A very timely dose of intellect and common sense, Glen. But one point you did not raise is the fact that wildlife, the real experts in forest ecology, actually prefer well managed regrowth forest to EPA mismanaged old growth forest.

The uncontested Guru of eucalypt forest ecology, RG Florence, has made it clear that maximum leaf area, maximum flowering and maximum seed production, is exhibited by vigorous early mature trees that are striving to occupy recently created gaps in the canopy. That is, trees in selectively harvested forests.

This mosaic of gaps also boosts understorey growth and diversity.

And this means that, provided adequate nest sites are retained, the entire leaf, sap, bark, bud and seed based food chains are best served by regrowth forests.

Furthermore, it goes to the very fundamentals of good gardening, as well as good farming, practice to adjust the spacing of plants in response to a changing climate. So as conditions get dryer a good custodian reduces stem numbers so that the remaining plants can have their original allocation of a reduced supply of soil moisture.

It is a matter of record that the various EPAs of this world lack the wit to grasp this most basic of ecological considerations.

And frankly, this fetish amongst the ignorant over old growth can only be regarded as a very sick joke given the vast hectares of it that is routinely subjected to "broadscale clearfiring" due to EPA incompetence.

The damage caused in an average harvesting coupe, in contrast, would be less than that which occurs from a best practice Fire Service response to a single lightning strike.

While Gunns continue to lay 1080 poison to kill all predators in their forestry areas to minimise the damage wild indiginous animals do to tree seedlings when they are foraging and nesting then I will look on all publications from forestry lobbyists as irresponsible. CF the following article about Pinochet's globalisation experiment in Chile and ponder the ethics of Gunn's behaviour.

http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2#more-1551

A very interesting article, right or wrong; especially when read in conjunction with William J. Lines' thoroughly documented book "Patriots" published this year.
Lines is quite thorough with data relating to the dichotomy between agressive forestry and those opposing it. When the trouble is taken to look into the detail, the opposition seem to be way ahead in scientific objectivity - emotion aside.

Glen's assertion that 'as timber harvesting is sustainable and mostly occurs in regrowth stands, carbon uptake across the whole forest exceeds the carbon removed in harvesting' is not substantiated by any evidence.
There is an argument that the harvesting of plantation timber is sustainable (if the species planted are fast growing and there is an intelligent harvesting cycle).
But there is no crebibility in the suggestion that harvesting of old growth forest is sustainable unless timber harvesters are prepared to wait three or four hundred years for seedling trees to mature.
The quality and quantity of water in our catchments is enhanced by maintaining native vegetation. Logging in sensitive parts of the catchments diminishes water quality (not to mention the biodiversity implications)

I agree that the response of our fire services to 'events' is less than ideal and Glen's comment that 'The damage caused in an average harvesting coupe, in contrast, would be less than that which occurs from a best practice Fire Service response to a single lightning strike.' is right. Except that what we usually see is not a 'best practise' response.

I became involved in this campaign in the mid 90's after being told some incredible porkies by the government and the logging industry about logging in the Otways, particularly the in Barwon dam catchment. I was informed that logging only involved 0.3% per annum while the true figure for the catchment was closer to 2%. Although I found both sides loose with the truth the pro-logging camp always won the deception stakes hands down. This article is either more of the same or just revealing plain ignorance.

To settle the debate at the time the then Environment minister Sheryl Garbutt commissioned an independent report by Sinclair Knight Mertz which found, to the government's dismay, that logging in the Barwon Dam catchment was responsible for around 10% yield reduction. (SKM Impacts of Logging on Water Yield and Quality in the Otways. December 2000).

What Mr Kline has also failed to mention is that logging within a catchment usually involves mountain ash which only grows in the upper reaches of the catchment where the rainfall exceeds 1000mm per year. This area is far more extensively logged and has a far greater impact on water yield.

You may notice the lack of the word woodchips in Mr Kline's article. Woodchips drive this industry. The best coupes generally yield around 1 sawlog for every 2 woodchip logs however I have being in coupes within Geelong's water supply where the ratio is a disgraceful 1 to 8.

I personally feel there is a case for selective logging within our native forests but the greed and destruction involved in clearfelling is just plain wrong. Not only for the water values but also for issues of biodiversity, erosion, soil compaction, poisons, and tourism.

However water was a lynch pin issue in the campaign to stop logging in the Otways and for the creation of The Greater Otway National Park. There is no doubt the Thompson Dam catchment is coming under similar pressures and the only logical move possible by a responsible government will be to cease clearfell logging there as soon as it is politically possible.