Mark is still banging on the old drum about his dedication to clear felling the remains of Tasmanian old growth forest.
We are past that now Mark. The public, who own the forest want the clear felling stopped.
It is a lost cause anyway now because the world trade in pulp and chips has taken a dive and the Tassie product can be sourced cheaper from other countries that do not care that they are selling a precious resource for a knock down price.
The usual cry is “what about the jobs. Well the sad thing about life is that things change.
Other industries have had to change and divert to other ways of making a living.
The workers that were all laid off from the vegetable processing plants in the North had to retrain and find other work. It has been done elsewhere and most have successfully make the transition. The Fraser island timber industry was closed down and the work force dissipated.
Most found other work and in a lot of cases have prospered finding a better way of life.
Did the area fall into poverty because of the closure of the forest?
No way, it is doing better now then ever before by turning to tourism instead.
Here is a link showig what happened and what can be done.
Also guess who shows up in it? Our “new boy” at Gunns, Greg Lestrage, surprise surprise.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/tasmania-20-years-behind-even-queensland/

Give up the lost cause Mark, maybe retrain as a Greeny?

Sarnian, it might be hard for you to admit, but Mark Poynter knows more about conservation of native forests than you and your cohorts ever will. No where in any submission by the timber industry has it been suggested that they want to "clear fell the remains of Tasmanian old growth forest." They just want access to what is just a very small proportion of the forest, which after logging will be regenerated, so that in one hundred years time, your descendants will not know they have been there.

I sometimes wonder where you keep your brains, where the sun don't shine, methinks.

Sarnia,
I can only wonder whether you actually read Mark's article or simply skimmed through it, reading through very serious filters.
To quote you: "Mark is still banging on the old drum about his dedication to clear felling the remains of Tasmanian old growth forest."
The remains of Tasmania's old growth forest? Really? This implies that the only old growth forest remaining in Tasmania is outside the areas already set aside as conservation reserve of one description or another. No matter what you might think of Mark (which I suspect is very prejudiced) no one would even try to advocate clear felling forests in areas already set aside for conservation purposes - even the most hard-headed industry advocate would acknowledge that can't happen. So I am left with no other conclusion than you think the only remaining old growth forest is outside these areas and therefore potentially available for clear falling. Obviously that doesn't make any sense and I know you don't really believe that - but it does highlight the stupidity that unfolds when you direct your attack straight at the person rather than a thorough analysis of the statements made by the author.
Do you have anything constructive to add or comment on regarding the contents or statements made in his article?

@sarnian

Any one using an Article from the "Tasmanian times” to justify their argument has lost me immediately.

Incidentally, I live in Northern Tasmania most of the year (damn winter!)

This so called Agreement will be the coffin nail that bankrupts Tasmania.

Also to compare Fraser Island, (then population 100 maybe) to Tasmania (a State with 500,000 people) is the sort of rubbish that Get Up would produce.

The future employment lies in Tourism?

Do you actually live in Tasmania,sarnian ?

If you do and have bothered to walk out of your front door to speak to ANYONE involved in Tourism in Tassie then you would know about Tourism here at the moment.

If not, well, the Tourists are not coming to Tasmania anymore, haven't for at least 2 years now. It's O/S for Tourists, the way the Australian Dollar is.. Not to an Island full of Trees.

Sarnian, Did you even read the article. "Tasmanian forestry practices were found to be the equal of or better than those in most OECD countries in a recent report by Benjamin Cashore, Professor of Environmental Governance & Political Science at Yale University", but you are quite happy for wood to be sourced cheaper from other contries that have poor environmental practices. We live in one world, and therefore should be doing our part to assist in the production of a desired resouce with the least environmental impact. Everyone uses forest products such as timber and paper, and if we dont produce these products ourselves, we will import it from countries with poor environmental performance.

VK3AUU
you as most of your ilk are inclined to do, resort to personal abuse.
As for Marks knowledge of conservation, it will not stand up in court because it is allied with the current FT practice of clear felling, firebombing, decimation of wildlife Not a good way to sustain native forest.
Yes I have seen the propaganda signs along the road toTahune about how long ago this was clear felled and just look at all the regrowth now. It is spindly sickly growth that would need a couple of hundred years that it will not get, to become healthy native forest.
Apart from the fact that old growth is a magnificent carbon sink, it is also a magnet for tourists. The difference between the Tahune propaganda track and real native forest is chalk and cheese.
“They just want access”, you say. That is like saying that a bank robber just wants the key of the door for an hour or so.
My descendents will not want nor be able to live here in the desert that will be their legacy if this plundering goes on.
After all the lies and cover-ups, mates deals, corruption of due process in parliament that has gone on, why would anyone in their right mind believe anything that came out of FT or the liblab governments?

Kramer Watts,
OK lets nit pick semantics.
The only remaining old growth forest , “LEFT OUTSIDE of the conservation area”.

Why do the greenies always bang on about tourism? Could it be related to $1.6 million donation to the Greens federal election campaign by tourism millionaire and Wotif travel businessman Graeme Wood http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/saint-bob-brown-steps-into-spotlight/story-e6frgd0x-1226086702210 . A donation based on his self opinionated claim that Tasmanians would find jobs in tourism not forestry. Yet the Legislative Council after hearing from the Tourism Council and a leading entrepreneur found:

“There is a lack of evidence supporting claims that tourism related industries will provide significant future employment opportunities for affected communities as an alternative to forest industries.”

In fact the evidence in response to a question of how many private tourist operators have started up and started using the 1.4 million hectares of high-conservation value forests already in reserve was “Virtually none within the last 10 years”.

This 1.4 million ha includes almost one million hectares of old growth that is off limits to forestry of any description. It is part of 3 million ha of Tasmania that is already reserved including virtually all high quality wilderness.

We now find demands for another half a million hectares to be locked up, including forest that has already been harvested. The greenies who used to claim industrial forestry destroyed now claim that it creates HCV forests as this video of harvesting in the now targeted Styx valley shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW4kcuUvsJk

It about time these demands to destroy jobs in Tasmania's forest sector are rejected and the Government support its own National Forest policy and the balance created by its Regional Forest Agreement

Another key point about tourism as an alternative to forestry was also unearthed during the Legislative Council Committee's hearing of the two representatives of Tasmania's tourism industry.

