are now supporting plantations despite only recently supporting the ABC's flawed Australian Story that claimed plantations near the Blue Tier were poisoning the water at nearby St Helens.

David

Re: Old growth forest definition:
Contrary to your assertion, the 'forest industry' has not 'changed the rules to suit themselves'. The definition of 'old growth' is a scientific (not industry) matter and it aligns with the JANIS criteria used to create the CAR reserve system during the Regional Forest Agreements. It hasn't changed, but how it translates at the coupe level has been problematic because coupes may contain a few old trees or a patch of old trees, but how much was required for the coupe to be designated as on 'old growth' coupe? My understanding is that at first, an 'old growth' coupe had to be at least 25% comprised of 'old growth' trees, but later this was altered to 15% - a change which favoured more environmental protection, not disadvantaged it as you seem to be saying.

Re: The Tarkine:
Again, this is another invention of the environmental movement who simply pointed to a region on a map of Tasmania and gave it the name Tarkine for marketing and campaign purposes. Evolving in such a way as it has, there are problems with where the boundary is, and that lies at the heart of your allegations about logging. Can you tell me where the bounday is? Also, your other allegation about the Tarkine being all rainforest species is way off the mark, the majority is eucalypt forest.

David, continued response

Re: the 'sheer scale and waste'.....
Of Tasmania's public forests, 74% are already either in formal parks and reserves, informal management reserves, or are effectively reserved by being unsuitable for logging. So, only about a quarter are actually to be used for timber, plus the timber production that occurs in privately-owned forests. This is hardly worthy of the concern you have ascribed to it.

Also, the majority of Tasmanian logging is selective logging, not clearfelling as you have implied.

Your assertion that '96% of trees go to the wood chipper and only 4% are sawlogs' is also wrong. In fact, Forestry Tasmania figures are that its about an 80:20 pulp log:sawlog split , but then further wood chips are produced from off-cuts of the sawmilling process which converts round logs to sawn boards.

Re: Chinese exports
If you know that 'some of the smaller and less attractive logs go to china' why did you assert in your article that very large, high value Mrytle logs were to be exported?

Mark, I can think of a couple of reasons why you didn't respond to my questions at TT.

1/ The data is not collected and collated. This would make a mockery of your claim that (conservationists) "don't know what they don't know".

2/ The data is collected but supports my assertion so you chose not to confirm it.

My on ground experience and rough extrapolations drawn from publicly available data suggest a combination of both.

Surely a forester is better positioned than a "rank amateur" and outsider such as myself to produce these statistics (if they are collected)? I pretty much gave you carte blanche in that one comment at TT. If it was a game of poker, you didn't even bother folding, you just legged it from the table...and you're still running. I'll take that as confirmation and vindication.

Cinders, you can deride "poorly researched" articles at TT all you like. I made some rough calculations and anyone is free to refute or challenge them. Even better if they provide peer reviewed papers to refute them.

I asked the question, why would you release approx. 99.725% of sequestered carbon in a given forest in the hope of temporarily sequestering approx. 0.225% temporarily in fence rails, pallets and perhaps, if you're lucky, some hardwood veneer, flooring and furniture?

I based my rough calculations on;

a pers. comm. with researchers in East Gippsland who were finding approx. 80% of carbon in these temperate forests was stored in the soil. (not sure if paper has been published yet)

which appears to be supported by recent research showing "2700 Gt of carbon is stored in soils worldwide, which is well above the combined total of atmosphere (780 Gt) or biomass (575 Gt)".

Around 33% of biomass is root systems.

Presumably a similar % in crown and non-target species.

A significant proportion of boles (trunks) are left in coupes and burned along with slash comprising of crowns, bark and under-story thus releasing into the atmosphere a significant proportion of the carbon remaining on site after logging.

Of logs removed around 85% ends up as woodchips.

If the remaining 15% of logs removed are sawlogs, amount of sawn timber recovered from those logs will be in the order of 30% (70% waste)

Government research shows paper has a average life of 3 years before ending up in landfill where decomposition releases methane and CO2.

etc etc

Feel free to challenge my figures and provide an alternative figure for potential carbon sequestration from clearfell logging.

maaate
Keep going ... you are only proving the truth of my earlier post that it is pointless to engage with someone who prefers to play games than actually address the matters raised in the article. And from my past experience of engaging with you, I know your tangents will require me doing a lot of research about obscure questions that you raise, only for you to ignore the results while raising evermore obscure questions. No thanks.

