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?