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.