These tourism representatives made the point that there is a history of ENGOs and their supporters touting tourism jobs as a replacement for forest industry jobs during their anti-logging campaigns, but then, once the industry has been evicted and the forests have been declared as National Parks, the same people oppose development proposals put forward by tourism operators.

Given this, there is little likelihood of Tasmanian tourism significantly expanding because more forests have been reserved, particularly given the seasonal nature of tourism in such a cold winter climate when not too many people want to be in a forest.

Sarnian,
It's not about nit-picking sematics. There is a world of difference between what you have said in your reply to me and what you said/implied earlier. Your first post suggests, to anyone not familiar with the issue, that the last of Tasmania's old-growth forest is about to disappear. Your reply says that there is indeed a lot of Tasmania's old-growth forest protected in reserves and it is only a small amount that is left out of reserves. I am tempted to think this "slip" was not unintential. This sort of use of half-truths i.e. not saying the whole thing but saying it in a way that suggests something quite different, has long been a ploy adopted by certain elements of the enviromental movement. There is an old Yiddish proverb that says a half-truth is a whole lie. I'm sorry if you just want to dismiss this as semantics but I happen to think that full and accurate reporting is the best way to avoid conflict - in anything, not just disputes over forests.

Sarnian,
Another misconception that you point to is the old growth is a great carbon sink. It is true that the vegetation in an old growth forests holds significant amount of carbon. However, old growth forests are by their nature net carbon emitters. This is due to the stage in the lifecycle that the forests are at. It is typical to see the large overstory eucalypts dying back during this stage and releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Accordingly, an old growth forest may hold less carbon than a younger forest.
Clearfelling of forests does not result in a 100% emission of carbon as many of the products that are produced (inlcuding paper) are durable and survive for extended periods of time. Even if all the wood products were burnt for fuel it would be more beneficial than burning fossil fuels. It is time the protectionist movement stopped misusing arguements to support their causes.

I have to agree with Sarnian. The majority of Australians are over this primitive management of native forests. If you want to clearfell and log old growth forests, grow your own. You've had more than a fair share of native forests and the rest is ours to preserve in a pristine state. If it hasn't been logged (or it's regrowth from selective logging under the pre-industrial regime) it should not be logged let alone clearfelled. Simple.

Maaate, can't you get into your head that old growth forests ultimately die. They don't remain pristine forever. In places like Victoria, the ultimate result is generally a wild fire which destroys everything in its path including the native animals. Such a conflagration occurred in Victoria recently.

If these forests are logged, the size of the coops is quite restricted and the animals have a chance to migrate into adjoining forest. At the same time, the old hollow stags are left as habitat. After the loggers have been, the young regrowth provides an excellent food supply.

David

@VK3AUU: Maaate, can't you get into your head that old growth forests ultimately die.

That is an over generalisation. Some do, like the SA, VIC fire belt. Some don't, like the Amazon and Tasi's forests. (Every been there? It is a very wet place. Or at least it was. The locals were saying climate was drying out when I was last there, particularly in the western side of the island.)

@@VK3AUU: Mark Poynter knows more about conservation of native forests than you and your cohorts ever will.

I presume Poynter knows at lot about sustainable commercial exploitation of native forests. You are equating "sustainable commercial exploitation" with "conservation", which is just rubbish, or at best spin.

@leiverde: Accordingly, an old growth forest may hold less carbon than a younger forest.

That sentence and what proceeded it made no sense to me. The evolution of a piece of land starts as barren ground, absorbs carbon until it reaches a steady state and then I presume stops. However the carbon it contains remains locked up. Cutting it down releases it.

@leiverde: Clearfelling of forests does not result in a 100% emission of carbon as many of the products that are produced (inlcuding paper) are durable and survive for extended periods of time.

No, compared to trees that last for 100's of years man made products do not last very long. Compared to old growth forests that last for 1000's of years the comparison is laughable.

I agree with you that National Parks are what we set aside for aseptic reasons, and the rest should be used to be the best long term economic advantage. But your arguments would go down better if you just stuck the facts.

rstuart,

I have been to many of the forests in Tasmania (and to the Amazon for that matter). There are several reasons that the forests in Tasmania are drying out...the primary one is over a decade of drought as experienced across Australia.

If you have any knowledge of a growth cycle of a forest you would understand that a younger (but mature) forest holds a larger volume of carbon than an old growth forest (which is in a stage of sensence - ie dying back or 'negative growth' and as a result releasing carbon).

Again the release of carbon (to the extent that it occurs)from harvesting forests is not a significant contributor to global emissions. If protectionists were keen on doing something for the environment they be attempting to prevent the mining of coal. There would be some good headlines there and some oversized bulldozers to chain themselves to.

@leiverde: old growth forest (which is in a stage of sensence - ie dying back or 'negative growth' and as a result releasing carbon).

So that is where you went wrong. Old forests, even old growth ones, do not die, "die back", or have negative growth. Not without an external influence anyway.

You claim to have been to the Amazon, so surely this was obvious to you. It's been there for 55 million years, pretty much unchanged until we came along. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees.

@leiverde: If you have any knowledge of a growth cycle of a forest you would understand that a younger

Where do you get this crap from? Just google "carbon sink old young forest" and click on any link. They all explain it in simple terms with pictures, far better than I can.

I often wondered why that "Sir Walter" grass ad on TV featured a guy pulling out a tree, saying grass absorbed more CO2 than trees. It's literally true of course, but surely no one would be sucked in by what almost could be called a lie by omission? Surely it must be obvious to everyone that while grass may indeed absorb carbon at a greater rate than trees, it also dies and releases that carbon at a much faster rate. The trees on the other hand convert it into, well, tree. Well I guess they must have a much higher hit rate with that ad than my faith in humanity common sense lead me to believe.

@leiverde: Again the release of carbon (to the extent that it occurs) from harvesting forests is not a significant contributor to global emissions.

I haven't looked to be honest leiverde. But I'm sure you will understand, given your posting history so far here, that I won't be taking your word for it.

