The statement that forests regrow after bushfire is correct, but regeneration burns in Tasmania are nothing like the normal type of bushfire: they are high intensity burns, using petroleum jelly commonly known as napalm, (as used in the Vietnam war) which burns everything, even the carbon in the soil. With carbon content of up to 1500 tonnes per hectare, excluding the carbon in the soil, that is a heavy load of carbon that is transported to the upper atmosphere where it does the most damage as a greenhouse gas.

Mudpuppy, perhaps you should read

http://www.forestrytas.com.au/assets/0000/0780/abstract.pdf

David

It's ultimately a hollow argument to compare how forests are managed for wood with how nature would 'manage' those same forests with fire. While the differences in the disturbance events are slight, they are clearly not the same, and of course the regenerating forest arising after the disturbance will not be identical either. However, most species in a forest don't particularly care whether the disturbance was wildfire or a regeneration burn, because they're simply responding to the aftermath of a fire. Some species do distinguish though, for example those that like more residual structure than some forms of harvesting are able to leave. But the point isn't to keep tweaking native forestry until every hectare of forestry land is indistinguishable from what nature does in those other hectares of conservation reserves, because we're using these forests for different purposes. In the case of conservation reserves, it's (theoretically) to allow nature to take its course in the interests of maximising the chances of the local species being able to persist there. In the case of forestry land, it's to periodically extract resources from them, while minimising the loss of conservation value. Overall, the way that native forestry is done in Tasmania, and the policy context in which it occurs, means that the impacts on nature are far slighter than the comparable impacts of, say, a combination of plantation forestry, importation of wood from other people's native forests, and product substitution. As for carbon, again, there are differences but modelling would suggest that forestry land can ultimately sequester more carbon than conservation land - but you need to change perspective, from the here and now of the aftermath of a regeneration burn or wildfire, to a longer-term time horizon and broader landscape view. At these larger scales, the additional carbon sequestration provided by forest products is more evident. Let's hope that the management of our forests isn't ever driven solely by the need to sequester carbon - chances are that few of us would relish the consequences because it would be a very different sort of management from what nature does.

What an excellent article Simon. I absolutely agree with every point you have made, many of which have been confirmed by some of the posts that attempt to vilify your carefully and concisely expressed views. I have nothing further to add, apart from to say that I am proud to have spent the past 37 years working in Tasmania's Forest Industry and have been lucky enough to have worked with people such as yourself and Mark Poynter, along with a myriad of other Professional Foresters who share your views! We all have plenty to be proud of and nothing to be ashamed of, apart from the disgraceful way the media, particularly the Mercury and ABC, have treated us all for far too long!

What a cleverly-contrived piece of evil corporate spin. Far too clever to have originated solely from within Forestry Tasmania, more likely FT is still lap-dogging for the big overseas players who control this industry. Well-intentioned people who comment on forestry in Tasmania should first have a close look at the PULP MILL ASSESSMENT ACT 2007, including its totally anti-democratic SECTION 11, and the circumstances surrounding the ACT's creation. Also, it is, perhaps, significant that this FT post is supplied through Creative Commons, an organisation which is unable to understand the difference between the noun LICENCE and the verb LICENSE.
Oldfartwarren, Launceston Tasmania

This author knows what he is talking about, there are good suggestions here about sustainable native forestry BUT I do not see anywhere amid all this talk of management, scientific approach, etc the idea: leave some of it utterly alone, as it has been for millenia beyond counting. Must every inch of the world be 'peopled', managed, economised? Can we not have some preserves of genuine wilderness where nature does its complex business unmolested? If lightning strikes, there'll be fire. If it doesn't, it'll rot, the critters and fungi and micro-organisms will do their work. Leave it alone. Protect it. How many spots on earth do you think will be like that in 100 years time? The few will be beyond price for science, for careful careful tourism and above all, for themselves. Some things are ends in themselves, aren't they?