maaate, maaate

Questions, questions, again you require me to do your research - as I note earlier that you would.

I would have thought that a mandatory pre-requisite to being so strongly opinionated about forestry would require you to do some research, but it seems that beliefs (not facts) are all that's required to be an activist, as David is so eloquently demonstrating. As though all you have to do is go for a quick walk in the nearest forest and you know all there is to know about Tasmanian forestry - all those references, reports and facts are just too baffling.

Some quick responses to your queries:

The split between clearfall/selective in Tas has traditionally been 40:60, presume is still so - do the research.

The example I gave at looking at forestry at a landscape scale was only looking at a wood production forest, and it still looks good, but agree including all the unusable parks and reserves makes it look even better as it should.

Where is your evidence of logging concentrated in the very best mountain forests? The vast majority of forest is not used for timber production so there can hardly be a concentration of logging anywhere. As I said on the TT post you keep referring to, about 70% of Vic's highest quality M. Ash forest is in parks and reserves - timber production is scattered through the rest - a concentration?? Define it?

Logging is making forests more fire-prone? Again, where is your evidence? You will be pleased to know that this flimsy contention is currently being thoroughly examined by bushfire scientists stemming from the recent 4-page literature review which recieved such unwarranted and sensationalist publicity on the ABC - which I presume you are referring to.

“A degree means nothing, I have two and you treat me like an idiot.’ so claims the author of this flawed and heavily criticised article.
Yet a simple click on his name finds that “He trained at Edith Cowan University, Perth WA gaining a BA in writing and a Masters in Professional Communications.’

Clearly his article and further comments give truth to his claim “A degree means nothing, I have two and you treat me like an idiot.”
Perhaps he should go back to all his fellow writing and communications experts at Tasmanian times.

His maaate quotes a carbon in forest report pre- released in Bali in December 2007, but his maate fails to point out this report although undertaken by academics was paid for by the Wilderness Society who also arranged for its public promotion. Not only does his maaate fail to disclose the funding source he also fails to advise that the mixed aged forest stands that were the basis of these claims were “burned in a major conflagration.” in February 2009.

The forest was burnt in the black Saturday bushfire releasing the carbon back to the atmosphere, and destroying the greens pet theory that forests can be a carbon bank forever!

I don't know what the dominant logging system used in Tasmania is Mark. But, if it is like Victoria and the outrage amongst Tasmanians is anything to go by, I'd say clearfelling (or one of it's cosmetic syntheses) is overwhelmingly predominant.

As a forester, shouldn't you have this type of data and statistics at your fingertips? Is this data collected, and if it is, why wouldn't it be readily available to the public? And why would you withhold it in a reasonable exploration of the issues? If it is in the public domain, it's not easy to find as I've searched extensively online and cannot find any trace.

It might be another example of government agencies' attempting to 'gatekeep' information that reflects poorly upon their performance. Or incompetence, or a straight forward attempt to mislead the public?

Another explanation might be that such information is part of the blackhole that is data about forest management that is not collected. I think it's enlightening that DSE only conducted the first comprehensive inventory of Victoria's forests in the 1990's and even then that was largely as a result of criticism by environmentalists.

Which leads me back to questions I posed to you, and which you have studiously avoided addressing, over at TT (link above). I don't know if specific relevant data sets exist at DSE but my personal observations, and what I have been able to extrapolate from published maps, suggest a significant concentration of logging in elevated, high rainfall, tall wet and damp forest. Do you dispute this? On what basis? Using what data? (I defined what I meant by "concentrated" at TT - I will repost it here if you'd like a reminder)

cont.

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous scientific papers that show that logging makes forest more vulnerable, and prone, to fire. I don't know of any scientific papers that suggest otherwise.

Search: "logging makes forest more vulnerable and prone to fire" About 1,650,000 results, Numerous scientific papers cited in articles on the subject.

Search: "logging makes forest less vulnerable and prone to fire" About 76,700 results, No scientific papers cited, not even one article supporting the proposition.

Results for the second search mainly turned up articles that supported proposition of the first search. Not a very scientific technique but illuminating none the less.

Would you like to come out and declare that logging makes forests less fire prone Mark? Based on what evidence and research? If not, why bother denying the link in your last comment?

Cinders, you seem to have ignored what I wrote above; that a certain amount of fire in the landscape is part of the natural carbon cycle. My proposition is that current forestry practices exacerbate climate change and worsen the impacts of climate change. The massively destructive fires of the past decade would, if anything, seem to lend support to this contention.

Proving what Cinders, that I am truthful about my qualifications? At least you have the opportunity to click on my name. If you were to use your real name we could bring up your qualifications. Yes, I have written articles in Tasmanian Times and made many comments, again proving what? There are many good writers in those columns and many valid points. I note your comments on maaate and the article researched being paid for by the Wilderness Society, again… what? Most of the stuff you quote from is paid for by FT and other forest industry players.
I wrote this article emotively because I see forests as a special place, not somewhere to be treated as an industrial wasteland. Forests also have a far greater value left as a carbon sink and for their ecosystem service values than they ever will as a source of toilet paper. The article is not an academic essay it is a feature article, expressing what I and many other people in my area are thinking. Just because it disagrees with your distorted view of life does not make it wrong, just another viewpoint in our (so-called) democratic society.
And… For the record, I also trained as a carpenter and joiner and worked in that field for many years, before progressing through construction management. I therefore, do not have a problem with logging for timber, selectively. Plantations too should be used to produce solidwood products and not wood chips. That way, we may see a return to employment in the region instead of contractors going broke and sawmills closing. You paint a black and white image of people and their views but fail to see we are complex beings, with many variants to our makeup. I am not sure if carpenters rate a mention on Google.

maaate

The information about the respective logging systems used in Tas is readily avaialble to the public - I'm just sick of looking up this stuff for you. Hint: Try the Forestry Tasmania website and its publications.

You said: "I think it's enlightening that DSE only conducted the first comprehensive inventory of Victoria's forests in the 1990's and even then that was largely as a result of criticism by environmentalists"

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the past. Vic forestry agencies have always been involved in doing inventory work, some formally by small teams, but mostly less formal done by local staff. The sudden loss of significant areas of formerly available state forest to new reserves through Forest Management Plans done in the early to mid-1990s, the RFAs, and the introduction of the Code of Practice necessitated the need to do a quickish formal statewide inventory which involved great expense.

Re: Concentration of logging in wet high elevation forests. Of course logging has to occur in forests that are productive and these are the most productive forests - but 70% are reserved, and the other 30% are being harvested and regenerated over an 80 year period. On that basis, I can't see that that qualifies as a 'concentration'

Re: Logging and fire. There are a few scientific papers supporting your contention in tropical forests, but only one study has been done in Australia, plus that literature review of overseas references referred to earlier. My belief is that the current study will show that logging makes no difference to forest flammability in Australia as it simply mimics how forests naturally regenerate.