If instead of using timber produced from sustainably managed forests we use concrete or steel, the emissions are orders of magnitude greater. If we lock up our forests and replace timber with steel, concrete of timber from non sustainably managed forests, the emission will still be orders of magnitude greater.

leiverde: old growth forest (which is in a stage of sensence - ie dying back or 'negative growth' and as a result releasing carbon).
@rstuart: So that is where you went wrong. Old forests, even old growth ones, do not die, "die back", or have negative growth. Not without an external influence anyway.

Oh thank you so much @rstuart for the best laugh I have had this month.
Forests are dynamic, in a state of almost constant change. I can take you to places in both Victoria and Tasmania that used to be covered in the beautiful wet forest that most Australians treasure and now have no trees at all due to entirely natural processes. Not through fire, not through human interference, just due to the fact that the individual trees that made up that forest failed to live forever, eventually decaying and being blown over by the wind. If conditions aren't suitable for regeneration of a tree species you may end up with no trees on these sites for hundreds (or thousands) of years before something changes again and a new forest takes over. What is your "Green" viewpoint on this long-term natural destruction of forests? Stop the wind, halt death itself?

How should we manage our National Parks? Should we try so hard to exclude fire? Should we stop the wind from blowing old trees over? Should we re-introduce the human interference present for the last 30-40,000 years? Inject the trees with a special polymer to forever maintain them in the state that we see at this exact point in time?

While I don't condone the last fourty years of Tasmanian forest policy it is people like you who have absolutely no understanding of Australian trees and environments that make a mockery of the native forest debate.

Individual trees don't live forever.
Our natural environment evolves.
Accept these two points as fact before commenting on forest policy.

@gippy: Oh thank you so much @rstuart for the best laugh I have had this month.

I am glad you enjoyed it.

@giggy: Our natural environment evolves. ... hundreds (or thousands) of years

And who argued otherwise?

I think you aren't quite grasping the time frames we are talking about here. Length of time a house stores carbon: maybe 100 years. Length of time a forest lives storing it's carbon: usually 10's of thousands if your claim we had no effect on it is true, or 55 million in the case of the Amazon.

There is a deeper argument to be had here, but seriously: this senescence thing isn't it. The analogy your trying to argue, that forests spontaneously age and die like single organisms do is absurd.

rstuart,

You condescend from a great height considering that you haven't articulated your own arguments at all well.

Your rehabilitation may start by accurately contrasting for us the evolution and ecology of closed tropical forests with that of fire subclimax tall wet forests that occur in SE Australia, yes, including "Tasi".

@hugoagogo: Your rehabilitation may start by accurately contrasting for us the evolution and ecology of closed tropical forests with that of fire subclimax tall wet forests that occur in SE Australia

Maybe you would be so kind as to get me started with a few links?

@rstuart if you want to claim that Tasmania's forests are one homogenous unit that if untouched by human hand will not have any stored carbon variation for tens of thousands of years then go right ahead, I'll keep laughing!

Australia's forests have changed from the Eocene, just in case you hadn't noticed.

And as for senescence, I'm sure if you are in Victoria or Tasmania you could find an old single-aged Eucalypt stand to visit.

What a pity the Green movement and all associated with it have not come to realise that not ALL Tasmanians are opposed to a native forest industry or a pulp mill. It's time we had some decent numbers in relation to just how many people are against it. It's been suggested that 80% of 2077 people surveyed is against the industry. That is not even 1% of the population of Tasmania! There's more people than that involved in the industry either directly or indirectly!

It's also time the mining industry woke up. If the 500,000+ hectares is locked up under the Statement of Principles it will be locked up as National Park. Where will that leave them?

Our State needs the forest industry! Our State needs a pulp mill!

@gippy: Australia's forests have changed from the Eocene, just in case you hadn't noticed.

I did notice. My problem is I also notice there aren't any of man's homes left around from the Eocene. Did I miss some?

You see the problem I'm sure. Your argument is that because man made constructions hold the carbon better than forests, and lots of forests have disappeared since the Eocene. So if you just point in the direction of some wooden man made artefact that was around in the Eocene and still exists today, then I guess your point is made, because in that case they obviously they outlasted the forests.

I am hoping hugoagogo can come back with some helpful links. I am sure he is going to came back with illustrations of legions of forests that have sprung up out of nowhere, then simply vanished through, err, senescence, all within 100 years or so without a single solitary finger from mankind helping the process along.

There are other good arguments you can make. But this "forests naturally disappear at the same rate man's paper and buildings do" isn't one of them. Nosily pointing to the fact that forests do change evolve over thousands of years only makes you look silly.

Actully rstuart, I don't spoonfeed links.

Do a search in a research data base, the keywords are in my previous post. Let us know what you learn.

You'll find plenty of rope there.

For those that want a close look at the the High Conservation Value forest claimed to be outside the 1.4 million hectares of forests already reserved in Tasmania check the video at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/

Get up! has now moved on to secondary boycotts of retailers and grocery stores. These type of boycotts are illegal under the Competition and Consumer act unless exempted for an environmental purpose. Boycotting a company like Harvey Norman for selling beautiful furniture made from sustainably harvested native timbers see http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/07/04/still-waiting-gerry/ , or selling the food we eat every day from Coles or Woollies is hardly an environmental reason.

The advertising campaign against retailers selling furniture from Australia's native forests was organised by a secretly funded group called Markets for Change that is staffed by ex Wilderness society activists and has a Board with strong Greenpeace links. Just where are the ethics and the demand for openness and transparency of funding of these political groups. It wasn't so long ago that the Greens were demanding exposure on political donations. All that has stopped since the Federal election. I wonder why!

It would seem that a large number of rednecks (instead of a crop, perhaps a crap of them) have come out of the woods to snarl at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the wholesale pillaging of old growth forest to make a profit for the megaforestbiz.
Just to put it in simple terms it is considered a bad thing by anyone with an IQ that can be counted on more than two hands, to clear fell millions of tons of very unique old trees, to wood chip and sell offshore to make a dubious product called wood pulp. It IS considered OK to selectively fell quality trees to mill and on sell for fabrication of various end products such as furniture, houses, boats ETC.

