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.