This article fails to acknowledge that the forests have a high economic and aesthetic value if left undisturbed. I seem to recall the PM promised to conserve forests at the Copenhagen climate conference. While Tasmanian forestry creates some jobs they are declining in number due to low wood demand, rival producers and forest certification. On the other hand tourists delight in seeing the tall trees. They are shocked by what they see eg cable logging next to the road out to Lake Pedder. Think of a vegetarian visiting an abattoir. Similarly tree-changers who have made the Huon Valley their home now find logging encroaching on their neighbourhoods. My point is that both tourists and tree changers spend real money to make those choices and logging could kill those even more lucrative industries.

On Tasmania vs Europe which has the more 'normal' attitude to forests? In Europe if they spot a 400 year old tree they put a preservation order on it. In Tassie they can't wait to chop it down, the ostensible reason being good saw logs which will store carbon. Whoops the trunks were split so they go to the chipper instead. Irreplaceable 400 year old forest giants become paper that is thrown in the trash after a day. Some fate for the natural world's senior citizens. It seems to me the forestry industry should have got its act together by the 21st century. That is plantations on already cleared land should provide all the saw logs and chip wood the industry needs. Why should the forestry industry have to keep vandalizing a magnificent natural resource?

Taswegian
Interesting thoughts, but you are really just confirming the article's message that much of the opposition to Tasmanian forestry almost mindlessly lacks perspective. A bit of logging stimulates all sorts of grandiose misconceptions and conspiracy theories that all the forests are going to disappear.

"In Tassie, if they spot an old tree they can't wait to cut it down"
As the article said, almost half of Tassie's forests are in reserves that won't be cut down, that includes most of the old growth. Another 30% is privately-owned, of which much will be effectively reserved. The areas that are harvested are regenerated as new forests.

"Irreplaceable 400 year old forest giants become paper that is thrown in the trash after a day"
Older forests may produce pulp, but also valuable Special Timbers, and appearance grade eucalypt sawn timber. This supplies the work of furniture designers, sculptors, wood turners, wooden boat builders, musical instrument makers, and those who make iconic products for retail sale through outlets serving the tourism industry. It also includes high quality fit-out in new work, restoration and renovation designed by award winning architects. This includes the work of skilled tradespeople in new or renovated kitchens and bathrooms.

"It seems to me the forestry industry should have got its act together by the 21st century .... plantations on already cleared land should provide all the saw logs and chip wood the industry needs".

Special timbers and high value appearance grade eucalypt sawlog are not available from plantations.

"On Tasmania vs Europe which has the more 'normal' attitude to forests?" Well, humans have been using forests for wood since time immemorial. So there is nothing unnatural about harvesting forests, but we have the advantage today of being able to ensure that they regenerate to grow into new forests.

The article is quite right on forestry activists, and the lessons can be applied to many other activists (with honourable exceptions). They don't know and don't care that they don't know. Or worse, think they know - having read a couple of front page headlines and spoken to someone in a pub - and then bitterly attack anyone with different views, using terms like "ignorent".
There is nothing really to be done about the supply of such opinions. Telling activists to shut up or go away just makes them more abusive, reasoning with them make them think they have you on the run (otherwise, why would you respond). The only response is even more nonsensical and abusive counter-arguements.
But you can do something about the demand - ignore them as best you can. This makes sensible policy making more difficult but that is the price we pay for the internet.

With 1,465,000 hectares (47%) of its native forests reserved, Mark is right to point out “Tasmania’s proportion of forest reservation is higher than anywhere in the world and almost five-times greater than the world standard of just 10 per cent reservation.”

This level of reservation if applied nationally would be like reserving Queensland, NSW, Victoria and part of SA. This is not the case and the overall forest within formal conservation reserves system is a nationwide 16%. So rather than being condemned for its forestry, Tasmania should be applauded by all those valuing the economic and intrinsic value of these reserves.

Tasmania has always been a leader in the creation of National Parks, with the Mt Field National Park, proclaimed in 1916. It includes the famous Russell Falls and stunning walks through enormous fern forests and some of the tallest trees in the world. A much newer national park, at Savage River, in the heart of the Tarkine, created by the Regional Forest Agreement contains the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia.

Yet this comprehensive reserve system that protects habitat of threatened species and contains 98% of high quality wilderness is ignored by many seeking to oppose timber harvesting or plantation establishment. Instead the forests on either side of the sealed road to Lake Pedder, Tasmania’s largest manmade lake are described as pristine old-growth and subject to protest. Or the forests of the Huon Valley that have been managed for timber production for over 150 years are now seen as residential vista that must be preserved.

It is for this ‘selective vision’ the round table is doomed to failure and it is no surprise that the Mercury is reporting that the Premier has abandoned his attempt to bring together environmentalists and industry. http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/06/17/152851_tasmania-news.html With the Premier advising that Greens leader Nick McKim and he came to a conclusion “jointly that it was not helpful."

Perhaps no coincidence that this declaration was made within days of the Greens announcing that its Federal election campaign would demand ending all native forest harvesting in Australia.

This paid forestry spin merchant deliberately misses the reality of what's happening in Tasmania today.

The unfortunate fact is that forestry's activities have been, and are, producing numerous severe detrimental impacts on Tasmanian communities, resources, businesses and environment.

The environmental impacts get all of the attention because there are organisations that are paid to protest such as the Wilderness Society. Forestry gets lots of air time because there are paid spruikers for forestry's interests.

What doesn't get any air time are the disastrous effects on communities and businesses because they have no paid spokespersons, and because governments don't want the effects of their harmful decisions made public.

Communities don't need to be forestry experts to understand the detrimental impacts of wood chipping, or to understand the impacts of having 3,000 sq km of their island devoted to plantations.

Let's look at the recent track record of this self proclaimed sustainable industry.

* $250 million per year in mixed public subsidies (cheap trees, free plantation water, roads and bridges built and maintained at public expense and so on. (e.g. see http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/mill-doing-the-sums/)
* MIS collapse with tens of thousands of investors losing their savings & taxpayers losing around $1 billion
* TimberCorp/Great Southern go bankrupt
* FEA goes bankrupt
* Gunns posts almost no profit in 1st half, shares drop significantly
* Local asthma sufferers repeatedly threatened by forestry 'burns'
* Council rate deficiencies due to plantations paying a fraction of usual land rates
* Community anger at forestry manipulations of government and political parties

...and that's just for starters.

Until forestry starts to add value to local communities, instead asking for handouts while oshipping public forest resources overseas as chips, they're going to have problems.

In fact there are so many fallacies and mistakes in Mark's article that I think it merits a separate response.

Sayonara

The Mikester
Firstly, I am not a 'paid forestry spin merchant'. I write about forestry matters on behalf of the Institute of Foresters of Australia on a voluntary basis.

Secondly, you have listed a range of things but failed to acknowledge the role of the global financial crisis. The forestry sector is not perfect, but what industry sector is? I imagine that whichever industry you looked at in recent times would have had financial problems which adversely affected the community, but is that a reason to simply close them down?

Thidly, I probably should thank you for providing a link to a Tasmanian Times article which perfectly illustrates what my article is on about - that the conflict over Tassie's forests is driven largely by ill-informed opinions from unqualified people who are passionate about 'saving' trees but unwilling to accept facts (and are inclined to make-up their own 'facts') and lack a wider perspective.

Your linked Tas Times article was written by a 'Tasmanian writer' using a non-de-plume, with the assistance of an 'analyst' who wishes to remain anonymous. Need I say more?

Nevertheless their article is presented as though fact and includes things such as the 'cost of toxins in the water' without ever considering that there may be none. Their article could be demolished point-by-point by those involved in the forestry sector, but it would be a huge task and generally work requirements preclude this from occurring. Sadly then, it goes unchallenged into the historic archive of 'evidence' to be wheeled out to demonise forestry - even though it has little veracity.

It's strange reasoning to say that since Tasmania still has many trees that it could do with less. That's a bit like saying the Egyptians should crush a few pyramids for road base so they wouldn't have too many. No disagreement on specialty timbers but I think a small number of trees should be selectively logged, not clear felled. The fact that plantation timber is largely not good enough quality suggests the current approach to old growth logging is both short sighted and unsustainable.

Curmudgeon and Poynter why do you feel it necessary to vilify logging critics? That doesn't seem like the way to win an argument.

Taswegian at post 7 has "no diasgreement on specialty timbers"

There's only 3-4 kg of fillet steak on a steer; the rest is lower (and lower, and lower) grade material.

What would you do with that?

Taswegian
With respect, your interpretation of my article as saying "that since Tasmania still has many trees that it could do with less" cuts to the heart of why many people oppose forestry - which is that they still don't understand that timber harvesting does not reduce the number of trees because logged areas are immediately regenerated as new forests.

Re: Old growth and selective harvesting rather than clearfelling:
Most of Tasmania's native forest logging does not involve old growth forest. Where it does, it generally involves old growth wet forest types which require full sunlight and an ash seedbed to regenerate. That is why clearfelling is used, rather than selective harvesting.

Re: Villifying logging critics
I don't belief the article villifies them personally - it merely critically examines the thinking which underpins their campaigns.

MWPOYNTER

Just a question (or two) regarding your claim:

>> timber harvesting does not reduce the number of trees because logged areas are IMMEDIATELY (my emphasis) regenerated as new forests. <<

Is there a forest equivalent to instant turf? Along with instant undergrowth? Instant forest floor litter? Instant fauna?