The pulp can be produced by other means such as hemp,plantation timber, sugercane waste Etc but that would mean that the aforementioned Megaforestbiz, would not make huge profits only reasonable profits.
This of course excludes Gunns which is in the throws of bankrucy.
I await your next outburst of abuse.

Sarnian, rstuart, etc

Sigh ....... I can't work out whether you are deliberately trying to wind-up people on this site or are genuinely as ignorant about what happens in forests as your words suggest....... but, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are imbued with self-righteous ignorance.

Until you learn the basic fundamentals of how much logging there is, how it is conducted, and what is happening with 'old growth' forests, it is pointless engaging with you as your personal abuse (ie. mentions of rednecks, and IQ levels etc) can really only be met with similar ridicule.

Can I suggest you arm yourself with some factual information by doing a bit of basic research. Try Googling the 'Australia's Forests at A Glance 2011' publication by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture Resource Economics and Sciences.

@MWPOYNTER: I can't work out whether you are deliberately trying to wind-up people on this site or are genuinely as ignorant about what happens in forests as your words suggest

For me it's probably more of being a pendent.

It was this I was reacting to:

@MWPOYNTER: Accordingly, an old growth forest may hold less carbon than a younger forest.

Which plain wrong.

I can imagine selectively old removing trees from an old growth forest would yield a very different result. I presume this is what you are talking about since you bring up "how much logging there is, how it is conducted".

MPoynter
I enjoy reading your articles and it is pleasing to have some truthful and in depth information that those with open minds may read and absorb, rather than the one lines that are heard in the mainstream media. I have followed up on a lot of the information and all appears to be factual. It is very disappointing that i come to a forum to discuss and learn, and am confronted with personal abuse and and belittling of anyone that may dare to read, verify and support the facts that you have spent a lifetime researching and studying.

"Until you learn the basic fundamentals of how much logging there is, how it is conducted, and what is happening with 'old growth' forests, " @MWP

Well Mark, the last time I wanted information about what was happening here in Victoria, you couldn't (or wouldn't) answer.

Refresh your memory:

What percentage of logging operations in East Gippsland are carried out:

1/ in mature (& older) forests?

2/ in forests less than 100 years old?

3/ in regrowth from previous clearfell operations?

4/ in wet and damp forest types?

5/ at elevations of 0-200m, 200-400m, 600-800m, 800+m?

Do you want to answer these simple questions about "how much logging there is, (&) how it is conducted"?

(Background as to why I would want these particular questions answered can be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11727&page=0 and http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/use-up-to-date-research/show_comments )

Mark,

After reading all the recent posts I can see that I allowed my self to be distracted. When I originally read your article I was impressed by the connections that you drew and observations made. I recognise that I became somewhat incensed by some of the ill-informed comments that followed and subsequently assisted in detracting from your topic. Amongst many things there needs to be close scrutiny of lobby groups and funding. Sadly and increasingly there does not appear to be a desire for journalists to investigate matters fully, especially in relation to forestry matters.

I love trees, and I love timber products, and the best timber products are made from Australian timbers.

This is the first reply to my origional post.

I sometimes wonder where you keep your brains, where the sun don't shine, methinks.
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 6 July 2011 11:21:25 AM

This is your answer to my last post
it is pointless engaging with you as your personal abuse (ie. mentions of rednecks, and IQ levels etc) can really only be met with similar ridicule. by MWPOYNTER

Mark, I would say that I was only returning the abuse that was served up to me in the beginning of this thread.
Am I not allowed a right of reply?

maaate

As I recall saying to you back then, these are not simple questions. They would probably require days of research through getting in touch with two government agencies. You seem to think I work for these agencies or live in East Gippsland - I don't.

Then, at the end of it all - if past experience is a guide - if you didn't agree with the findings you would simply dismiss them in a paragraph or two.

As I said to you then, go and do your own research - contact those agencies yourself. The fact that you don't already know these things, yet voice such strong anti-logging opinions already paints you as someone who lacks an open mind on this. I have learnt from harsh experience on blogs like this, that engaging with the likes of you can be very time-consuming and is largely pointless.

If you believe GetUp to be misrepresenting the forestry industry then you have equal right to put your case. In fact you have in this article. The Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and The Conservation Foundation have done similar over the years.

It all depends on your POV. If you believe old growth and/or native forests can continue to be plundered without care or understanding about the long term impacts on the environment and ultimately, human populations then you won't like the GetUp campaign.

People are free to boycott consumer goods based on ethical reasons important to them eg. fair trade, child labour, Australian made and/or owned, locally grown over imported, GM free, sustainable timbers, presevative free.. and so the list goes on.

This from the TAS Forestry site:
"There’s nothing quite as natural as harvesting and re-generating native forests. Using techniques that mimic nature, Forestry Tasmania harvests and regenerates about one percent of State forest each year, without using any chemicals – no herbicides, no pesticides and no wildlife poison."

This is good spin but "quite as natural" - really? There is no recognition about the difference on biodiversity (essential in evolutionary terms) in continual regenerating compared to permanent protected wildernesses.

And would Forestry organisations and logging companies even be undertaking those better forestry management practices (even if some of it is purely for show) if it wasn't for pressures from organisations (like GetUp) to ensure standards were improved.

What about the many examples as happened in the SE Victorian Forests where, despite government policies, logging companies intentionally encroached into areas that were legislated as protected from logging. What about further encroachments into the Tarkine Wilderness (by mining companies).

On balance the corporations are winning most of the battles - if you don't believe me just look at past decisions around forestry and mining versus environmental and heritage protection. The wins by environmental conservation groups or GetUp pale by comparison.

Do you really think some of the legal and political shenanigans throughout the Gunn's Pulp Mill debate were ethical?

Is there any wonder that many people do not trust the industry.

As we both know Mark, my questions are "Dorothy Dixers".

I don't have exact figures but using the general information and maps that are publicly available, in addition to on ground observations, I know that the answers will paint a damning picture of native forest logging operations in Victoria.

