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.