I agree with Taswegian - there is no excuse for clear-felling just as there is no "immediate" fix for an environment that has been completely cleared of everything that was the environment.

"because logged areas are immediately regenerated as new forests."

As was observed in the last comment, this assertion is so ridiculous it is laughable.

Take a undisturbed forest that is the product of 4 billion years of evolution, cut it down, remove a bit of the biomass (mostly for woodchip with a token volume for a sawmill if there is one left in the region), drive your bulldozers, trucks and log loaders all over the site, burn it, repeat treatment after 80 years. (Add 'poison wildlife with 1080' if you are in Tasmania)

MWPoynter equates these activities with natural processes.

The other dismal science, "forestry", hoisted on its own petard.

Here's a tip to help with your public relations exercises Mark, if it hasn't been logged before don't log it. If the science of your profession is so great and you operate on "sustainable" 80 year rotations (replacing wood is not replacing a forest Mark), why are you still looking for new areas to wreck after 200 years? Shouldn't your activities be restricted to the wonderfully regenerated forests that you have already "managed" over the last 200 years?

Severin and maaate
I read you posts with some disbelief ...... that you could display such an ignorance of the natural processes of forest regeneration.

Perhaps you should go for a drive around Marysville and observe how fire-killed forest regenerates. Then perhaps go for a walk in the E.regnans stand alongside the Maroondah Hwy at the Black Spur and consider that 71-years ago this area was completely killed in the 1939-fires, and was then replanted by the Forest Commission. Observe that this area has a litter layer and a full suite of understorey species. Maybe, you'll learn something.

Timber production is already limited delineated sections of forest
set aside for sustainable harvest and regeneration in perpetuity. In Victoria, this area comprises about 9% of the state's public forests and it consists of a mix of over-mature and mature forests and regrowth from past fire and logging. Planned rotation length varies from 80 - more than 100 years depending on forest type. So there is no search for new areas.

MXPOYNTER

I have a background in landscape design and environmental studies. Equating bushfires with clear-felling is a nonsense. The environment is forever altered after a bushfire even though many plant species particularly eucalypts have evolved recovery methods - hence the sprouting of new leaves on tree-trunks (as in Marysville) or the evolution of the Mallee root where the tree can be burnt to the ground, the root-ball will regenerate.

There is no natural re-generation of a forest after it has been cleared. Even replanting can't replace the conditions necessary for all the dependent plant, insect and animal life. Logging completely disrupts a natural cycle that cannot be imitated by your "instant forest". There is no replacing a 100 or 400 year old forest. It is gone, forever. The biological diversity is gone forever. Which is why keeping untouched areas of forest is vital if we are to regain diversity in areas which have been cleared. 70 years probably sounds like a long time to you, but in environmental/geological terms it is nothing.

I think you're being disingenuous in relating to '39 regrowth Mark.

1/ By definition '39 regrowth predates industrial logging regimes. If there was a history of previous logging, it would have been hand cut and the logs snigged with bullock teams.

That is no comparison with a bulldozer that churns up feet or even meters of subsoil. What happens to soil stored seed? What happens when clay and acid sulphate soils are brought to the surface? What happens to organic matter at the surface?

Some of the coupes I've seen could only be the work of criminally insane cretins. It's a mystery how these clowns were let loose with anything more dangerous than a soft toy.

2/ Fire is a natural process. It is part of the ecology but these forests don't need holocaust style fires to regenerate. Hot fires might kill 100% but cooler fires may not kill many or even any older trees but will still activate seed in the soil.

Any perceived similarity between a bushfire and clearfell logging is pure confabulation.

Yes Mark, only around 9% of forest is set aside for timber production but that 9% is a moving feast. The industry doesn't want scrubby forests (like 3m mallee), they don't want the stuff they've already flogged (that hasn't, or isn't, regenerating like you'd want), they can't have the stuff in parks that was logged and then turned into parks, they don't want dry forests on rocky north facing slopes... etc etc etc.

The industry has very specific tastes. That's why about 97% of the logging in East Gippsland is focused on elevated wet forests right Mark? It's like a gold rush to plunder the last of the heritage forests but you don't have to worry about a RSPT, you only need to make sure the government keeps subsidising you with public money.

Mr Poynter, I quote,

Re: Old growth and selective harvesting rather than clearfelling:
Most of Tasmania's native forest logging does not involve old growth forest. Where it does, it generally involves old growth wet forest types which require full sunlight and an ash seedbed to regenerate. That is why clearfelling is used, rather than selective harvesting.

-

So, Gondwanan temperate rainforest, old growth wet forest, very highly fire sensitive, needs full sunlight and an ash seedbed to regenerate. You make it sound like in a short rotattion it'll be exactly the same. If you know anything about ecology you know how many thousands of years at best it will take for forest of this type to regenerate back to it's former state.

There will always be a rift between old world foresters such as yourself and conservationists because you don't percieve value in the same way. To conservationists it's about it's potential to maintain biodiversity, a home for a wealth of flora and fauna and an uplifting experience to those that feel connection with the natural world. To foresters like yourself, it's a resource to be exploited.
That's why you can't understand how deeply offended and emotional people can get about the destruction of natural beauty and habitat.

I suspect Barnaby Drake said he wanted to head over to France as there as in most of the developed world, there is a greater respect for the natural world, even what's left of their long ravaged landscape. Tasmania has values lost 20,000 years ago in England for example. How can you then condone destroying elements of that just because some other place has done it? Do you not see how special Tasmania's natural places are, or care?

As for this clearfelling of old growth...soooo old school. This is 2010, get over it, the world has moved on. Tasmanians are custodians of rare and special beauty, work from that standpoint and the 2 camps shall meet.

cont

The thinnings operations are a debacle but that's another story as is the effect of knocking out these strategically situated wet forests that have acted as buffers against mega fires for millennia. Wait 'til climate change gets a hold of these tracts of regenerating forests (more like industry spec plantations really) and then we'll see what a mega fire really looks like. 2003 and 2007 were the entree.

Severin @ "There is no replacing a 100 or 400 year old forest. .... The biological diversity is gone forever"
With respect, this is a pretty ignorant comment and goes against decades of research, such as that at the Boola Boola State Forest in Gippsland. This compared regrowth forests stemming from 1930's timber harvesting with unlogged forests, and showed that the biodiversity of both was virtually identical.

Maaate @ "By definition '39 regrowth predates industrial logging regimes"
Not entirely, the logging at Boola Boola (see above) in the late 1930's was equivalent to today's operations in being highly intensive in consolifdated areas producing both sawlogs and pulp for APM Maryvale.

Maaate @ ".... it would have been hand cut and the logs snigged with bullock teams. That is no comparison with a bulldozer that churns up feet or even meters of subsoil"

Your knowledge is very dated. Bulldozers are rarely used now in favour of rubber-tyred skidders that have far less impact on soils. In Vic for the past 20-years a formal and enforcible Code of Practice prohibits logging at the wettest times of the year - it is rare to see soil mixing and rutting as you describe it.

It is a fallacy that old-style logging was better for the environment - there were few rules, so no stream reserves or restriction on timing of operations - it was probably common for snigging to occur along gully beds. Things that have been prohibited for decades.

Maaate @ "... but these forests don't need holocaust style fires to regenerate"
You have no idea .... wet E.regnans forests will only dry out sufficiently to burn under drought conditions and so will only burn in very hot, holocaust-type fires.

Maaate @ "Any perceived similarity between a bushfire and clearfell logging is pure confabulation"
What expertise do have to back this up?

Maate @ "Yes Mark, only around 9% of forest is set aside for timber production but that 9% is a moving feast"
Not true, it is set in legislation that defines and delineates parks and reserves from state forest

1/ I'm not familiar with Boola Boola so I don't know what methods they used at the time but, either way, it's not a example of the predominant methodology of the time. And besides, you wrote specifically of the Black Spur. If we're introducing random examples as general principles I'd like to cite some failed regeneration and extrapolate that all clearfelling regen fails. Keep your eye on the ball Mark.

2/ Are you telling me that there are no bulldozers currently operating in logging coupes Mark? Regardless of whether we're talking dozers or other types of logging machinery, when you've got up to 50 tons of machine, any debate about the disturbance caused by tracks or pneumatic tyres is moot. It's a pity I can't post photos because I'd like to show other readers what a joke your quibble is.

Also, I didn't offer any opinion on old fashioned forestry practices, I merely said there was no comparison between the effect of bullock teams and logging machinery. That said, I have seen some forest that was selectively logged in the distant past and the effect was barely discernible. The same can not be said of the regrowth from the post war industrial logging regimes. I've also seen the results of selective logging on private property and thought the forest was still in great nick.

3/ If E. regnans needs 'holocaust' style fires, why have I seen stands with at least three age classes? Doesn't a 'holocaust' style fire kill regnans? I would suggest the on ground evidence proves that regnans can regenerate with fires that are cool enough for older regnans to survive.

Maaate
@ "If we're introducing random examples as general principles I'd like to cite some failed regeneration and extrapolate that all clearfelling regen fails"

So you would prefer it if there were no examples - obviously its easier for you to keep arguing a point if there aren't examples. Sorry about that.