If a Fellow of the Institute of Foresters of Australia (is your voluntary role as spokesperson official or self-appointed?) does not have ready access to these figures, who does? How likely is it that a member of the public will get access to this data? The fact that such information hasn't been collated, isn't readily available &/or accessible raises a raft of issues in itself.

It's all very well for you to dismiss me as a "vexatious inquisitor", but from my point of view, it shows that when your propaganda is scrutinised and challenged it falls over. It seems to be a convenient excuse.

Pelican

<< There is no recognition about the difference on biodiversity (essential in evolutionary terms) in continual regenerating compared to permanent protected wildernesses. <<

Thanks for writing the post I was probably not going to get around to doing.

There is zero acknowledgement of the impact on both understory flora and fauna as well as the life supported in the forest canopy. Evolution allows for natural impacts such as fires, storms, natural attrition but cannot keep pace with human intervention.

The absolute necessity for continued viable flora and fauna is BIODIVERSITY - rarely mentioned on these and other media pages. We would not be here without the support of a healthy biodynamic functioning eco-system - it is arrogance and deliberate ignorance to think that a mono-culture of plantation trees is an adequate substitute.

Seems we will only learn this lesson the hard way, when the last old growth tree is felled.

As a professional forester with an appropriate university degree, neither Mark nor his article advocates for the forest to be "plundered". Instead foresters and timber workers have a vested interest in ensuring the forest is managed in a sustainable way, after all they are the ones that choose to work in it every day and hope to be able to harvest again in the future.

An example of the careful planning that goes into a harvesting plan can be found in http://www.forestrytas.com.au/assets/0000/0511/article_5-resized.pdf
This paper tells of the planning undertaken prior to the proposed clear felling of 57 ha of wet forests and shows how the harvesting plan protected a wedge tailed eagle nest as well as water course and other values.

Nor is Mark advocating that the last old Growth tree is cut down, he continually points out that most old growth is within forests reserves.

Victoria‘s State of the Forests Report 2008 states on page 12 that there was "474,000 hectares of old-growth forest, 77% of the total old-growth in Victoria, was protected in CAR reserves."
Then goes on to state "There has been a significant decrease in the area of old-growth forest harvested in Victoria, from 730 hectares in 2001-02 to 50 hectares in 2005-06."

One of the beaut things about wood from our native forests is that they store carbon in their products and provide a totally renewable source of energy, but you won't find Government support for this concept in its latest plans to Tax carbon to encourage the use of carbon friendly products or credit for burning mill and harvest residues.

Rather than reflect the well researched approach that Mark advocates, the Government seem to willing to accept the leadership of the Greens and their opinionated beliefs.

Cinders, you say that "foresters and timber workers have a vested interest in ensuring the forest is managed in a sustainable way". To be more specific, foresters/timber workers have a vested interest in the sustainability of the commercial value of a forest. When a forest is logged, the yield and future yield of the coupe is all that matters to these two groups. All others issues relating to forests are peripheral to the commercial focus. These goals conflict with the values of broader society which recognises the environmental services and non-commercial values of forests.

You raised the issue of old growth forest but I'm interested in protecting any area of forest that has not been significantly disturbed or modified since the advent of industrial forestry.

If foresters can log regrowth forest without compromising natural systems I would not object. I actually advocate restoration forestry which raises forestry from the status of bean counting to a real biological science. I would like to see broadacre industrial monocultures converted back to natural forest and managed to facilitate production and ecological restoration. We could be expanding our timber and fibre production by incorporating it into existing agricultural practices on farmland.

After 200 years of plundering native forest it seems reasonable to draw a line in sand and leave untouched forests alone. It's time we had a vision for the future and left exploitative and narrow 18th century utilitarian mindsets where they belong.

BTW, I address the myth of "carbon friendly products" (from native forest) at one of the links above. If you want to argue with my assessment I'll be happy to oblige.

As getup is no more than a coalition of the Australian greens and the wilderness society under daddy bob brown what more would you expect Mark? With a political agenda to close down any form of native forest harvesting, facts and figures don’t matter to getup, the greens or their supporters.

They don’t care if the impact of their consumption is shifted off shore, to speed up the extinction of the urangutans and Sumatran tigers. The political agenda is all-important and shifting impacts doesn’t concern them, because they just want to control what happens in their back yard.

A typical response I have received from local activists when raising the issues of shifting consumptions impacts to less regulated countries is, “so what!” Many of your critics would appear to have similar attitudes.

Twenty first century “environmental” activism has taken the art of hypocrisy to a new level. Most critics of the native forest industry are ardent consumers of timber and paper products and delude themselves that this can all come from plantations.

For example, a popular brand of photocopy paper is made from so-called sustainably managed plantations. The company that manufactures this paper is still clearing Indonesian rainforests and draining swamps to establish more plantations.

When I raised this issue with a stockist, I was told that the company was an Australian company. When merchants can’t tell the difference between a brand name and a manufacturer, you understand the uphill battle we have to maintain a native forest based industry in Australia and get consumers to make responsible purchasing decisions.

ralph j,

Apart from your Greenaphobia, are you seriously saying that if there were Orangutans and Sumatran Tigers in the Tasmanian forest, FT would not log them?
Come on, the facial tumors on Devils, Virus in platypuses and the wholesale slaughter of other native animals is not stopping them.
Also the highest rate of cancer in Australia does not seem to worry them either.
They are using chemicals that are banned in most of the “first world” countries.
It’s the almighty dollar that counts.

I am green and I am also a forester. I do not consider this a contridiction. It is my passion to conserve our world's forests and biodiversity at a landscape level whilst still produce carbon friendly products. This is what forestry is about. I was so passionate about it, I spent nearly 6 years at university to become informed and qualified to do this. Hearing some of the aggressive, misinformed and naive diatribe on some of these posts is frustrating, even if the authors' of the posts are well meaning. Mark's observations about the media's lack of objectivity in regards to forestry issues as well as a lack of consultation from forestry professionals in regards to forest policy decisions are very valid.

Muddy Boots
Most Greens are not advocating the banning of forestry only that there is no interest by some forestry lobby groups and organisations in protecting some old growth forests or wilderness.

