>> “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.