I think anyone going to the Tasmanian Times link you have provided will see what I mean. You seem to presume I spend my time monitoring these sites (perhaps like you do) – I don’t, and I’m not even sure of the questions I’m supposed to be running from, but have no intention of revisiting the said article to find out. As I said earlier, I have other things to do – like earn a living.

I’ll just say one thing about your post in response to Cinders, and particularly your views about soil carbon. It seems that you believe that forestry activities have a major impact on soil carbon when in fact forest soils can be many metres deep and the effects of a slash burn, for example, really only affects the surface layer. You can’t just presume that forestry causes all carbon in soils to be emitted as you seem to. You also forget that carbon is sequestered in the subsequent regrowth, thereby making logging, if conducted sustainably, a carbon-neutral activity.

Actually Mark, my figures should not been seen as <1% carbon sequestered (positive) so much as 99% carbon released (negative). Clearfell logging of undisturbed mature and older native forest is not even close to carbon neutral let alone carbon positive.

Supposing a tall wet eucalypt forest stores 1200t/ha carbon* and contains 200m3/ha of commercial logs. * (can be as high as 2800t/ha)

Using a coupe of 40ha as a basis for calculations, a potential 48,000t of carbon will be unlocked upon clearfelling. On average, of 8000t of timber recovered, 6800t will end up as chip logs and 1200t as sawlogs. Assuming 30% recovery rate, that's 360t of merchantable sawn timber. So, of 48,000t of carbon about 360t has a chance of being sequestered in sawn timber products. Around 99% of carbon within a stable cycle is released in the process.

How many years does it take a clearfelled forest to resequester all the carbon that was released when it was first logged? "The average net primary productivity (NPP) of these natural forests was 12 t C ha-1 yr-1 (with a standard deviation of 1.8)." At that rate it would take 100 years to sequester 1200t C. It's a physical impossibility to return to pre-logging carbon levels if you then re-log that area in short rotations (approx. 60 years) and that's what happens in managed forests. Every rotation will decrease the amount of carbon stored in that forest.

Now I'll concede that not all carbon stored in the soil will necessarily be released by clearfelling. But, seeing as I'm a mere "greenie", and "don't know what I don't know", you're going to point me toward the definitive research and predictive models that can accurately determine the proportion of soil carbon that will be released by clearfelling in various forest types?

Admittedly, my figures are rough by design but every paper I have read on this subject makes the timber industry's claim of being carbon neutral or positive seem ridiculous.

My other questions stand, no amount of ducking and weaving invalidates them.

Well said Maaate, on all counts. I think Mark and Cinders should stay in their offices and do their research a bit more, or better still, go into areas such as the Tarkine. Mark, you are right on one thing, the Tarkine official boundaries are, to say the least, sketchy. That is because it was removed from all government maps, at the request of the logging industry. I suggest you take a trip to the Arthur River region and count the eucalypt species that have not been introduced by logging operations, before the area becomes a war zone. And Yuyutsu, I do not work for the government, either federally or at state level. They would be the last people to employ me. In Tasmania, the government is pro logging and pro woodchipping. Most of that material, which constitutes our forests, ends up as toilet paper in Japan. Is it any wonder we get angry at seeing our beautiful landscape transformed for such a worthless cause. Mark and Cinders, on the other hand, do work as spin doctors for Forestry Tasmania (government) their whole existance is about finding facts from government texts, to try and baffle everyone and convince them that clear-fell loggin is carbon neutral. Tasmanian forestry, as it continues to live in the past, is part of the reason we are suffering such dramatic weather events. Tasmanian forests store around 5-times the carbon of any other forest on Earth. For that reason they punch well above their weight as carbon sinks. No amount of rhetoric will convince me or people like Maaate that logging Tasmanian style is good for the planet. The Tarkine Myrtles are also chipped at Burnie and sent to Japan, along with Blackwoods, to be burnt for power generation.

Fact or fiction seems to be the choices when arguing about Tasmanian forests.