We all rely on forestry products in our everyday lives. I also did a Science Degree (Biology and Biochemistry) for two years before changing to Politics and if you are indeed trained in this area you would also understand the importance of biodiversity and the differences between the biological systems of plantation forests and older forests. Does every forest need to be exploited by man purely for economic purpose without consideration of other values. These decisions ultimately affect the wellbeing of human populations and short term thinking can at times prove detrimental.

These forestry issues are all part of the wider problems around overpopulation and consumerism. It is the mantra of continual economic growth that drives these policies and that influence decisions around forestry.

While some people are quick to trash the policies of the Greens they are the only party advocating for greater protection for the environment and for voters this is important.

Pelican
You said: "Does every forest need to be exploited by man purely for economic purpose without consideration of other values"

I find myself continually wondering how often it has to be said that just 5% of Australia's forests are being managed for long term sustainable wood supply. So that's 95% of forests that aren't being exploited by man (at least not for timber) and where other values are the primary consideration.

These simple statistics should invalidate almost everything that is said or written about forests from the Green-Left perspective or others with well-meant intentions. That it doesn't bespeaks of an unshakable ideology that has no time for facts - well, that's all I can put it down to anyway.

MWPOYNTER,
Only 25% of Tasmania’s original extent of old growth forests remains (1.24 million ha out of the original 4.82 million). Yet ancient forests continue to be cleared, woodchipped and replaced by plantations. The Tasmanian government claims 68% of old growth forests are protected. But many of these are not in proper reserves. Old growth forests protected are dominated by the type of communities not suitable for woodchipping, such as dry E. nitida and short rainforest.
The above are forest facts. How can you say that:

“how often it has to be said that just 5% of Australia's forests are being managed for long term sustainable wood supply. So that's 95% of forests that aren't being exploited by man (at least not for timber) and where other values are the primary consideration.”

Unless it is the usual Statistics and damned lies again.

Pelican,

How much biodiversity is enough?

How much biodiversity is enough?

Without it we cannot sustain the human race and other species.

“Biodiversity is the fabric of life upon which we are totally reliant for clean air, water and natural resources,” says Dr Peter McQuillan of the School of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Tasmania.

Science shows that many species and landscapes are in decline with potentially disastrous consequences.

“Given the complexity of natural ecosystems we don’t know what effect the loss of a single species will have. We do know that when the natural environment is in good condition with healthy populations of native species that it is more resilient to threats such as weeds and climate change,” says Dr McQuillan

“For its size and location, Tasmania is one of the most biodiverse islands in the world but proper maintenance of this legacy is an ongoing challenge. We must arrest the ongoing decline of important species such as predators and pollinators, but the conservation of Tasmania’s outstanding fauna and flora must move beyond a narrow focus on threatened species alone. The present species by species approach is driven by current legislation, but is too slow, too expensive and largely ignores the important roles that all native species play in the environment.” says Dr McQuillan.

There are approximately 13 500 known species of plants, animals and fungi in Tasmania. This does not include marine species nor the estimated 50 000 species of terrestrial invertebrates and fungi that have yet to be discovered by science.

Cont'd

Cont'd

“650 species in Tasmania are considered rare or threatened, many of these are found nowhere else in the world. Some species, such as the orange-bellied parrot and several native fish are perilously close to extinction,” says co-author Nick Fitzgerald of the Wilderness Society.

“In the natural environment everything is related. We can’t possibly document, let alone manage, all of these interactions individually. The current approach to managing threatened species individually is ineffective and severely under-resourced. A better focus would be on managing entire landscapes to support wide-ranging animals and essential landscape processes like water flows in addition to all of the known and unknown species in each area.” says Nick Fitzgerald."

“The existing extent of reserves is not sufficient to conserve all the state’s biodiversity in the future. We need to make all our landscapes more ‘biodiversity friendly’ through clever management such as improving connectivity between isolated patches of bushland,” concludes Dr McQuillan.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/the-state-of-tasmanias-biodiversity-highlighted-in-the-international-year-o

I was fishing for something measurable (e.g. NOT UTas Geography nor Tas Times), but I knew I'd be disappointed.

Let's see what Pelican comes up with.

@hugoagogo
Pelican must be about to come up with something good, having studied Biology/Biochemistry. That must be worth more than the knowledge of someone like Mark Poynter who may have studied chemistry, biology, botany, ecology, zoology, conservation, fire management etc as part of a single degree and then researched/worked in/with forests for their entire career.

As Mark says "...we have a real problem if governments are influenced by GetUp! campaigns and unbalanced media reporting.." Unfortunately the voices of those who have studied Medicine, Education, Arts or Politics are more widely heard than the voices of those who studied Forests.

In a perfect world we would have the ability to halt all forestry activities in Tasmania's current public native forest, reclaim all private land in Tasmania, have foresters plant the cleared farmland (look at it, there must be at least a million hectares)... and wait to see how many years it takes for the Greens to declare the new forests "old-growth" and halt all forestry activity on the island. Perhaps the editors of the Tasmanian Times could head up fire management and park enforcement.

As much as Green groups will deny this their ultimate aim is for Australia to never produce a single stick of timber. Closing down native forest operations is not enough, extreme groups also target the private plantation industry too (citing lack of biodiversity, toxic leaves and chemical issues). Grow whatever agricultural crop you want, however you want, as long as it isn't a timber tree

Sarnian

You are quite wrong about this because you wrongly assume that every native forest is an 'old growth' forest, when it is not and never was. I don't blame you for this, because this is how the environmental lobby portrays forestry - which is quite deceitful.

Tasmania in fact has 3.116 million hectares of native forest, which is 64% of its original 4.82 million ha - the balance was cleared for agriculture, and some has become plantation. Tassie has 300,000 ha of plantation most probably established on agricultural land.

Yes, 1.24 million ha is 'old growth' forest, out of the total of 3.116 ha, but at least 80% of this is reserved and some more is unsuitable, and so there is not lot being logged anymore, and none is being converted to plantation.

@gippy: As Mark says "...we have a real problem if governments are influenced by GetUp! campaigns and unbalanced media reporting.."

