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'.

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The real problem is the long outdated and unsubstantiated belief that environmental conservation can only be secured in national parks.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..

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.

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.

Clearly all the commenters so far live their own bubbles. not related to anything else in the this otherwise inter-connected world.

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.

Antiseptic

I agree with everything in your post. Excellent to know about your sawmill and practices. We waste far too much of everything.

Now please pick yourself up off the floor and close you mouth - a fly might buzz-in.

Severin:"I agree with everything in your post. "

Bugger! and there was me thinking i was doing something sensible...

Actually, so much is wasted that it's insane. Brisbane is expanding rapidly and a huge amount of the area that is to become housing has millable timber on it. My prediction is that nearly all of it will be chipped and that most of the chip will end up in landfill, to be tapped for methane to power co-generation plants.

At the same time, a much larger area of otherwise useful land will have to be planted with tree plantations to supply the timber needs of the housing areas, removing it from other forms of production, even grazing, since cattle damage trees.

I can economically mill logs down to about 300 mm diameter although larger is better and I can produce rustic fence posts ("split posts") out of stuff as small as 200. Logs of that size and larger make up perhaps 30%-50% of the total mass of arboreal cover in the sclerophyll forests around Brisbane where development is being done.

to put it in perspective, the average tree lopper has a chipper capable of reducing 100-odd cubic metres of logs up to 450 diameter to chip in a day. Logs of larger than 450 diameter make up perhaps 2-3% of the total mass in these forests and most will have to be carted off site for tub-grinding.

This process is encouraged by the tax system which treats such costs as coming straight off the top, not the bottom line. If an estimate of potential log value based on trunk/crown ratios was required to be accrued against such costs, then they would be much more willing to look at ways of reducing them, which includes milling. IOW, if the tax system regarded the logs as an item of value and held the developer responsible for recovering the value, there would be less incentive to waste it.

Antiseptic

I love timber, the grain of it, the feel of it, the look of it, the myriad uses to which it can be put and that we can produce more it - without destroying old forest. The fact that we do not need to woodchip a single tree as there are many plant species that fill the niche for woodchips; bamboo, papyrus, hemp.

My home is western red cedar, when I renovate I will be recycling everything I can, for example, the baltic pine floors. When I work in the garden I use the sturdy branches and trunks of trees I have either pruned or removed as edging and in retaining walls through-out the garden - depending upon the species susceptibility to termites.

We have to revalue timber as you have pointed out. The only thing that seems to work in this world is that money talks, bvllshit walks. Woodchips are the bvllshit of the timber industry.

Re-Cycling timber from trees in the urban development areas.
Yes I agree. We should be doing more with trees fallen in the wake of development or storms. I have seen some beautiful large trees fall to wood chipping, especial after severe storms, because it was quicker and easier. Often they finished up in landfill.
A country town where I was stationed, council decided to widen one road. It was lined with beautiful silky oak trees that were roughly 2-2 1/2 feet in diameter and 40 ft high. What did council do with this beautiful timber? Cut up into foot blocks and dumped at the tip.
Silky Oak is a very valuable furniture timber. If it was so necessary to widen the road, council could have recouped a large amount of money by selling them to a timber mills to be cut for furniture timber.
Recently, I attended a forum on water run by the water board. Discussions included re-cycled water. There has been and still is, some toxic feeling between the Board and the public, with the lack of community consultation, secret deals with industry and allegations of political interference.
One Board speaker claimed it collected only 30% of the water that fell in the catchment as 70% was taken up by the forest, whereas clear felling reversed this allowing 70% collection.
Well, clear felling also causes erosion of the hillsides; polluted rivers and streams. Sluggish rivers and streams are subject to blue algae, resulting in poisoned stock and humans as well as native fauna as well as removing natural cover for flora and fauna.
I would prefer 70% of our rain catchment was retained within our forests and the water we did collect was pure and clean. Also, increasing our forests would also increase our catchment areas and increase the amount of clean water that has not as much need for treatment, reducing costs in that field.
Hence I do not support the water board’s statement.

continued.