Both the Blue Tier and the ‘Tarkine’ in the North West have been extensively reserved. The Tarkine was listed to the National estate after the Regional Forest Agreement that created the Savage river national Park and regional reserve that includes the largest contiguous temperate rainforest in Australia, the community forest agreement added even more reserves. The rainforest is predominantly open, tall, cathedral like myrtle (Nothofagus cunninghamii) forest. Over 87% of the Tarkine is reserved, as explained at http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/49238/tcfa_fsheet_04_tarkine.pdf yet this publication is ignored.

So too the Tarkine boundaries, another 100,000 ha has been added in recent years including the forest concession granted to the Burnie Pulp mill in the 1930s.

How can people be so passionate about the forest issue but not check the facts? This can be seen in the latest claims for ‘high conservation forest’ these areas include previous clear felled coupes now regenerating, such as Picton 39A, pictures of which can be found at page 4 of an United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/ae542e/ae542e21.pdf

This report that details the management of our forests can be ignored just as the National Carbon Accounting reports that show Tasmania reduced its Greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2005 by 25% by slowing deforestation and planting trees. Instead official reports are replaced by personal comments and calculations funded by the Wilderness Society.

The Blue tier coupe is near private property and adjacent harvested forests, it is identified as GC164A and so far has produced about 10,000 tonnes which is running at about 20 to 25% product including high quality sliced veneer and rotary peel logs and various categories of saw logs including Special timber, the remainder has been pulpwood, but no export peeler logs. A map of the coupe can be downloaded at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/3yp/bass/gc164a.pdf A map that also show extensive for reservation.

But of course this would only be of interest to someone that is passionate enough about forestry to first find out the facts.

Regeneration...taking many years.

Common sense and not greed should have been the number one priority 60 years ago relating to most Forests.

Take into account the timeframes of regeneration, particularly after fires and drought over the past 30 years.

There is an abundance of timber, furniture and products available without destroying large pristine Australian Forests.

Any person [caring for our environment or not]should at least think of our future generation.

Balance is the key.

Leave our precious Forests to provide homes to flora and fauna while soaking up the carbon.

Thank you for your detailed account Cinders. You state that the Tarkine is reserved and yet I have footage and stills of it having just been logged a few months ago... Curious.

I accept that much of the Blue Tier is privately owned (with caveats) and that there are areas which have previously been logged but why chip the bulk of a coupe such as gc164a? Why not leave the the trees not suitable for timber harvest in the ground as a carbon sink? In fact, why not leave all of the trees alone and harvest instead from the oversupply of plantions in the region? Is it because you have a window of oportunity or are you going to ignore the Federal Government initiative?

maaate

I will respond to your latest missive for the benefit of the public record:

Re your home spun calculations:
You have ignored the fact that much carbon remains on site after logging and slash burning in the soil, in tree and plant roots, in retained trees, and in charred forest debris. You also grossly understate the log productivity of the highest carbon content forests, and just ignore paper products (or assume instant emission) which is just not on when recycling, use in long service life products, and land fill disposal are considered. You also assume I think that all logging involves clearfalling and burning, when even in Tas, selective harvesting with no burning is the dominant technique.

Re carbon neutrality of logging:
While it suits your argument to judge forestry on a coupe-basis, it is in fact a landscape-scale activity and needs to be judged as such when considering its carbon implications.

To explain this simply: Consider a hypothetical 100 hectare uniform forest being sustainably managed for timber on a 100-year rotation. Each year, one hectare is logged and regenerated. The wood removed from the forest by the harvest is equal to the total wood growth across the forest each year. Similarly, associated losses from soils, or the destruction of understorey are recouped in the replenshment of soil carbon and understorey growth over the rest of the forest. In this way, logging and regenerating forests on a sustainable basis is carbon neutral.

The alternative promulgated by the ENGOs, that leaving all forests unlogged will mean increasing carbon storage in perpetuity is simply not true because of the propensity of our forests to periodically burn.

David Leigh
I wouldn't know where to start to dissect your home-spun misconceptions about Tasmanian forests and forestry - suffice to say that some of your beliefs are deeply troubling and bear little resemblence to reality.

I do though take issue with your statement that: "Mark and Cinders, on the other hand, do work as spin doctors for Forestry Tasmania (government) their whole existance is about finding facts from government texts, to try and baffle everyone ....."