That last paragraph was the weakest part of Mark's essay. He always ends the same way, and he has been banging on this same drum in articles here since about 2008. So we have titles like:

- Ignoring fact, logic, and expertise
- The rise of blogging, mainstream media, and Victoria’s river red gum forests
- Deforestation deceit reflects badly on environmental campaigners

He seems to be so passionate about this I sometimes wonder if he is lobbying for a law that only allows the considered options just like his to be published.

This never did make much sense. Yes, the greenies have waged their campaign's, but industry always answered in kind. Forestry and allied industries set up their own equivalents to organisations like the Australian Conversation Foundation, some obvious like the "Timber Communities Australia", some less obviously called the "Australian Environmental Foundation". They were every bit as effective as the greenies in getting their message across. Yes, possibly less outright lies, but they made up for it with their omissions and spin.

It looked to me like the industry groups pretty much got what they needed. Far achieving an over the top land grab, the greens were just preventing industrial carte blanche over the environment. They might have been a bit extreme in how they went about it at times, but that was the net effect. The complete out-flanking of the non-renewable wood chipping industry by the global greens was a complete surprise give how weak the local greens had been.

Now of course we have witnessed things like the anti-mining tax campaign, the anti-pokies-regulation campaign, and the anti-pain-smokes-packaging campaign, and I'm not so sure it is so evenly balanced. The corporations have bigger bank accounts and hire bigger megaphones. With this amount of commercial political muscle on display, MWPOYNTER's "those greens are being nasty to us" complaints are getting beyond tiresome.

Gippy,

Pelican is normally much quicker off the mark, and I must say I was interested in the response, seeing as we’d been treated to her/his CV.

rstuart,

I find Mark's articles to be cracking good reads. They are badly needed responses to the incessant hijacking of the public sphere by the usual unrepresentative self styled eco-mullahs. And I have it on good authority that Mark’s items are religiously read by influential folks.

"Yes, possibly less outright lies, but they made up for it with their omissions and spin."

Can you provide us with some examples rstuart of these "outright lies" or are you relying on what you heard from TCA, AEF et al?

RE: Poynter and Cinders..."RUN AWAY!"

maaate

Try these for recent deceitful ENGO statements:

“Victoria’s Mountain Ash forests once covered 170,400 hectares. Shockingly, only 2,000 hectares (1.17%) now remain unlogged and unburnt.”
The Wilderness Society fundraising pamphlet, June 2011

“Recent figures show that logging is still permitted within 76% of Australia’s native forests...”
Markets for Change publication, ‘Retailing the Forests’ campaign, May 2011

Poor maate, he ignored my links of a video showing harvesting in the Styx valley that has occurred since the 1940s, and a current video of a coupe now labelled high conservation value. Instead he invited readers to look at articles, one from a ‘film maker’ about a myrtle tree, and the other from the former spokesperson for Doctors for Forests. Both had similar posts from maate.

Others have introduced issues such as claiming all forests in Tasmania at time of white settlement were old growth. Such a claim ignores the fact that forest must be old to be old growth and all those young trees in 1750 that are now 200 -300 years old were regrowth. Perhaps only about 25% was old growth. Other forest was even younger, in the north west the Tarkinener people used to visit the inland red ochre mine from their home at Sandy Cape, burning the rainforest as they went to create green pick for the return journey.

Also introduced is Peter McQuillan on the basis of rare and threatened species and the care of biological diversity. Well a quick look at the Trial of Wielangta, that flawed Federal court case that was overturned by the Full court, has the following from Professor McQuillan on the ancient Wielangta stag beetle:

The animal is so rare and at such low densities that all individuals are important in the breeding pool?---Yes, I said that.

The court heard he laid 8 lines of pit traps filled with a substance to catch a beetle as evidence:

So if a broad-toothed stag beetle is unfortunate enough to fall into one of your pitfall traps,it is going to die unless you are there to save it?---Yes, yes, that's true.

And the substance you use is what?---It's a solution of ethylene-glycol, which is anti-freeze.

And that kills and preserves the specimen?---Yes. [P- 1206]

That it was appropriate to kill them for the purpose of Senator Brown's research that he had commissioned through you; is that the case?---Yes. [P-1207]

So much for biodiversity and conservation!

rstuart

I'm sorry to upset your sensibilities, but am at least gratified that you acknowledge the frequent lying and deceit that ENGOs engage in re forestry matters.

What I find it a bit tiresome is the presumption that environmental activists are the little guys battling against big corporate demons and that they never have any success. I think that view is at least 10-years out of date.

In case you've missed it, the major ENGOs are now large corporations in their own right. The Wilderness Society has an annual budget of $15 million and employs 140 people. Their core business is essentially to wage campaigns against resource use industries, so their paid activists go to work each day to formulate strategies to prosecute these campaigns - its no wonder they come up with ever more outlandish claims, its their job.

In 2009, it was reported that Australia’s four largest environmental groups had spent a combined $70 million in the previous financial year, of which 60% (or $42 million) went to lobbying, fundraising, membership drives and other activities not directly linked to on-ground conservation works. Resource use industries are in the business of producing things, not spending $ tens of millions defending themselves - that would probably send most forestry companies broke.

Also, in case you've missed it, at each State election since the mid-1990s in NSW, Victoria, WA, and Queensland, political decisions are made about rural industries to garner the urban 'green' vote. These have had a particularly significant impact on native forest timber industries, mostly without any rational or scientific justification. There is almost no balanced media coverage in relation to forestry, so these articles are written to give a voice to the forestry profession who have to live with these decisions.

Oh good, you're finally awake Mark.

Here's the reference for the "Markets for Change" claim:

38. BRS 2009. Australia’s forests at a glance 2009. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/forests-at-glance-new09.pdf p.3.

It says -

Total forest area 147.4 million hectares
Forest area in nature conservation reserves (IUCN I–IV) 23.0 million hectares

That's 74.4% outside reserves, what's your problem with that? That it includes all the stuff you reckon is rubbish or that it's out by about 1%?

I can't find reference to the TWS pamphlet online and haven't seen it I so can't comment without sources and references.

Interesting that you can find time for this nonsense but not my important questions Mark. It tells me a lot.