@ "Regardless of whether we're talking dozers or other types of logging machinery, when you've got up to 50 tons of machine, any debate about the disturbance caused by tracks or pneumatic tyres is moot"

No its not actually - have you ever seen the difference?

@ "I didn't offer any opinion on old fashioned forestry practices, I merely said there was no comparison between the effect of bullock teams and logging machinery"

So, you implied that old fashioned forestry was better - that sounds like an opinion to me.

@ " I have seen some forest that was selectively logged in the distant past and the effect was barely discernible"

Very good, but as I said earlier, you can't easily regenerate the most productive wet forest types unless you clearfell, burn and sow.
You can thin them in their regrowth stage though, where there is no requirement for regeneration because you are retaining a good stocking of trees on site. This is different to selectively logging mature forest - if trees won't regenerate in the gaps they will regenerate to scrub and you eventually have a degraded forest as the retained old trees gradually die - unless of course, a fire comes along at some stage and stimulates a new regrowth event.

@ "If E. regnans needs 'holocaust' style fires, why have I seen stands with at least three age classes?"

Where are these stands?

MWPOYNTER

>> This is different to selectively logging mature forest - if trees won't regenerate in the gaps they will regenerate to scrub and you eventually have a degraded forest as the retained old trees gradually die - unless of course, a fire comes along at some stage and stimulates a new regrowth event. <<

Over what time frame? Natural clearings occur when mature trees fall, the infiltration of scrub into those zones are a part of forest evolution, unless the process is altered by fire. Selective logging emulates that procedure, although the difference is that nutrients that would normally return to the eco-system are not replaced. Therefore it takes longer for forest to recover from selective logging than for natural tree fall.

However, to use your statement above as an excuse to clear fell is simply absurd. There is no bio-diversity left to regenerate the forest. There is also the issue of time - you argue as if forests can re-establish themselves within a few decades - they don't. Forests require far longer than your life-span - you have no understanding of ecology, a victim no doubt, of your industry's propaganda.

There is no justification for clear-felling and selective logging requires careful tending of the area from which the trees were taken, from monitoring the recovery of the loss of the tree through to restoring the damage done by logging trucks.

That the majority of clear-felled trees wind up as wood chips, when other fast growing crops, such as bamboo and hemp can provide equivalent products, is heinous.

As humans learn more and technology creates new industries, old industries either adapt or fail. Clear-felling is old technology, our environment cannot sustain it. Either move into forest management or move on out of the forests altogether.

PS

I, unlike you, have refrained from casting personal insults. I have also demonstrated that I am far from ignorant as you claim. Insulting one's opponent indicates that you are losing this debate when all you can do is resort to ad hominems.

I couldn't post this yesterday as I'd reached my quota of comments at OO:

4/ *Maaate @ "Any perceived similarity between a bushfire and clearfell logging is pure confabulation"
What expertise do have to back this up?*

The old "appeal to authority" fallacious argument. Is that your best shot? If you need to question my expertise it tells me you're out of puff. Anyone who has walked through a bushfire burnt forest and a coupe after logging and regen burn can see the difference.

5/ *Maate @ "Yes Mark, only around 9% of forest is set aside for timber production but that 9% is a moving feast"
Not true, it is set in legislation that defines and delineates parks and reserves from state forest*

The corollary of your argument is that 91% of public forest is in reserves. Is that correct Mark?

What about the "Special Management Zones" in multiple use forest, are areas in these zones permanently protected from logging? Or can that protection be removed with the stroke of pen?

The area with at least 3 age classes of E.regnans is at Cambarville. I haven't been there recently but seeing as it is at the eastern flank of the 2009 fires it may have been relatively unscathed. I wouldn't be surprised if it soon has four generations of Mountain Ash in the one stand.

This industry obsession with trying to tie E. regnans regeneration to extreme fire events is solely about creating a false impression in the public mind. If people believe this lie they will be more inclined to accept clearfelling as a legitimate forestry technique. The whole myth is nothing more than propaganda generated to rationalise the commercial expedience of a grotesquely destructive logging practice.

More important is that it is doubtful that any eucalypt species found in wet forests actually need extreme fire events to regenerate at all. Again I know of many sites where different aged specimens of the one species are found together which unequivocally disproves the deceitful inference that forests need to be apocalyptically clearfelled and incinerated to regenerate.

Perhaps we need a picture book to get over the ridiculous claims that forests do not regenerate after clear felling.
Why not go to the United Nations FAO site http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ae542e/ae542e08.htm#bm08.3 where you can scroll down and see the forest renewed after harvest in the Picton in southern Tasmania.

Why not read some of the story on the site for an independent view on forest management in Tasmania.

If you like facts and figures about how the well the forest regenerates after logging, then why not study the list of high conservation value coupes supplied to the FSC. The list and maps supplied by the conservation movement includes 45,000 ha of forest that has been clear felled, burned and regenerated in the past 30 years, see http://www.forestrytas.com.au/branchline/branchline-june-10-2010/facts-on-the-table

Or why not have a look at Styx or Florentine Valley allocated for timber harvesting in the 1930s to the 1990’s to feed the pulp mill at Boyer or the one third of the Tarkine that was managed as feedstock for the Burnie Pulp mill for the same period.

This evidence shows that forests are renewed after harvest, and that harvesting does not destroy their environmental values, clearly the productive forest of Tasmania is living proof that the best place to grow renewable wood products that we use every day is in a forest using science to build upon nature’s success.

Perhaps Mark is right to suggest we need to get out from behind the computer, and go and visit these forests to see the long term minimal impact to biological diversity of harvesting.

Of course be aware of false images that are claimed to be forestry, like the one used by Get Up to harass the banks, it turns out that was a photo shopped image of the exposed bank of Lake King William, a hydro lake, when at a summer low levels.

Maaate

Yes, 91% of Victoria's forests are reserved either formally in national, state or regional parks and other conservation reserves, informally in State Forest Special Protection Zones and Special Management Zones, in operational management reseves such as streamside buffers in accordance with the Code of Practice, or are effectively reserved by being steep, rocky, inaccessible, or unsuitable in terms of species or growth.

Most of these can't be changed by the stroke of a pen - the only one that could is Special Management Reserves which theoretically under some circumstances can be partially used, but aren't as far as I'm aware. In any event, can you see any politician making that pen stroke in the prevailing political climate? I don't think so.

" If you need to question my expertise it tells me you're out of puff"

You, still didn't answer my question. Your funny ideas about fire and ecology suggest your opinions are based on homespun anecdotes and observations, which is OK, but they are hardly deserving of the self-righteous authority with which you convey them, particualrly given that they are largely at odds with decades of research stretching back to the early 1960s Thesis by Ron Grose into the regeneration of ash eucalypts.

You are right though - I am out of puff and have better things to do than sit behind my computer endlessly trying to respond to your theories - you obvously aren't going to believe me when you know you are right.

If you are really interested in this, why don't you contact VicForests and ask if one of their foresters can take you around and explain what is going on.

Cinders and Mark - it doesn't matter what you tell Tweedle dee (Maaate) and Tweedle Dum (Severin) - they have a closed mind. Maaate reckons he has got dirt on his boots and walked in the bush and can read a forest just like a professional forester and tell us what is so "obvious" - I love these armchair experts on the ecology of forests - their ignorance is such a joy to read. They look at a forest (most sitting in the car seat) and think it has been the same for ages and is pristine etc etc. Just like those millions of hectares of "pristine" forests in northern NSW that were converted to National Parks - no recognition of the past logging that created these beuatiful "pristine" forests.

I have a question of Maaaate and Severin - if logging is as bad as you 2 suggest, can you please name just one animal or plant that has become extinct from logging practices? I am not after a species that is hypothetically or supposedly on the brink of extinction due to a rapacious logging industry, but rather an unqualified and known species extinct due to logging. Nor am I interested in a rant on how logging destroys and changes the structure of forests and the animals suffer terribly etc etc. I just want one known species extinct from logging.

Mark states that 91% of forest is excluded from logging. These are the actual numbers:

Total forest Victoria = 7.9 million Ha, conservation reserves 3,050,000 (38%) (not sure if the reserves figure includes the "Clayton's reserves"), area available for logging 2,494,000 (31.5%)

Multiple-use state forests = area 3,312,000, available for logging 2,053,000 (62%) All DSE figures

It's worth remembering that some reserves have extensive logging histories e.g. Croajingolong NP.

Cinders (of mental faculties?)-

The Expert Independent Advisory Panel (EIAP) found that “...a large number of coupes which require further remedial treatment to achieve adequate regeneration. ...significant areas that have no stocking records or are overdue for surveys... Backlog regeneration has existed for a number of years, and the issue will continue to remain until funding and resources are made available. (EIAP, p.9 MAHP Review June 2008).

Where did I say that all regeneration efforts failed?

"... harvesting does not destroy their environmental values,"

How long does it take for hollows to occur in trees? What is the period between logging rotations? How can you say there is no impact on environmental values if the original complement of species cannot occupy the site?

This is a regrowth forest...

http://melbournecatchments.org/wp-content/uploads/regrowth_thomson3_800px.jpg

and this is a old growth forest...

http://melbournecatchments.org/wp-content/uploads/oldgrowth_small1.jpg

Spot any differences? Apparently, some can't.

Oh, and for the record, this is a clearfell...

http://www.forestnetwork.net/CH11-02/Mount%20Vinegar%20Coupe1.jpg

and this is a burnt forest...

http://glenburn.vic.au/assets/image/1259640480-dscn2539.jpg

Spot any differences? Apparently, some can't.