In fact, I do not and never have worked for Forestry Tasmania. I am though, a forester with 30+ years of experience who sees it as a duty to try to correct crazy misconceptions about my profession. It says much about you that you see facts as being put forward to baffle people rather than inform them. This is the sort of attitude that makes the notion of forestry 'peace deals' seem just pointless.

Mark, if you are as you say, a forester, how is it you spend so much time online? Do you carry a laptop around with you in the forest? Every thread in every online publication that has anything to do with plantations, chemical sprays, logging and even the pulp mill has your name in there, attacking everybody with an opinion other than your own. If you are paid to manage forests, which is what a forester does (not clearfell log it) you would be far too busy working at forest management to spare the time. Foresters spend their days looking after roads and tracks, wildlife, water courses and managing the trees for safety and the health of the forest. According to Master Forester, Frank Strie, foresters are concerned with ecosystem service values and Logging is only a small part of the overall management process.

Perhaps this is the same Frank Strie who featured in the discredited and biased ABC Four Corners ‘Lords of the Forest’ and was introduced as a Master Forester who advocated single tree selection.

From his web site we find that he trained in Germany, completed a Forstwirt apprenticeship and worked as a professional forestry worker. Who studied at the Tech. Forestry School Diemelstadt. In 1987 he immigrated to Tasmania and now puts the letters FWM after his name, which stands for Forstwirtschaftsmeister.

A German vocational qualification gained by training as an apprentice as a Forstwirt and some time later after relevant experience and a technical college course, the supervising qualification.

Whilst it is a easy mistake to translate FWM as Master Forester, unlike Mark Poynter’s degree, this is not a university qualification, nor one that studies the ecology and regeneration of Australian Eucalypt forests.

Contrast this to, Dr. Andreas Rothe of the Fakultät Wald und Forstwirtschaft (Faculty of Forestry), University of Applied Sciences Weihenstephan, Germany at the 2008 Old Growth conference applied the lessons from the European experience to ask the question ‘Is single tree selection suited for Tasmania´s Wet Eucalypt Forests?’

He concluded:
Single tree selection leads to inadequate eucalypt regeneration and that Single tree selection is not sound from an economic point of view.
see http://oldforests.com.au/pages/Presentations/Rothe.pdf

Mark, do you know what proportion of total original carbon remains on site after clearfell logging?

What is the total area logged by selective logging in Tasmania each year? What is the total volume of logs recovered with this method?

What is the total area logged by clearfelling/group selection/seed tree/shelterwood/aggregated retention in Tasmania each year? What proportion of these coupes is left to regenerate without regeneration burns? What is the total volume of logs recovered with this method?

We need to give your last response context and detail so I know you'll endeavour to provide this information.

I also see that you want to judge carbon, as it relates to forestry, on a landscape scale (that's convenient because carbon sequestration in areas that you can't log make you look better), but you don't want to look at the landscape scale implications of focusing logging on elevated, high rainfall, wet and damp forests in Victoria (see questions at TT link).

As for this quote, "The alternative promulgated by the ENGOs, that leaving all forests unlogged will mean increasing carbon storage in perpetuity is simply not true because of the propensity of our forests to periodically burn."

You may recall my comment that "Even if we accept the argument that “forests will only burn anyway”, before climate change and global scale deforestation and forest modification brought about by human activity, the carbon cycle, as related to forests, was a closed system. As such, forests had burned for millions of years without a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations because the system was relatively stable."

Current logging practices are exacerbating the impacts of climate change by making forests more fire prone. I believe that is why you have avoided answering my questions about the concentration of logging operations on elevated, high rainfall, wet and damp forests. What are the landscape scale implications of focusing logging on, and thereby modifying, forests that naturally mitigate mega fires?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognised the value of forestry addressing greenhouse gas emissions, in its 4th report:
‘'In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks' -'while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.

The Australian Greenhouse Office, which is now in the Department of Climate Change, conducted an analysis of the emissions intensity of different Australian industries, which is contained in Appendix D to the Australian Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme green paper. Of 115 industries, forestry was recognised to be the only one that is not a net carbon emitter.

In 2007 Forestry Tasmania commissioned a report into the amount of carbon' - projected to be stored in State forests and resultant wood products.
The MBAC Consulting report, Forestry Tasmania's carbon sequestration position, estimated that 31 million tonnes of carbon or 114 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent would be added between 2007 and 2050.

