Mark, re comment @ 22 June 2010 10:22:00 PM

Paras 1&2, the figures I gave are from the table on p16. I.E. 929,000 Ha - after COP, SPZ and "area unsuitable for harvesting due to operational restrictions and unmerchantable stands" are deducted.

Para 3. "Logging of old growth is virtually a non-issue now " It will be a non-issue when it stops happening. Old growth logging is still rampant. But then you're probably talking about a technical definition of old growth which excludes mature and late mature. That's a distinction that only exists in the minds of people who want to chop it down. A lay person wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Same deal with the rainforest definition but that'll keep for now.

Para 4. It's more a sign that people are sick of seeing forests get flogged and would like to see them restored to their former glory.

Para 5. That's right, throw it back at the government as if the industry isn't constantly lobbying with its sob stories, string pulling and manipulations. The industry are just passive bystanders? The timber industry is a protected species, if you were treated like other industries you'd have been put in your place years ago. It's a pity native species don't get half the protection the industry gets. Rent seekers par excellence!

Para 6. The tables on p6 & p13 tell the story.

I'll address the rest later.

Mark @22 June 2010 11:06:21 PM

Maate, "forests will renew themselves as they have for 65 million years plus"

Mark "Are you sure about that figure"

Are you being a pedant or are you outing yourself as some sort of Eucalyptus creationist?

"we are already harvesting forests at a rate far less than the annual forest growth"

Oh, so mensuration now has an ecological component? A classic illustration of the foresters' blind spot...they can't see the forests for the wood.

"This is a very wrong assumption! etc..." But where is your evidence to counter that speculation? You also assume and the assumption is based on the premise that the sole means of regeneration is through catastrophic fire events which is a demonstrably false premise as I pointed out earlier.

When I pointed out "The timber industry still wants 23% or 140,000 Ha of that (old growth)", which is a fact, you respond with "it helps to spread the 'forestry is evil' message". If something isn't reserved, it isn't reserved. There's no need to get hysterical about it. No-one's making the industry look stupid. The industry makes itself look stupid. I'm only helping to publicise that stupidity. Is that a crime?

cont...

"'just 50 ha in 2005-06 due to increased reservations'. Old growth logging is a non-issue."

Well now we get back to technical definitions. In a sense, you are partially correct, but there is variability from year to year. Also, what about the mature and late mature forests that have never been logged. Over the next 10,20, 50 or whatever years they will meet the narrow definition of "old growth". During 2006-2007 a total of 6,250 Ha of native forests was logged across Victoria. I'll bet that most of that had never been logged before and a lay person would think many of those coupes were "old growth". These quibbles over technical definitions remind me of the "emergent eucalypt" furphy. I'll say it again, I'm more interested in the forest estate in terms of "virgin", "pristine", "unlogged" or "unmodified" states rather than a particularly narrow age class in the life cycle of a forest. If a forest is undisturbed, leave it that way.

"Your true colours?"

When I see some of your mates' classier efforts, it's like coming home and finding the wreckers have got the wrong address and demolished my house.

"Strezlecki's" is not the best example, a few patches of a once sublime forest amongst what is probably the most abused landscape in the state. National Parks are good but they're no substitute for intact natural systems and I don't believe the original concept was for them to be dumping grounds for clapped out and basket case ecosystems.

"you are heavily influenced by an ideological belief"

And you're not? At least I'm not here to get rich or earn an income from what I do. I'm driven by a desire to leave a planet that is in as good, if not better, condition than when I got here. I hate to see greed and myopic self interest destroy nature needlessly.

Both sides of this argument are only solidifying in my mind that figures can be used to argue any case whatsoever. Yet I am still not convinced that there is a problem with Australia's forestry industry.
All of our best research -collected over decades- indicates that when harvesting E. regnans, the best option is to clearfell, burn and sow. When severe wildfires go through, they do essentially the same thing- they scorch the earth, the ferocious winds that come with them often uproot or otherwise destroy the trees and create a viable seedbed for the next generation. Sure there's some compaction from machinery, but how else can the logs be extracted? Do our activist and his maaates want to volunteer to haul them out?

"The timber industry is a protected species"
I am seeing quite the opposite, and I'm sure it's in no small part thanks to activists such as yourself on wild vendetta's. Do I dare to introduce the unfortunate VEAC case concerning the Red Gum forests along the Murray? Timber workers are now out of a job left right and centre, potentially devastating those communities and the forests are being locked up to become national parks (tinder boxes). The message that the public never gets is that because humans occupy so much of the land, it needs professional management. Fire is the way Australia's landscape cleanses itself, but with so many people and so much infrastructure spread out, that's no longer an option. Believe me, foresters do more than harvest timber. Our silvicultural practices are the best thing we've got to continuing natural processes in a safe and practical manner.

Young forester @ "Both sides of this argument are only solidifying in my mind that figures can be used to argue any case whatsoever"

I think what we are seeing from Maaate is that figures can be misused to argue a cause, although I really believe that part of the problem is that the DSE's State of the Forests 2008 Report is partly to blame because it doesn't go far enough in outlining the forest that is both available and suitable for timber production.

This is disappointing as DSE has mapped the extent of steep, rocky, inaccessible and unproductive forest types back in the late 1990's and released them in documents associated with the Our Forests Our Future policy in 2002.

Some good points about the red gum, but don't forget also the Otways, and Portland areas where purely political decisions have been made which give an illusion of environmental protection that won't match the reality unless there is a far greater committment to fire management than is normally typical of park management.

Just quietly YF, I've long accepted that clearfelling might be a suitable method for logging E. regnans in some situations (with qualifications). That doesn't necessarily make it the best method in all situations and I object to extrapolations based on commercial expediency that suggest it is. The current template whereby all native forests are logged in broadacre clearfells is untenable on numerous levels.

If the industry could restrict itself to operating in previously logged forest, and could extend its purview beyond merely managing those forests for timber production, I could live with such an industry. The industry would live or die on its merit within that estate. If we have less of the resource, we pay more. I have no problem with society paying the true costs of timber and fibre.