I wouldn't object so much to selective logging of ancient trees if they didn't trash the whole adjoining forest as with clear felling. That alters the forest ecology with changes to microclimate and water retention. Small animals are then killed by poison, bullets or traps. In the subsequent burnoff the carbon stored in the undergrowth and forest floor is converted to atmospheric CO2. Should they pay carbon tax? In some cases more than 50% of the giant logs turn out to have splits so they are only suitable for chipping, not sawing. Hardly a dignified fate for a senior citizen.

Recently carpenters have been complaining that plantation timber is not fine grained enough. Then they must go back to year 1650 in a time machine and plant enough seedlings for the present. It may not have been such a problem if so many magnificent trees hadn't been logged, chipped or burned for a pittance. Visitors from Europe think Tasmanians must be deranged for placing little value on such magnificent trees.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some of these people found something useful to worry about.

Obviously some people have it too easy, & have far too much time on their hands

Trees cant talk. Let alone tell tales.

Hasbeen
It might be true that what worries the author is not worth worrying about, and that people like him have it too easy and spend too little time doing useful things. But you'll need to do more than simply assert it to convince anyone.

Houellebecq,
Trees can't tell us things? Yes they can. If they are old enough.

The author appears to be a lover of imaginative tall stories.

It is extremely unlikely that three logs on one truck coming from the one operation in Blue Tier area on 1 March would not have been myrtle.

Given the size described they are most likely to have been eucalyptus regnans presuming from description they were logs in the round they would not have been Bell Bay bound but heading to a Tasmanian sawmill, either Gunns at Western Junction of Morgans at Travellers rest.

However if they were Myrtle saw logs they would be marketted by Island specialty Timber http://www.forestrytas.com.au/shops/ist/pages/special-species-timbers/myrtle at about $400 per cubic metre in log form.

So don't feel sad for the tree that was at the end of its life cycle, it could provide some one with a sturdy shelter or beautiful piece of furniture for another 500 years.

And the children will be able to run around in the native forest and climb regrowing trees till they are great grand parents because forest do grow back even and despite the excesses of the tin miners, who are so often lauded in the same florid prose as demonises the foresters.

For actual facts on myrtle and other Tasmanian specialty timbers why not check http://tasmaniantimbers.com/tas-timbers.html

Native forestry, esp in Tasmania, has arguably been by far the most misrepresented environmental issue for decades. David Leigh's article continues this unfair demonisation through factual errors (or perhaps deliberate misrepresentation?) and a determined avoidance of any discussion of scale and perspective.

Between 80 - 90% of the Blue Tier is in conservation reserves that will never be logged. Ditto for Tasmanian 'old growth' forest in general.

The term 'High Conservation Value' forest is a term invented by environmental activists as a means of encompassing greater areas of forest (in fact it is effectively used to encompass all forests that are not already reserved) - but has no scientific definition (which allows it to be misused).

There has to be a villian - so of course, it is Gunns fault that large old Myrtle trees are being 'exported to Chinese sawmills'. In fact, this is not happening, although as I understand it, Forestry Tasmania (not Gunns)are exporting some low grade eucalypt logs.

Finally, contrary to Mr Leigh's assertions, a balance between conserving most native forests and harvesting some for timber and fibre is, according to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007), a better carbon abatement outcome then trying to preserve all forests and driving increased use of non-wood substitute materials which embody far greater carbon emissions in their life cycle.