Added to this consensus is the Forest Dialogues Initiative on Forests and Climate Change which brought together more than 250 leaders of environmental and social groups, business, Indigenous people and forestry community groups, trade unions, forest owners, governments and international organisations, to discuss the opportunities and challenges for forests when considering their role in addressing climate change.

The FCC initiative agreed on a number of key messages, including how sustainably harvested forest products and wood based bioenergy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by substituting high-emission materials such as petrol, steel or concrete for neutral or low-emission renewable ones.

Cinders, you must spend your entire life looking up papers that suit your arguments. Frank is one of the only people left in this state who can call himself a forester. He is not a Phd. Nor does he spend his life reading worthless reports, drafted by equally worthless people, about subjects that do not tackle the real problems faced in our forests. A degree means nothing, I have two and you treat me like an idiot. As I said before, come out of your office, away from the internet and filing cabinet and take a look. I have also read the IPCC report and many others and deforestation, Tasmanian style, is recognised for its high contribution to CO2 emissions.

Cinders, I dare say the IPCC's comments on the potential role of forestry in carbon sequestration didn't refer to transforming primary forests into virtual wood lots such as we do here in Australia? I must have missed that bit...what page was it?

Also of note is that the report was released in 2007 and recent research shows that the amount of carbon stored in temperate forests is far higher than previously thought (especially the tall wet and damp eucalypt forests that are the focus of the timber industry's devotion).

With regard to the carbon equation and logging of previously unlogged native forests, I think I'll trust my instincts and "back of the envelope" calculations rather than a misrepresentation of some IPCC motherhood statements that were actually about potential sequestration from reafforestation and new plantations.

maaate, maaate

Questions, questions, again you require me to do your research - as I note earlier that you would.

I would have thought that a mandatory pre-requisite to being so strongly opinionated about forestry would require you to do some research, but it seems that beliefs (not facts) are all that's required to be an activist, as David is so eloquently demonstrating. As though all you have to do is go for a quick walk in the nearest forest and you know all there is to know about Tasmanian forestry - all those references, reports and facts are just too baffling.

Some quick responses to your queries:

The split between clearfall/selective in Tas has traditionally been 40:60, presume is still so - do the research.

The example I gave at looking at forestry at a landscape scale was only looking at a wood production forest, and it still looks good, but agree including all the unusable parks and reserves makes it look even better as it should.

Where is your evidence of logging concentrated in the very best mountain forests? The vast majority of forest is not used for timber production so there can hardly be a concentration of logging anywhere. As I said on the TT post you keep referring to, about 70% of Vic's highest quality M. Ash forest is in parks and reserves - timber production is scattered through the rest - a concentration?? Define it?

Logging is making forests more fire-prone? Again, where is your evidence? You will be pleased to know that this flimsy contention is currently being thoroughly examined by bushfire scientists stemming from the recent 4-page literature review which recieved such unwarranted and sensationalist publicity on the ABC - which I presume you are referring to.

“A degree means nothing, I have two and you treat me like an idiot.’ so claims the author of this flawed and heavily criticised article.
Yet a simple click on his name finds that “He trained at Edith Cowan University, Perth WA gaining a BA in writing and a Masters in Professional Communications.’

Clearly his article and further comments give truth to his claim “A degree means nothing, I have two and you treat me like an idiot.”
Perhaps he should go back to all his fellow writing and communications experts at Tasmanian times.

His maaate quotes a carbon in forest report pre- released in Bali in December 2007, but his maate fails to point out this report although undertaken by academics was paid for by the Wilderness Society who also arranged for its public promotion. Not only does his maaate fail to disclose the funding source he also fails to advise that the mixed aged forest stands that were the basis of these claims were “burned in a major conflagration.” in February 2009.

The forest was burnt in the black Saturday bushfire releasing the carbon back to the atmosphere, and destroying the greens pet theory that forests can be a carbon bank forever!

I don't know what the dominant logging system used in Tasmania is Mark. But, if it is like Victoria and the outrage amongst Tasmanians is anything to go by, I'd say clearfelling (or one of it's cosmetic syntheses) is overwhelmingly predominant.

As a forester, shouldn't you have this type of data and statistics at your fingertips? Is this data collected, and if it is, why wouldn't it be readily available to the public? And why would you withhold it in a reasonable exploration of the issues? If it is in the public domain, it's not easy to find as I've searched extensively online and cannot find any trace.