Tragic (apt nick) :

“Ecological information is comprehensive for at least 10% of mammal, bird and amphibian species, while partial ecological information is available for about 60% of known forest dwelling vertebrate and vascular plant species. Ecological information is very limited for most forest dwelling invertebrates, fungi, algae and lichens.

1,287 forest dwelling species are listed as vulnerable, endangered or threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. “ DAFF

No extinctions yet as far as we know but you reckon it's all hunky dory?

Maate & others

We haven't even mentioned the result of erosion caused by clear-felling.

The loss of top-soil, minerals, habitat altered irrevocably, permanent alteration of landscape. The list goes on.

On a global basis:

"The forests have global implications not just on life but on the quality of it. Trees improve the quality of the air that species breath by trapping carbon and other particles produced by pollution. Trees determine rainfall and replenish the atmosphere. As more water gets put back in the atmosphere, clouds form and provide another way to block out the sun&#65533;s heat. Trees are what cool and regulates the earth&#65533;s climate in conjunction with other such valuable services as preventing erosion, landslides, and making the most infertile soil rich with life. Mother earth has given much responsibility to trees."

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm

To the very local:

"Erosion is happening at 10-20 times faster than the rate topsoil can be formed by natural processes. [Pimentel 2006] Plantations and mono-culture re-growth on short term rotations (10 to 30 years) will result in continuous soil disturbance and nutrient loss, pauperising the soil and landscapes and destroying water catchments. This erosion together with the loss of organic matter which typically contains 3-4 times as much carbon as the vegetation above the ground together with continual burning of short term rotations will result in the pauperisation of the land and loss of productivity. "

http://www.water-sos.org/sediment-nutrient-loss.html

As I stated in my first post to this thread claiming clear-felling environmentally is a nonsense. No amount of proselytising will change what is fact.

You're correct to highlight impacts on soils Severin.

I mentioned the possible adverse chemical reactions when subsoil is exposed. Mark tried to play down this aspect but anyone who has spent any time in logging coupes will have seen that such impacts are common and widewspread.

Additional to erosion is the distubance to soil profiles and micro flora and fauna populations. Anyone with a slight knowledge about forest ecology will be aware of the importance of myccorhizal associations in overall forest health. I remember hearing about some research that found a large proportion of carbon in a forest is in the soil and that fungi makes up a significant part of that component.

We can only wonder about the ecological effects of periodic radical soil disturbance and the removal of large amounts of carbon (mainly for woodchip production). It's a massive gamble on landscape scale. Research is often decades behind practice. As the "Anthropocene" epoch establishes itself, it is imperative we move to a precautionary approach in managing and exploiting natural systems.

When Melbourne was founded explorers and pioneers of the local region gave accounts of massive old growth Ash forests in the Central Highlands. The fire intervals at higher elevations must have stretched beyond 500 years. The physical structure, rainforest understory and hydrological cycle must have made these forests fire resistant so they would have acted as natural barriers to widespread conflagration.

Now "expert" foresters like Mark tell us they are "mimicking" nature with their broadacre industrial forestry regimes. Looking at their pissy regrowth "mosaic of forests of different ages" I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Having wrought unmitigated havoc on these natural systems they now find ever more 'creative' ways to disrupt natural processes.

Because managed forests are a valuable asset, non-productive forests (those that provide only ecological services) must be constantly fuel reduced so they don't threaten the addicts' cash crop. How does this affect those forests? What changes occur? Who cares! Forestry is a
science don't you know!

Cont...

Thinning - not satisfied with 80 year rotations that cut natural cycles off at the knees, they now have thinning operations. After 45 years the regrowth Ash forests can be lovingly tended by reducing the number of stems per hectare. We all know know about the dangers of fuel build up in forests so what do they do about the slash (the crowns, bark and foliage of thinned trees)? Well because the forest is a valuable cash crop that would be damaged by a fuel reduction burn they leave it sitting in forest waiting for...

Since colonisation Victoria has lost over half its forest cover and much of the remaining forest has been extensively modified. You'd think the timber industry would know when enough is enough but they are still predominately focused on forests that have not been logged before. Woodchipping it for export with the odd sawlog figleaf to justify the charade.

The industry tell us they are good citizens and how important they are but millions of tons of timber is being exported raw while related jobs continue to dwindle. There they are again, crying poor and dabbing their moistened eyes while holding out their cap for more taxpayer subsidies. Such honest and hard working people...who aren't averse to bashing and terrorising young Australians who make a stand on conviction.

Any forest that has not been modified since colonisation should be left for posterity. That means everything from natural regrowth to senescent trees that predate Cook by centuries.

In the modified forests, management and productions systems must restore ecological processes. That starts with dumping the archaic practice of clearfelling.

We should go further and extend those principles to agricultural forestry on private land. Those systems should also complement nature. Broadacre industrial monocultures do not. Plantations are not only environmentally unsustainable they are socially and economically unsustainable as we have seen with the MIS debacle. I can understand why a forester would like to see hundreds and thousands of individual land titles aggregated into corporate ownership but what about the communities who have these corporations for neighbours?

"A bit of logging stimulates all sorts of grandiose misconceptions and conspiracy theories that all the forests are going to disappear."

I note the use of 'grandiose misconceptions' and 'conspiracy theories' rather than valid concerns. All depends what end of the argument one comes from which will determine the phraseology used on both sides of the forestry debate.

Do you believe that if there were never any concerns, protests or lobbying from environmental groups that the old growth forests saved from logging would have naturally occured?

I suspect not, but I am a cynic when it comes to environmental protection vs business interests and the way governments might handle those two opposing needs, without the noise from the environmentalists.

Maate

Really appreciate your acknowledgement of damage at the micro level. Fungi and bacterial disturbance is not easily observable by a cursory glance at an area of bushland. One cannot evaluate a soil profile by just looking. It requires study over periods of time that are not compatible with logging interests. I have tried to emphasise that the time-lines the logging industry is applying to its pseudo-regeneration is as lacking in working knowledge as it is premature in its claims. Have not had any response regarding this point. All we hear is a variety of disproved claims that stripping a landscape of its vegetation is all good. It is only good for the likes of Gunns et al. The economic value of undisturbed eco-systems continues to be ignored for the benefit of short term interests.

Pelican

The argument put forward by the pro-logging contingent on this thread emphasises the truth of your post, if there was no problem with clear felling - there would not be the protest, arguments and research into clear-felling.

Maaate if we follow your logic you are suggesting then that 1,287 species listed as vulnerable because of native forest logging. Get a grip. You are clutching at straws. There is no factual evidence to link any extinction to logging and you know it but you feebly throw a subjective threatened species list at me. It is supposition. For the last 40 years I have put up with the do-gooders claiming such and such is going to become extinct within 5 years if logging is not stopped. And 40 years later no extinction has occurred. In fact the opposite correct.

But keep trying if you like as it is amusing what is thrown up as "evidence".

Just because a photo is labelled old growth by a group lobbying for the end of clear felling in water catchments, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is old growth.

The definition of old growth accepted by State and Federal governments was developed for the National Forest Policy Statement of the early 1990s. The NFPS defines old-growth forest as:
“Forest that is ecologically mature and has been subjected to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading and clearing.”

The definition focuses on forest in which the upper stratum or over storey is in the late mature to over mature growth phases.

However, in order to define and map old-growth forests, operational interpretation based on the NFPS definition have been developed by the an expert committee that developed the JANIS criteria for the comprehensive , adequate and representative forest reserve systems for the Regional Forest Agreement process. The agreed national operational interpretation is now:
“Old-growth forest is ecologically mature forest where the effects of disturbances are now negligible.”

Even a casual look at the photo on the MWCN web site shows a nice cleared area of grass running between the trees, the result of unnatural disturbance such as a road.

This is a similar problem ANU academics had when they published their story of carbon in the trees of Melbourne water catchments that used a similar photo from the O’Shannassy catchment. The ABC published the full Esther Beaton forest photo at http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/06/16/2599532.htm
However a look at the PNAS publication has a photo that excludes most of the road! See http://www.pnas.org/content/106/28/11635/F1.large.jpg
Which goes to show the need to get out from behind the computer and take a walk in the forests without relying on imagery that may or may not match its label.

However I did note that one critic made a valiant attempt to prove Mark’s observation right that negative responses are “barely tolerant and sometimes abusive put-downs of those daring to proffer an alternative view”, by attempting to belittle my non de plume and my early post exposing the photo shopping of forest images by anti forest activists.

Maaate, your figures about the net area of Vic native forest available for timber production are somewhat confused, but partly this is because DSE’s State of the Forests Report 2008 only outlines what forest is legally available (as at 2006), without deducting from this the area that is unsuitable due to topographical and other constraints including unproductive forest types.

Also, your 7.9 million ha of Vic native forest includes 1.3 million ha of private forest in which there is very little timber harvesting – it is theoretically available, but is mostly unsuitable.

On the 6.6 million hectares of public native forest, unsuitable areas were outlined in 2002 DNRE reports – Estimates of Sawlog Resources - for the various Forest Management Areas prepared from information from the State Forest Resource Inventory project of the mid to late 1990s.

