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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > NSW red gum logging defies Federal environment law > Comments

NSW red gum logging defies Federal environment law : Comments

By Lindsay Hesketh, published 3/3/2010

The river red gum wetland forests along the Murray River provide a perfect illustration of why protected areas are so important.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
A simple question: If timber production in the red gum forests is so destructive, why were the Victorian red gum forests given Ramsar listing in the early 1980s, and the NSW forests in 2003? The wise use of natural resources has never been seen as an impediment to conservation under this internationally recognised convention, but our 'environmental' movement deems otherwise simply because it can't countenance the felling of trees for human use.

Their view that only national parks can 'protect' Australian forests has been shown to be flawed for a long period because the total removal of economic activity and the associated conservation works that it effectively funded are lost once these parks are declared. Instead, their management becomes totally reliant on government funding which is limited to an extent that must be priority directed at visitor management with generally little left for broadscale land management. The result has usually been degradation, cheifly by unnnaturally severe fire.

Of course, water is what these particular forests need and declaring national parks does absolutely nothing to assist in this regard, although it will undoubtedly give many uninformed urban 'greens' an illusion of 'protection'.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 11:18:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Comment from BD Dexter, retired red gum silviculture expert:

The conservation of ecological values and continuation of an ecologically sustainable timber industry in Riverina red gum forests are not conflicting issues as Lindsay Hesketh claims.

The real problem is the long outdated and unsubstantiated belief that environmental conservation can only be secured in national parks. There is ample evidence to the contrary in this the most modified landscape in Australia.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Ministor Sartor understands the crucial need for managed watering to sustain these forests and there is now a compelling case to have the forests delisted from RAMSAR wetlands.

The Government has an overriding responsibility to ensure social, economic and environmental equity for all, not wilfully destroying whole communities by pandering to unaccountable green activists and allowing bureaucrats to hide behind reports unavailable to the public..
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 12:43:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This decision to create a National park from well managed productive forests seems to have more to do with grubby preference deals in the backroom of the greens party (see http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/labor-preference-trouble-over-red-gums/story-e6frea73-1225833471479) than it does about the wise use of our natural wetlands.

The Ramsar convention is about wise use of wetlands; not locking them up in national parks, a key issue here is managing the forests so it does not become stressed due to lack of water, either through drought or from too many trees.

For all the rhetoric of this ACF article and the media claims of the greens, forestry is being carried out on a sustainable basis, and has been acknowledged to improve the health of the forest.

The first two posts from expert foresters echo research conducted on behalf of community groups in NSW and Victoria, that found that active management based on forest science provided a better hope for the ecosystem than the lock it up mentality of the ACF, and other green groups.

In fact the creation of a National park may be in contravention of the EPBC Act as the national environmental value is to manage this wetland in accordance with the RAMSAR convention that adopts the triple bottom line approach of sustainable development balancing the environment, economy and society's basic needs of jobs and a future for regional communities.
Posted by cinders, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 1:11:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The forest in question is more like a Ramsar dryland. Declaring a notional park on the floodplains will not produce the natural spring floods that sustain of E. camaldulensis forests. Another process will. What man-made process could interfere with spring flooding? Hint- it's not cutting a few redgum trees in the forest.

Continual canopy? If it suited the argument Hesketh would be arguing for diversity of ecosystem structure. But not today.

Note that there is one plus to notional park status, in that it will merely be a moratorium on logging. Lots of redgum trees will be able to reach larger and more valuable log size by the time (100 years or so) when folk realise they actually miss having access to real timbers of cultural relevance to us Euro newbies as well as first nation sorts.

The same moratorium poses a danger to society. Active native forest logging provides online content upon which Groucho can harmlessly discharge his outrage; without logging this might otherwise be vented in a dangerous manner. Greenorrhoea has influenced me enough to insist on selective application of the precautionary principle; and having read entensively of 'Marx', the risk of a blowout is not that far fetched.

Anyhow, red gum grows quite well (if a bit forky) in plantations and might as well use local seed stock. They look really healthy if they can get the odd irrigation to keep the transpiration and biomass production up and explosions of soil-coccooning foliage-eating caterpillars down. It's just hard to get the land and water out of the present agricultural gridlock, and any method modern governments use to achieve tree plantation targets (for the longest investment that tree growing is) invariably attracts more criticism from society's eco-mullahs.
Posted by hugoagogo, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 1:55:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly all the commenters so far live their own bubbles. not related to anything else in the this otherwise inter-connected world.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 3:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The elephant in the room is that we have a rapidly growing population that requires two things: land and housing, which means timber. Most housing today is constructed from pine or lightweight pressed steel framing and there is a huge undersupply of plantation pine stock coming down the pipeline. Along with the pine, most homes have some form of landscaping and fencing, which relies on hardwood posts and sleepers. Treated pine looks crap and doesn't have the strength of good quality hardwood.

I have a sawmill in Brisbane, which only cuts hardwood. I source my logs from urban clearances, tree-loppers, road clearances and so on. it's all salvaged timber that would otherwise be chipped or burnt. Even with my best efforts, I rarely get more than 25-50% of the millable timber on any given site, simply because it is quicker and hence cheaper to chip it. I reckon I get about 0.1% or less of the total millable timber from such sources in Brisbane.

If regulation requiring developers, road constructors and loppers to salvage millable logs was passed, I'd reckon the river red gum would be as safe as houses.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 4 March 2010 8:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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