It might be another example of government agencies' attempting to 'gatekeep' information that reflects poorly upon their performance. Or incompetence, or a straight forward attempt to mislead the public?

Another explanation might be that such information is part of the blackhole that is data about forest management that is not collected. I think it's enlightening that DSE only conducted the first comprehensive inventory of Victoria's forests in the 1990's and even then that was largely as a result of criticism by environmentalists.

Which leads me back to questions I posed to you, and which you have studiously avoided addressing, over at TT (link above). I don't know if specific relevant data sets exist at DSE but my personal observations, and what I have been able to extrapolate from published maps, suggest a significant concentration of logging in elevated, high rainfall, tall wet and damp forest. Do you dispute this? On what basis? Using what data? (I defined what I meant by "concentrated" at TT - I will repost it here if you'd like a reminder)

cont.

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous scientific papers that show that logging makes forest more vulnerable, and prone, to fire. I don't know of any scientific papers that suggest otherwise.

Search: "logging makes forest more vulnerable and prone to fire" About 1,650,000 results, Numerous scientific papers cited in articles on the subject.

Search: "logging makes forest less vulnerable and prone to fire" About 76,700 results, No scientific papers cited, not even one article supporting the proposition.

Results for the second search mainly turned up articles that supported proposition of the first search. Not a very scientific technique but illuminating none the less.

Would you like to come out and declare that logging makes forests less fire prone Mark? Based on what evidence and research? If not, why bother denying the link in your last comment?

Cinders, you seem to have ignored what I wrote above; that a certain amount of fire in the landscape is part of the natural carbon cycle. My proposition is that current forestry practices exacerbate climate change and worsen the impacts of climate change. The massively destructive fires of the past decade would, if anything, seem to lend support to this contention.

Proving what Cinders, that I am truthful about my qualifications? At least you have the opportunity to click on my name. If you were to use your real name we could bring up your qualifications. Yes, I have written articles in Tasmanian Times and made many comments, again proving what? There are many good writers in those columns and many valid points. I note your comments on maaate and the article researched being paid for by the Wilderness Society, again… what? Most of the stuff you quote from is paid for by FT and other forest industry players.
I wrote this article emotively because I see forests as a special place, not somewhere to be treated as an industrial wasteland. Forests also have a far greater value left as a carbon sink and for their ecosystem service values than they ever will as a source of toilet paper. The article is not an academic essay it is a feature article, expressing what I and many other people in my area are thinking. Just because it disagrees with your distorted view of life does not make it wrong, just another viewpoint in our (so-called) democratic society.
And… For the record, I also trained as a carpenter and joiner and worked in that field for many years, before progressing through construction management. I therefore, do not have a problem with logging for timber, selectively. Plantations too should be used to produce solidwood products and not wood chips. That way, we may see a return to employment in the region instead of contractors going broke and sawmills closing. You paint a black and white image of people and their views but fail to see we are complex beings, with many variants to our makeup. I am not sure if carpenters rate a mention on Google.

maaate

The information about the respective logging systems used in Tas is readily avaialble to the public - I'm just sick of looking up this stuff for you. Hint: Try the Forestry Tasmania website and its publications.

You said: "I think it's enlightening that DSE only conducted the first comprehensive inventory of Victoria's forests in the 1990's and even then that was largely as a result of criticism by environmentalists"

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the past. Vic forestry agencies have always been involved in doing inventory work, some formally by small teams, but mostly less formal done by local staff. The sudden loss of significant areas of formerly available state forest to new reserves through Forest Management Plans done in the early to mid-1990s, the RFAs, and the introduction of the Code of Practice necessitated the need to do a quickish formal statewide inventory which involved great expense.

Re: Concentration of logging in wet high elevation forests. Of course logging has to occur in forests that are productive and these are the most productive forests - but 70% are reserved, and the other 30% are being harvested and regenerated over an 80 year period. On that basis, I can't see that that qualifies as a 'concentration'

Re: Logging and fire. There are a few scientific papers supporting your contention in tropical forests, but only one study has been done in Australia, plus that literature review of overseas references referred to earlier. My belief is that the current study will show that logging makes no difference to forest flammability in Australia as it simply mimics how forests naturally regenerate.