In addition since 2006, a further ~100,000 ha of forest in the Murray Valley region is in the process of becoming formal parks and reserves following the VEAC process. These need to also be deducted these from the so-called available area.

Overall, about 4.8 million hectares (73%) of Vic public native forest is in the Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system where timber production is excluded. This includes 3.6 million ha in formal parks and reserves and about 1.2 million ha in informal State Forest reserves (SPZ and SMZ) and operational reserves under Code of Forest Practice prescriptions. As these areas are considered to be CAR reserves, they are hardly “Clayton’s reserves” as you call them.

A further 160,000 ha is contained in other Crown Land categories that are not available for timber production.

Of the remaining area of State Forest, which is regarded as ‘available’ for timber production, about 1.0 million is comprised of unproductive forests, inaccessible forests, steep and rocky ground and roads, and so is unsuitable for timber production.

This leaves about 600,000 ha as the net area of public forest that is both available and suitable for timber harvesting – which equates to about 9% of Vic public native forest.

Spot on, Mark. You're showing the anti-logging activists as zealots who care nothing for the social and economic consequences of their blind anti-development and especially anti-forestry attitudes.
You stated in your article: "the “Our Common Ground” campaign .....aim is to end most native timber production by shifting the industry to plantations." The anti-logging activists have tried this false argument here in WA, ignoring the 80+ years it takes to produce a potentially millable jarrah tree and 40+ years for a karri, our two main sawlog hardwoods. Instead, they talk about the large areas of Tasmanian bluegums in private plantations, which are harvested at 10 years and which are not suitable for sawmilling until they are 20 or 25 years old. The economics of retaining these trees for an extra 10 to 15 years simply do not stack up. More importantly, few of the furniture and fine crafts producers want young or exotic timbers. Understandably, they want WA's unique blood red jarrah timber, so a move away from native forests to plantations would see most of the value-adding industries and jobs destroyed.
Finally, the fact that the Gunn's pulp mill will be 50% overseas owned is exactly what the activists want, as it gives them another reasons to criticise the project and industry. That they caused this outcome is something they will keep quiet about, as the end justifies the means in their view.

'But keep trying if you like as it is amusing what is thrown up as "evidence".'
I disagree with this comment. I find it appalling rather than amusing that decades of solid research by passionate professionals from fields such as forestry, ecology, fire behaviour and others is being abused by some that have made up their minds about an entire industry without examining it from all sides.
To add to the reasons for clearfelling E. regnans, these trees are often so tall that they blow to bits with a good wind even in dense stands. Take for instance Victoria's Ada tree which was -I understand- the tallest in the world until it's crown snapped. Without coverage from their surrounds, they're highly susceptible to destruction anyway.
The foresters that taught me that are mostly retired now, living happily in the bush that they worked in for so many years. Their pockets aren't filled with the dollars that some on this thread have claimed they strive so maliciously for, and they are content with successful and meaningful careers that are now behind them.
I am not sure why there are some who try to display Australia's forestry industry as corrupt- perhaps a lack of anything to be passionate about? Remember though that supply can only grow if demand does. If you are so concerned about forestry, reduce the amount of timber you use and supply will have to drop with it.
Thanks to Mark for emphasising once more how these blind fanatics can so easily taint the work of industry professionals and steer the media along with them.

I can't let you get away with pulling that swifty Mark.

DSE’s State of the Forests Report 2008 states that 929,000 Ha (29%) of state forest is available for harvesting even after Code of Practice, SPZ's and uncommercial stands are accounted for. Even taking out another 100,000 Ha or so for Red Gum forests this is well in excess of your 600,000 Ha figure.

Even with the best spin nearly 13% of state is available for logging. But that figure doesn't provide the whole story. It's a classic example of why it's hard to unpack the statistical spin and propaganda in the glossy PR efforts of the government and industry.

In 1869 forests and woodland covered over 20m Ha. Over 12 million Ha was lost up to 1988 (60%).

Of the areas suitable and available for logging 140,000 Ha is old growth forest (23% of all remaining old growth).

Many parks and reserves have extensive histories of logging and exploitation. That new Red Gum Park has a long history of logging, grazing etc. Croajingolong was logged for decades. Wombat forest was on its third cut. This occurred all over the state. That history of exploitation and degradation has been conveniently lost or suppressed.

And it's not only about what was previously exploited that is now in parks. A large proportion of "reserved" forest is forest that was never going to be targeted by the timber industry. Think of gnarled coastal, alpine, dry forests etc. It's been quite a game appeasing conservationists with "new parks!" while the industry has continued to relentlessly target preferred species and specifications.

If only 13% of forest is available for logging, why is less than 50% of tall open and tall closed eucalypt forest protected? These spectacular heritage forests are being disproportionately targeted for woodchipping. In the Central Highlands and East Gippsland in particular, there are obvious heavy concentrations of logging coupes associated with high rainfall and higher elevations. What are the implications of landscape scale modification to these areas?

Cont.

It would be interesting to see the current and historical proportions, ratios and percentages of rainfall/elevations/forest type/species to logging activities.

Personally, I think conservationists have erred in focusing too much on old growth forests. I'm not particularly interested in a technical definition of old growth forests because as far as I am concerned an old growth forest is any forest that hasn't been logged before i.e. where ecological processes are undisturbed. Young forests will become old forests and old forests will renew themselves as they have for 65 million years plus. The available sustainable timber supply from native forests is what can be produced in a ecologically sustainable manner from forests that have been modified since colonisation (with some caveats on forests that meet that specific criteria). Any shortfall in supply should be covered by integrated farm forestry (that specifically excludes broadacre corporate monocultures). The big mistake has been to allow demand to drive the supply of timber and fibre. Nature determines supply. Mess with it at your own peril but don't drag me into your folly.

Despite my ambivalence to the notion of "old growth", supposing we were to use old growth as a ecological indicator, we might assume at colonisation all Victorian forests and woodlands were old growth (>20m Ha). Today we have 600,000 Ha or 3% left. The timber industry still wants 23% or 140,000 Ha of that. No wonder polls consistently show that 80% of Australians think you're a bunch of knuckledraggers and see the spin for what it is...putting lipstick on pigs...polishing turds...etc

Young forester, I have one question, would you rather log 'virgin' forest or apply silvicultural treatments that restore ecological services in degraded forest?

I doubt that it is just the one question, given it's lack of direction and heavy loading. But I'll go along with it nonetheless. The obvious answer is applying silvicultural treatment to degraded forest provided they meet requirements and are indeed effective techniques.
Furthermore I'll highlight my confusion at the direction your arguments seem to be taking. You seem -oddly enough- to be of the opinion that forestry has gotten progressively less sustainlable since colonization. I haven't heard this argument before even by leftists. Surely you understand the significance of the forestry commissions that were formed back in the late 19th century and early-mid 20th century for the purpose of managing forests for future benefit rather than becoming firewood that very day?
We have to give credit where credit's due to activists who keep greedy individuals in line, but you also have to give foresters theirs.

Like I've already pointed out, timber companies can't produce more than the public demands: "No wonder polls consistently show that 80% of Australians think you're a bunch of knuckledraggers and see the spin for what it is...putting lipstick on pigs...polishing turds...etc" This is what we hear, but we see something entirely different. In the same way Rudd may have called Climate Change the great moral dilemma of our time, but he certainly isn't acting as if it is. What I mean is, the public cry foul- spurred on by leftists with questionable data- but don't slow down their rate of consuming when all the power is theirs to do so.
Pick your battles. Poor practice happens in forestry as it does in all industries, but don't go branding the whole industry, especially given Australia's impressive efforts over what is this year 100 years of education.

We have come a long, long way in 100 years Young Forester. Too far in many respects. That's why it's not smart to be stuffing around with pristine ecosystems. I'll appreciate foresters skills when I see exploited forests being restored to complete ecological function. I don't see anything laudable in turning complex systems into barren, virtual monocultures that are razed every 60-80 years. If those forests were managed in such a way that species diversity and population densities matched those of forests in a natural state I'd be satisfied. There's a lot of regenerating forest out there.

I understand a lot of people in the industry are swept along with the tide and have very little or no say about the way the industry is run but, to be honest, it's a bit like the Nuremberg Defense. We all have free agency. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe.

I believe there are better alternatives to the current timber industry model. I will always be implacably opposed to practices that degrade native forests and also to a plantation sector that seems to be designed, regulated and managed to benefit a few Collins St and Pitts St farmers at the expense of everyone and everything else.

Maate
Here we go again .... Just who is pulling the swifty's mate. Last Saturday you said that 2,494,000 ha of Vic forest (that's 31.5%) was available for timber production - now you've conceded that you had overstated it by just a bit, and claim that 929,000 ha (or 13%) is available for this purpose (by the way, I can't find that figure in the State of the Forests 2008 Report).

You say that figure, is net of Code of Practice reserves, other State Forest reserves and uncommercial stands. Maybe so, but I suspect it still includes steep and rocky ground which are obviously unharvestable, so after dedecting those the figure falls to around 600,000 ha (or 9% as I said before).

Re: Old growth - you are again being deceptive. Yes, 77% of Vic old growth forest is reserved, but that doesn't mean that 23% is available for logging - again, most of this is unsuitable or inaccessible. Logging of old growth is virtually a non-issue now - see the State of the Forests Report.