I owned a farm that had open forest land and I averaged up to 4-5-" more rainfall than my nearest neighbours who did not have timber. Stock needed to look for the post with the needed shade in the summer, whereas my stock could graze all day long in the shade if they wished.
I also had less trouble with insect pests, therefore had no need to use chemicals to spray.
I believe we have lost something like 80-90% of our forests in as many years. Let us plan a strategy that will return them. I believe we would have a better environment, cleaner streams and ultimately better water.
The national strategy should urgently address how we can bring them back.
It would also create employment immediately and for the future.
I have no objections to pine plantations. The construction needs it for construction purposes.
Our natives evolved for our climate and we should be making more use of them.
Using tunnel vision you see very little. When you look at the whole picture you will see a completely different picture.
The Board meeting was supposed to be a community consultation, yet so many of the issues that concerned the public when raised received the response that they are not on the agenda.
The public assumption was that the purpose of the meeting was so the Board could claim (in error) that it had partaken in community consultation.
A panel of seven experts were supposed to be there to answer public questions. Their presence was obvious by their absence. Board Employees and management ran the meeting. I am not sure whether there was one specialist representing the panel was there and although he spoke well he had a vested interest in supporting the Board as I understand he was employed or funded by the Board. Why were they absent?
I can understand one or perhaps two but nearly the whole panel to not turn up! Was there some political interference that decided the public should not get answers? The public wanted more information and they did not get it.

Professor-au:"council could have recouped a large amount of money by selling them to a timber mills to be cut for furniture timber."

Actually, no. I rarely pay for logs unless they're top-notch, although I will remove them for nothing once the tree's been felled. The cost of cartage, storage, milling, waste disposal and drying is such that marhins are low.

Between 40 and 85% of any log is waste, depending on the product. Flooring is the worst, because every stage drops another 25% or more of the volume, which is why select grade flooring is so expensive.

Silky oak is best quarter-sawn, with back-sawn timber not as valuable since it doesn't have the characteristic "ray figure". Quarter sawing is wasteful and time consuming and the market for Southern silky oak (Grevillea robusta)is not large since it is not as durable as the northern silky (Cardwellia Sublimis) and there is no commercial forestry. I have about 10cubic metres cut and dried if you're interested...

Having said all that, it is still good for councils to demand log recovery where possible, since it reduces green waste volumes at the tip. Unfortunately, at least in Brisbane, it is precisely because of that reduction in volume that it can't happen. The operators of the tips have contracts with Council which would be breached by allowing others, like me, to recover council logs and if council is not doing it, developers won't either.

Another pressure on the urban forest resource is methane capture from tips and cogeneration. There are small plants all over the country tapping tip gas, which green waste produces in massive quatities. As energy prices increase, these will become more attractive. If timber imports continue to hold hardwood prices artificially low, then logs may become more valuable as chip.

Antiseptic
Thanks for your information on the cost and the amount that can be recovered as good furniture timber and take you point. I would like to accept your offer but at 77 and not in the best of health I would not be able to use it. I am now limited to small projects, such as carving and scroll sawing. Thanks anyway
Whatever use we can make of "council" timber, it is better than going to land fill. Those councils that can reclaim a resource through gas is a sound idea.
However, as we have limited potential tip sites, I would like to see some development that will allow, after the gas reclamation, a better use of the remainder.
I will admit I am a little vague as to what happens to material after the gas has been reclaimed. If there is any remainder, perhaps it could be used as a mulch or compost, etc. It would be too dirty to make particle boards, etc.
I am concerned that too much is going to landfill when it might have other uses.
Even the so-called experts of re-cycling, take material to landfill when it is too difficult to re-cycle. We do not re-cycle as well as the USA. They seem to re-cycle a broader range of products