And cinders, where are ya goin'? Over here mate!

Mark's sulking about the other stuff and he wants you to handle this one:

Using as a model a wet/damp eucalypt forest in SE Australia having total carbon storage of 1000t/ha (the ones you like to log), the carbon is distributed roughly as follows:

100 - 34% in soil profile
- 8% root biomass (I have seen a figure of 60% of carbon in the soil but I can't find the reference at the moment - compared to 42% from this reference)
- 2% litter layer
- 7% coarse woody debri
- 6% dead biomass in stags
Total so far 57% (after Brendan G. Mackey, Heather Keith, Sandra L. Berry and David B. Lindenmayer 2008)
- 47% living biomass

My estimates:
- 15% ground cover (mosses, grasses etc), under-story, non target species
- 15% crowns, foliage, bark (I'm feeling generous)
- 12% boles (trunks) left on site due to defects etc

= 5% carbon removed from site as logs

Less 85% woodchipped = leaves 0.75% treated as sawlogs.

30% of a sawlog recovered as sawn timber = 0.224% of 1000t/C

2.25 tons out of 1000 might end up as tomato stakes or, if we're really lucky, it might end up as something of value...like a shipping/freight pallet?

Can you point me toward any research that might help me tighten my case?

Forestry Tasmania’s release of the first year of their three-year wood-harvesting plan. The plan includes new roading into iconic high conservation areas including the Upper Florentine and Styx valleys despite these areas being earmarked for National Park protection under the new agreement.

Any comments on the above Mark, perhaps a spin on this as to how good it will be for the tourists to see forestry in action and even breathe in the lovely fresh wood smoke from a burn off?

MWPoynter
It is not only logging reducing the area of land under forests there are other pressures including urban expansion and population pressures. Many of the forests you are talking about have been previously logged but you are right about one thing, and that there are more areas being protected now than ever before although mining interests nearly always win over environmental concerns eg. the Tarkine, Kakadu.

What you won't acknowledge that much of forestry protection initiatives are largely due to Green groups.

http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/caring/index.html

PS: I only mentioned my science background in the light of other people's sharing similar information. Possession of any formal qualification does not automatically assume all graduates of those disciplines are in agreement otherwise we would not be here discussing these issues. I note no equal censure for those pro-forestry posters in mentioning their backgrounds? It wasn't a competition to see whose was bigger as clearly I declared a shift to to politics part way through.

How much biodiversity is enough?

I am sure you are just as capable of researching topics you wish to learn more about but here goes.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/month.html#why

That is almost unquantifiable hugoago if you are seeking an exact figure of how many species are required to assure the diversity to sustain human life. It is a silly question. The answer in evolutionary terms is the more species the better protected we are, the fewer the more risks there are to human health and sustainability.

A good example within the realm of my own experiences and interest is seed diversity. Limited varieites of seed mean any potential pathogen can wipe out a whole species; a wider range of varieties with varying genetic properties increase the chances of survival against ensuing disease.

Humans are intimately involved and affected by their environment. Why is that so hard to fathom. It is a series of balancing acts and my own view is that without the efforts of Green groups of which there is growing and propagandised Greenaphobia, many achievements would not be realised.

Pelican

"It is not only logging reducing the area of land under forests there are other pressures ....."

Sigh .... mate, with all due respect, why can't you understand that logging does not reduce the area of land under forest? Logged areas are immediately regenerated into new forest - a one-year old stand of regrowth is still land under forest.

Sadly, this sort of misconception indicates the degree to which this debate has been dumbed-down and is why people like me find it so offensive to think that forest policy is dictated by such muddle-headed thinking.

"Logged areas are immediately regenerated into new forest" MWP

Um, except when regeneration fails as it has at in Victoria.

"DSE’s Monitoring of Annual Harvesting Performance in Victoria’s State Forests 2007-08:

• 89% of coupes logged by VicForests are still outstanding and have not been handed back to DSE

• Over 7000 hectares of forests logged requires further treatment

• There are approximately 19,000 hectares overdue for stocking surveys

• there has been little progress in regards to reducing the large areas of outstanding backlog regeneration and ensuring coupes are regenerated and finalised by VicForests in a timely manner

• There is no current funding available to assist with completing regeneration activities associated with backlog regeneration

• Serious consideration and action must be taken to attempt to deal with this regeneration issue if DSE wish to ensure harvesting operations are carried out in a sustainable manner"

http://tinyurl.com/6z6eexf

And you have the cheek to accuse environmentalists of lying and providing misleading information! Glass houses Mark.

maaate

Well, you are getting a bit desperate, aren't you. Sigh ...... the intention is to regenerate immediately and action is taken to achieve it of which 89% of coupes are successfully regenerated at the first try. Stocking surveys reveal that the other 11% are identified as having insufficient regeneration and are prioritised for further work. Misleading? .... I don't think so.

Backlog in stocking surveys .... most of these would be just final confirmation of success after secondary treatment. Often stocking naturally increases over time, but need to confirm. Hardly a disaster, but I agree that there was a funding backlog 4 years ago.

MWPoynter

"Sigh .... mate, with all due respect, why can't you understand that logging does not reduce the area of land under forest? Logged areas are immediately regenerated into new forest - a one-year old stand of regrowth is still land under forest."

You are talking about plantation forests not encroachments into old growth, national parks and native forests, that have not previously been logged. And you have ignored the differences as regards biodiversity between continually logged plantations and native or old growth forests.

I don't deny we need forestry products and the issue of logging is about balancing the pressures growing populations and distribution and management of resources.

Do you hold equal concerns about the false information about environmental impacts by some timber companies? Read a bit more about the history of Gunn's and the pulp mill as regards to judicial and political proceedings to gain an insight into the integrity of some of these players. Any misrepresentation you claim by Green groups pales by comparison.

The reason why I react to these sorts of articles is there is no acknowledgment of the good Green groups do in ensuring the foresty industry does not run amok. Many of the concessions logging companies have made to improve management of forests and agreements to protect old growth (in some cases) are because of the actions of these 'greenies'.

Do you really think the logging industry would self-monitor in regard to environmental protection. History reveals this is highly unlikely.