Re: "Many parks and reserves have extensive histories of logging and exploitation" Actually, this a pretty good arguement supporting the reality that well managed forestry practices have little long term environmental impact. Clearly you don't appreciate that native forests were our main timber source until quite recently - or do you think those evil knuggle-draggers just 'exploited' them because they love playing with saws.

Re: " .... while the industry has continued to relentlessly target preferred species and specifications"
The industry doesn't target anything, it operates only where the government allows it to operate.

Re: "why is less than 50% of tall open and tall closed eucalypt forest protected?" Again, you mistake formal reservation for the actual extent of effective reservation once consideration is given to matters such as steep slope, management reserves, etc which dictate where harvesting can actually be carried out. In fact, after taking account of these considerations, about 65-70% of Victoria's most productive forest type, E.regnans, are reserved.

Maate ... continued
Re: "Young forests will become old forests and old forests will renew themselves as they have for 65 million years plus"

Are you sure about that figure ... our current forests bear no resemblance to what was around then (if anything was).

Re: "The big mistake has been to allow demand to drive the supply of timber and fibre. Nature determines supply. Mess with it at your own peril but don't drag me into your folly"

Actually, we are aready harvesting forests at a rate far less than the annual forest growth simply because most forests are reserved. So we are hardly seriously messing with nature.

Re: "... we might assume at colonisation all Victorian forests and woodlands were old growth"

This is a very wrong assumption! We currently have 620,000 ha of old growth (it was over 800,000 ha before the 2003, 06, and 09 bushfires). I'm guessing that those areas would have mostly been regrowth at the time of colonisation. Yes, we would have had more old growth then, but our forests would always have been a mix of growth stages - so your supposed figure of 3% remaining is a bit of a croc.

Re: "The timber industry still wants 23% or 140,000 Ha of that (old growth)"

As I said earlier, it is simply wrong to assume that anything not reserved is going to logged, but I guess it helps to spread the 'forestry is evil' message.

Refer to the DSE State of the Forests Report 2008 - Criterion 1, pp. 13-14 - 'The annual harvesting of old growth forest declined from 730 ha in 2001-02 to just 50 ha in 2005-06 due to increased reservations'. Old growth logging is a non-issue.

Re: "No wonder polls consistently show that 80% of Australians think you're a bunch of knuckledraggers and see the spin for what it is...putting lipstick on pigs...polishing turds...etc"

Your true colours?

Maaate .... Continued

Re: "I'll appreciate foresters skills when I see exploited forests being restored to complete ecological function"

At the risk of letting some historical facts get in the way of your ideological misconceptions, the Otways and Strezlecki's owe much to the years of dedicated effort by the Forests Commission to restore degraded, abandoned farmland. These areas are now in national park, or are soon to be.

Re: "Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe"

Agreed, but those opposing something should ideally do so from a position of practical experience and knowledge. Sadly, I suspect most like you are heavily influenced by an ideological belief and hardly know what you are really opposing, and worst of all simply ignore the perverse consequences of actually getting your way.

Mark, re comment @ 22 June 2010 10:22:00 PM

Paras 1&2, the figures I gave are from the table on p16. I.E. 929,000 Ha - after COP, SPZ and "area unsuitable for harvesting due to operational restrictions and unmerchantable stands" are deducted.

Para 3. "Logging of old growth is virtually a non-issue now " It will be a non-issue when it stops happening. Old growth logging is still rampant. But then you're probably talking about a technical definition of old growth which excludes mature and late mature. That's a distinction that only exists in the minds of people who want to chop it down. A lay person wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Same deal with the rainforest definition but that'll keep for now.

Para 4. It's more a sign that people are sick of seeing forests get flogged and would like to see them restored to their former glory.

Para 5. That's right, throw it back at the government as if the industry isn't constantly lobbying with its sob stories, string pulling and manipulations. The industry are just passive bystanders? The timber industry is a protected species, if you were treated like other industries you'd have been put in your place years ago. It's a pity native species don't get half the protection the industry gets. Rent seekers par excellence!

Para 6. The tables on p6 & p13 tell the story.

I'll address the rest later.

Mark @22 June 2010 11:06:21 PM

Maate, "forests will renew themselves as they have for 65 million years plus"

Mark "Are you sure about that figure"

Are you being a pedant or are you outing yourself as some sort of Eucalyptus creationist?

"we are already harvesting forests at a rate far less than the annual forest growth"

Oh, so mensuration now has an ecological component? A classic illustration of the foresters' blind spot...they can't see the forests for the wood.

"This is a very wrong assumption! etc..." But where is your evidence to counter that speculation? You also assume and the assumption is based on the premise that the sole means of regeneration is through catastrophic fire events which is a demonstrably false premise as I pointed out earlier.

When I pointed out "The timber industry still wants 23% or 140,000 Ha of that (old growth)", which is a fact, you respond with "it helps to spread the 'forestry is evil' message". If something isn't reserved, it isn't reserved. There's no need to get hysterical about it. No-one's making the industry look stupid. The industry makes itself look stupid. I'm only helping to publicise that stupidity. Is that a crime?

cont...

"'just 50 ha in 2005-06 due to increased reservations'. Old growth logging is a non-issue."

Well now we get back to technical definitions. In a sense, you are partially correct, but there is variability from year to year. Also, what about the mature and late mature forests that have never been logged. Over the next 10,20, 50 or whatever years they will meet the narrow definition of "old growth". During 2006-2007 a total of 6,250 Ha of native forests was logged across Victoria. I'll bet that most of that had never been logged before and a lay person would think many of those coupes were "old growth". These quibbles over technical definitions remind me of the "emergent eucalypt" furphy. I'll say it again, I'm more interested in the forest estate in terms of "virgin", "pristine", "unlogged" or "unmodified" states rather than a particularly narrow age class in the life cycle of a forest. If a forest is undisturbed, leave it that way.

"Your true colours?"

When I see some of your mates' classier efforts, it's like coming home and finding the wreckers have got the wrong address and demolished my house.

"Strezlecki's" is not the best example, a few patches of a once sublime forest amongst what is probably the most abused landscape in the state. National Parks are good but they're no substitute for intact natural systems and I don't believe the original concept was for them to be dumping grounds for clapped out and basket case ecosystems.

"you are heavily influenced by an ideological belief"

And you're not? At least I'm not here to get rich or earn an income from what I do. I'm driven by a desire to leave a planet that is in as good, if not better, condition than when I got here. I hate to see greed and myopic self interest destroy nature needlessly.

Both sides of this argument are only solidifying in my mind that figures can be used to argue any case whatsoever. Yet I am still not convinced that there is a problem with Australia's forestry industry.
All of our best research -collected over decades- indicates that when harvesting E. regnans, the best option is to clearfell, burn and sow. When severe wildfires go through, they do essentially the same thing- they scorch the earth, the ferocious winds that come with them often uproot or otherwise destroy the trees and create a viable seedbed for the next generation. Sure there's some compaction from machinery, but how else can the logs be extracted? Do our activist and his maaates want to volunteer to haul them out?

"The timber industry is a protected species"
I am seeing quite the opposite, and I'm sure it's in no small part thanks to activists such as yourself on wild vendetta's. Do I dare to introduce the unfortunate VEAC case concerning the Red Gum forests along the Murray? Timber workers are now out of a job left right and centre, potentially devastating those communities and the forests are being locked up to become national parks (tinder boxes). The message that the public never gets is that because humans occupy so much of the land, it needs professional management. Fire is the way Australia's landscape cleanses itself, but with so many people and so much infrastructure spread out, that's no longer an option. Believe me, foresters do more than harvest timber. Our silvicultural practices are the best thing we've got to continuing natural processes in a safe and practical manner.

Young forester @ "Both sides of this argument are only solidifying in my mind that figures can be used to argue any case whatsoever"

I think what we are seeing from Maaate is that figures can be misused to argue a cause, although I really believe that part of the problem is that the DSE's State of the Forests 2008 Report is partly to blame because it doesn't go far enough in outlining the forest that is both available and suitable for timber production.

This is disappointing as DSE has mapped the extent of steep, rocky, inaccessible and unproductive forest types back in the late 1990's and released them in documents associated with the Our Forests Our Future policy in 2002.

Some good points about the red gum, but don't forget also the Otways, and Portland areas where purely political decisions have been made which give an illusion of environmental protection that won't match the reality unless there is a far greater committment to fire management than is normally typical of park management.

Just quietly YF, I've long accepted that clearfelling might be a suitable method for logging E. regnans in some situations (with qualifications). That doesn't necessarily make it the best method in all situations and I object to extrapolations based on commercial expediency that suggest it is. The current template whereby all native forests are logged in broadacre clearfells is untenable on numerous levels.

If the industry could restrict itself to operating in previously logged forest, and could extend its purview beyond merely managing those forests for timber production, I could live with such an industry. The industry would live or die on its merit within that estate. If we have less of the resource, we pay more. I have no problem with society paying the true costs of timber and fibre.

Maaate (or is it Simon?)
@ "the figures I gave are from the table on p16. I.E. 929,000 Ha"

You must be looking at a different report - p.16 of Criterion 1 State of Forests Report 2008, gives no such figure that I can see.

@ "Old growth logging is still rampant."

Oh that's right, you can't argue the numbers so you just change the definition.... why am I not surprised.

As I said, old growth logging is a non-issue, the greatest threat is and always has been fire. Over 100,000 ha of Vic old growth forest was killed by fire in 2003 and 06 fires (State of Forests Report 2008, Criterion 1, p.10). Substantial further areas killed on Black Saturday.

@ "Oh, so mensuration now has an ecological component?"

If the annual harvested wood volume is x and the total wood growth of the whole forest is 9 times x, the harvesting is easily sustainable and the ecological component is also proportionally growing isn't it?

@ "You also assume .... the premise that the sole means of regeneration is through catastrophic fire events which is a demonstrably false premise as I pointed out earlier"

Perhaps you need to study Australian ecology.

@ "During 2006-2007 a total of 6,250 Ha of native forests was logged across Victoria. I'll bet that most of that had never been logged before ..... "

Well lets see, most harvesting in Central Victoria is fire regrowth which may or may not have been logged before, but has surely been heavily disturbed.

In Gippsland, there is a significant area of thinning of regrowth from past logging or fire. So your bet is probably wrong ...

Maaate (Simon?) ..... Continued

@ "At least I'm not here to get rich or earn an income from what I do. I'm driven by a desire to leave a planet that is in as good, if not better, condition than when I got here. I hate to see greed and myopic self interest destroy nature needlessly"

This is where you have absolutely no idea. Unlike you, I'm driven not by ideology, but by training and experience over three decades. People don't take up the forestry profession to get rich - most earn very moderate wages - and niether do they take it up with the aim of "needlessly destroying nature". Believe it not, most have the same aim as you in wanting to husband the environment for the future.

The difference is that working in and around forests on a daily basis gives insights and forces pragmatic understanding of the fragility and resilience of nature, particularly in relation to fire and its inevitability. People like you seem unwilling to grasp that actively managing forests is essential to protecting forest ecosystems, and so push the simplistic notion that effectively putting a fence around it is the better way.

The economic use of a minor portion of the forest both provides essential materials for our society, but also employs people and funds activities that enhance the capability to manage fire. Evicting all use and attempting to preserve areas, makes it that much more difficult to maintain this management capability - and the results have been gradually coming home to roost since 2003.

You will undoubtedly view this as an arrogant comment, but I believe most of your ilk simply don't even know what you don't know. Ultimately, your efforts to close down all or virtually all forest uses will, if successful, reward you (and unfortunately the rest of us) with perverse environmental outcomes which are the antithesis of what you think you are striving for

Maaate

@ "The current template whereby all native forests are logged in broadacre clearfells is untenable on numerous levels"

All native forests are not logged in broadacre clearfells. A large proportion is logged by seed tree system in which habitat and seed trees are retained, and as mentioned earlier, the selective thinning of advanced regrowth is quite substantional now in East Gippsland.

I accept that though that your propensity to question definitions means that you probably view everything as a clearfell.

In Vic in the late 1970's, up to 25,000 ha was being harvested per annum, with the majority being selective harvested in places like the Wombat Forest, the Box Ironbark forests, the Murray Valley red gum forests, and the South and East Gippsland coastal forests. All of these areas are now in parks or reserves (bar the Wombat SF where anti-logging activism forced the industry to close). So it is a bit hard to believe that anti-forestry fervour can be appeased simply by shifting from clearfalling to selective harvesting even if the silvicultural requirements of the remaining avialable and suitable forests allowed it.

@ "If the industry could restrict itself to operating in previously logged forest, ..... I could live with such an industry"

Whoa! Now if you are who I think you are (or even if not), I'll bet you fully supported the closure of timber industries in the Otways, Wombat and red gum forests. Yet timber production in those areas was already restricted to regrowth from past harvesting or disturbance, such as the regrowth of abandoned farmland. Sadly, its all a bit late now for those whose livelihoods were needlessly ended by anti-logging activism and for forests made more vulnerable to fire by the withdrawal of personnel and expertise that traditionally managed the threat

From 23 June 2010 11:49:05 PM

My name isn't Simon.

“ p.16 of Criterion 1 State of Forests Report 2008, gives no such figure that I can see. “

Try 2.1, Table 1, p6 (if that fails, both references are correct for versions currently available online)

“you just change the definition.... why am I not surprised. “

After bureaucrats changed the scientific definition of rainforest to suit their agenda it became apparent that the technical “definitions” provided by the timber industry weren't worth the paper they were written on. I've explained why I don't favor concentrating on a narrow growth stage as the only forest type worth preserving. What part of “If it hasn't been logged before, don't log it” don't you understand?

Referring to OG: “Substantial further areas killed on Black Saturday.”

All the more reason to put remaining old growth (that would be older aged unlogged forest) into the reserve system.

“...the ecological component is also proportionally growing isn't it?”

No Mark, if you take unlogged forest and put it into an estate that is logged every 60-80 yrs it is not fulfilling its biological potential. That forest estate is in a perpetual state of arrested development i.e. in ecological deficit.

“Perhaps you need to study Australian ecology.”

So a bit of charcoal in the soil profile is evidence of short interval catastrophic fire events across all forest types? How do you explain forests that haven't seen fire for 500+ yrs and look the same today as they did when Cook landed? (some of the individual trees probably haven't changed too much in that time either) That'd include those high rainfall elevated forests Mark, you know, the ones you are turning into virtual monocultures. How do you explain trees across the state that are 500, 1000 or 1500+ yrs old?

cont...

cont...

Why weren't they killed in these catastrophic fires that ravaged the landscape at the intervals we have seen in the past century or 80 yr intervals of current logging regimes? Why did the pioneers and explorers write so many accounts of forests made up of huge old trees? How does a bit of charcoal in the soil justify destroying a 500 year old forest and then destroying it again every 80 years? And boy, with the rate of fuel build up we better burn it every 3 years just to be safe! The problem with dogma is that it constricts the intellect until people just stop thinking altogether. I've read the texts, where is the evidence?

According to your logic and account of land management Mark, if we cut down forests, bulldoze and burn them every 80 years we'd be mimicking natural processes and aboriginal practices.

Just keep peddling that false logging/fire meme as hard as you can. And while you're at it keep burning coal and oil, and keep logging the wet forests and rainforests that naturally suppressed and limited megafires, and keep transforming forests in general into tinderboxes through logging and indiscriminate fuel reduction burns because the fire industry is a fantastic sideline for the timber industry. Why eke out a living woodchipping when you can get payed premium rates from the taxpayer honey pot and sometimes get to act like a hero on the fire front? I find the relationship a little perverse. A bit like the pyromaniacs who join the CFA.

Am I being intentionally offensive? No more offensive than your posturing as an "authority" and the "the voice of reason". Your rants about "green ideology" could be seen as a projection of timber industry dogma and a cult like mentality. I'm just testing that dogma and orthodoxy and have found it a little brittle.

Re: 24 June 2010 12:01:20 AM

"you probably view everything as a clearfell."

Seed tree coupes are about as close as you'll get.

"it is a bit hard to believe that anti-forestry fervour can be appeased simply by shifting from clearfalling to selective harvesting"

You only need to make operations acceptable to 80% of Australians rather than objectionable to 80% of Australians.

I supported the Wombat Forest Community Forest Management (CFM) and thought it was disgraceful the way it was white-anted from every angle. Different regional communities and campaigns have their own agendas. I've followed the issue intently since the 80's but I'm not in, nor do I represent any formal group. I used to do a bit of formal campaigning but now it's less structured. I'm now just one of the hordes of everday people who objects to the current practices of the timber and fibre industry. I'd like to see a system whereby plantations look like forests rather than one where forests look like plantations. I don't have any inherent objection to logging in forests. It's a matter of what, where, how, when and why. Obviously I believe that's a reasonable request for access to a public resource. If you can stop making people like me angry you will be able to go about your business in relative peace. By the nature of what you do you will always have some opposition. They're not the ones you need to worry about. Extreme positions will alienate themselves.

It's all about proportion. The industry seems to lack that judgment. You say we're wrong. We say you're wrong. The court of public opinion will decide.

>> “Perhaps you need to study Australian ecology.” <<

That's rich. Not only has Mark clearly revealed his lack of understand of ecology and biodiversity through his articles and posts, he has the effrontery to suggest that Maaate should study a subject Maaate has already demonstrated a clear understanding of.

BTW, Mark, ecology is not just restricted to Australia. The damage to environments caused by clear-felling is a global problem. Also I have yet to hear from environmental scientists of all variations (biologists, botanists, geo-engineers etc) that clear-felling in its current methodology as being superior to keeping remaining intact forest. However, I am sure he can locate some paid up scientist to support his position - however these experts are in the minority. Given Mark and his supporters' background their support for logging is hardly surprising.

Neither Maaate nor I are arguing for a moratorium on logging, simply that it be done responsibly and by people who do understand environmental impact when any landscape is disturbed (eg mining). I am arguing that clear felling which results in nothing more than wood chips is as obscene as it is unsustainable (there are alternative to wood-chips).

As Maate has pointed out, the logging industry receives substantial support from government, above and beyond that of other industries with the exception of mining and nuclear power.

Let Google Earth pictures tell the true story of observable impact.

http://www.oren.org.au/oren/tassi.htm

What the pictures do not reveal is the complexity of any habitat. Whether a habitat be forest or coral reefs, we are still learning. Anyone who claims they have full understanding of the effects of logging is a liar. Not even the most knowledgeable and inveterate scientist can claim they understand everything about the natural world. That a few vested interests have control over much of our natural environment before we have had the opportunity to put into practise what we do know and will continue to learn is nothing short of reprehensible. Once again the dollar rules.

You two have no clear point. Any time you are confronted on a more specific level, you admit a reluctant defeat and then retreat back to general arguments against a very diverse field and use broad examples (but then that's constantly been my experience with activists such as yourselves).
"Just quietly YF, I've long accepted that clearfelling might be a suitable method for logging E. regnans in some situations (with qualifications)." This made me smile- it looked as though you were starting to get it. But then you turn around when you have a second wind: "According to your logic and account of land management Mark, if we cut down forests, bulldoze and burn them every 80 years we'd be mimicking natural processes and aboriginal practices."
And then you start assaulting the embattled fire management authorities. I, like many forest workers, have had experience in fire management, so accordingly I was utterly amazed at this comment: "...keep transforming forests in general into tinderboxes through logging and indiscriminate fuel reduction burns..." ?!? Fuel REDUCTION burn.
"(Add 'poison wildlife with 1080' if you are in Tasmania)" and this little pest from eons ago at the start of this thread. Do you live in backwards land? Your efforts would be better spent and Australia's environment would appreciate it more if you learned a bit more about what this stuff is used for.

"I am arguing that clear felling which results in nothing more than wood chips". Check again Severins. By talking about clearfelling you must mean E. regnans which is also widely used in the building industry.

Can you two please make up your mind what you're angry about? I'm very tired of this thread. Are you upset about clearfelling (which I've tried to get through to you as our best currently available option)? Are you upset about the Government? Are you upset about forestry in Australia? Forestry all over the world? Something a bit more narrowed down would be useful, otherwise you'll soon be crying foul against anyone who's ever touched a piece of timber.

Look YF, I've tried to have a frank discussion with you. I don't know where you're coming from with this faux indignation. It might be a ruse or it might be that you're genuinely just another callow graduate with a forestry degree who is so inculcated with the dogma of your so-called profession that you genuinely don't have a clue. I've had enough contact with the latter to know one when I come across them.

"You two have no clear point."

Comment after comment is replete with "points", observations and commentary. Are you too stupid to see that or are you being a smart arse?

"Any time you are confronted on a more specific level, you admit a reluctant defeat "

I acknowledged that clearfelling might be appropriate in some situations in Ash forests. I need to be cautious because the timber industry treats any compromise as a license to do whatever they want. What other "reluctant defeats" have I acknowledged?

I wrote "According to your logic and account of land management Mark, if we cut down forests, bulldoze and burn them every 80 years we'd be mimicking natural processes and aboriginal practices."

Just where exactly do current practices diverge from this observation?

I didn't assault "embattled fire management authorities", I just noted that the timber industry is always ready to make a buck out of these situations. Are you denying that timber industry resources are hired during fires? Are you prepared to say that current forestry practices don't contribute to fire risk?

If the CFA are volunteers, why do dozer operators etc earn around $600 per hour while trashing the bush with futile containment lines? Do they earn that much when operating in logging coupes?

"I'm very tired of this thread."

And I'm tired of forests being abused by clowns who haven't got a clue. If you're "confused" and can't articulate your own position clearly, you're in the wrong place and probably the wrong job.

Maaaate - the more you write the more you expose your stupidity and ignorance. Save your rants for the unwashed as they don't make sense to the informed. I'll give you some free advice - you're the clown and you ain't winning the debate on science and fact; but you are winning on emotional gobbledy dook.

I'll give you a clue (again for free) - eucalypt forests are disclimax communities, they can only exist through disturbance. Another free clue - no forest that was around 230 years ago is the same today. Now re-read your dribble and apologise to Mark and Young Forester, otherwise disappear with what little credibility you may still have.

Tragedy is an appropriate handle because you are a tragic figure.

If you want to talk about disclimax communities let's talk about the forests of East Gippsland that have fire intervals that exceed five hundred years.

You claim that "no forest that was around 230 years ago is the same today".

Trees on Brown Mountain, Errinundra Plateau (a good example of elevated wet forests): "the carbon sample shows that there is a 68% chance that the tree started growing between 1435 and 1490 AD, and it is believed that there are even older trees being logged." (radiocarbon dated at the University of Waikato, New Zealand)

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Brown_Mountain_old_growth_forest

When Cook landed these trees were 300 years old. You can tell the difference between a 300 and 500 yr old tree can you? How do you do that?

When you clearfell a 500+ year old forest and consign it to the "productive forest" estate and then proceed to log, bulldoze it and burn it every 80 years, how is that regeneration then similar to a forest like Brown Mountain?

How does your "disclimax" dogma fit in with trees that are 500, 1000 or 1500 yrs old? How does a smooth bark species like River Red Gum manage to get to 1500 years old if the landscape is subject to a "disclimax" equivalent of being logged, bulldozed and burnt every 80 years?

I'd like to nominate a conservative "disclimax" based logging interval: 2000 years. Or, how about compromise, selectively logging 10% of regenerating forests at 100 year intervals to model a 1000 yr disclimax interval? We are trying to mimic nature aren't we?

To be perfectly honest Tragedy, no much matter how much storage space and bandwidth there is on the internet, I don't think there's enough to be wasting it on half-witted stooges like you.

Maaate using your Brown Mountain example. You claim that the eucalypts were 300 yo (68% chance) when Cook landed and now they are 510 yo. You claim the forest has not changed in 200 years - they have not got older, lost branches and some their crown perhaps? Understorey hasn't changed? You actually believe that Australian forests are static and not a dynamic entity, forever changing.

A eucalypt forest this old does not have young regenerating eucalypts of sufficient proportion to sustain a eucalypt forest when the old trees eventually die. They are the most light demanding species on this planet and to guarantee regeneration they require sunlight on the ground, bare mineral earth and viable seed. So when a tree falls over and the mesic understorey is not removed to expose the ground, and/or viable seed is not available, then you will not get regeneration. Eucalypts do not flower every year, in fact there flowering patterns are unpredictable and their seed is not viable for long periods on the ground, if they survive the ants. More and more trees will die.

Without the ingredients above, the forest will eventually become a rainforest. If however a wildfire occurs the eucalypts can be sustained. What sort of fire can a eucalypt forest with a mesic understorey sustain Maaate? It can't be a softly feeely one can it now. Do you know why? Try starting a fire in mild conditions at Brown Mountain - good luck. So the only fire you get is a severe one in dry conditions which usually leads to a crown fire. Do you know what a crown fire is and how it can be sustained? (You claim to be a fire expert).

So if you take humans away and you want "old growth" eucalypts you need disturbance. Eucalypt forests cannot sustain themselves without disturbance, because without it they will eventually be replaced by what Maaate? This is your homework, be a good boy and do your research and come back to us. Personal attacks on me, Mark and young forester won't be accepted as an answer.

I'm not the one modifying public forests Tragedy so the onus is not on me to provide proof of anything. You are advocating and defending a silvicultural system (clearfelling) that cuts, bulldozes and burns forests every 60-80 yrs. You claim this system mimics nature.

How do you reconcile your claim with contradictory evidence in the form of 500+ yr old forests and 1500+ yr old trees? Why do trees only form hollows from 100+ yrs when you claim the cycle can be compressed to 80 yrs? How can your model mimic nature if so many species are denied the hollows they require?

Because E. regnans forests have evolved to rely on regeneration from seed after extreme fire events, you then argue that all forest types require such catastrophic fire events to regenerate (thus supporting your argument for clearfelling). If forests only regenerate after catastrophic fire, how do you end up with uneven age stands? (Even in Ash forest as I have seen)

The proof of your argument would be if all forests were even aged and all ecological processes were capable of being performed within 80 yrs of regeneration. The proof on the ground exposes your contention for what it is...a contrivance of commercial expedience.

You're trying to shoe horn complex systems into your vision for simplified industrial forests. You three argue with "appeal to authority" but the facts conspire to expose the fraud.

Maaate

>> You're trying to shoe horn complex systems into your vision for simplified industrial forests. You three argue with "appeal to authority" but the facts conspire to expose the fraud. <<

And the pro-logging contingent actually kid themselves no-one will notice...

The self interest
The pollution
The habitat loss
The erosion

And so it goes.

"Are you too stupid to see that or are you being a smart arse?" Well you're not giving me many options. I'm not ignorant of your rantings- just the point of them. I must be a smart arse.
Defeat was a strong word, I'll admit- 'admission' would have been more appropriate. The other one of these was "I supported the Wombat Forest Community Forest Management". What you're not realising is that your opinions vary on a case by case basis -as they should- yet you're still making a wide and generalised attack against a highly diverse field.
"Why eke out a living woodchipping when you can get payed premium rates from the taxpayer honey pot and sometimes get to act like a hero on the fire front?" You most certainly were attacking the fire management industry. An argument is as much about the wording as it is the message. By the way- bulldozer operators don't work for the CFA. They either work for their respective government/company or they are contractors that need high payment because dozers are very expensive to run. "Futile containment lines". What a joke. Jump on a fire line and say that.
I maintain that your argument has no real point beyond abusing the forestry industry as a whole, even though we've squeezed out of you that AT LEAST sometimes it does the right thing.
The classic example of your text book knowledge having no real practicality is your idea of 2000 year rotations. Even 100 year rotations can't keep up with consumer demand, so more old growth forest would have to be cut, or else more monocultures (such as pine and blue gum) would have to be created.