Here we go again, another case for felling more forest.
The fact that he works for Forestry Tasmania has nothing at all to do with his point of view of course.
He would perhaps be out of a job if the practice were to cease. But I expect he could go on to work for one of the coal companies and then produce a telling report on how good for the environment it is to burn coal.

Hi Simon

Good article. Well developed ideas and conclusions.

It is unfortunate to see that the first comment comes from the lunatic fringe (Sarnian...a case for felling more trees...) and doesn't address any of the points raised in your article.

I guess this reinforces your point that many perceptions are more driven by emotive socio-political concepts than by considered conservation principles.

We can probably exepct that we will see the imminent decision on the future of forest management in Tasmania being made with the same socio-political outlook (afterall they have sent an ex-politician to do the job).

It is a wicked problem & a great shame.

@Dean K,

I totally agree with your comments and in particular in relation to the predictable first response here.

At the heart of all this lies the out of all proportion influence of the Greens in Tasmania, held up by the stupid Hare-Clark voting system.

The sooner that we have 25 individual ELECTORATES in Tasmania the sooner sanity will return.

With individual Electorates , we will then have bugger all Greens in Parliament.They simply do NOT have enough support to elect even ONE member of Parliament, in their own right.

They are a minor Party that will go the way of the DLP and the Democrats. The sooner the better!

The Lunatic fringe at least sees that the train wreck rapidly approaching of the final GFC will completely dismantle the pillaging of millions of tons of trees for conversion into cardboard and paper.
When (not if) this happens, say goodbye to the world demand for pulp, chips ET AL. The market will have disappeared, hopefully for ever.
Then the Tasmanian forest will be sensible “selectively” logged for the building trade and craft trades.
The greens have always said that they have no desire to stop selective logging and indeed they promote the idea of value adding to the trees in our forest. This has always been twisted by the “cut as much as we can, while we can still away with it” interests to the lie that the Greens want all felling stopped.
OK they do want high conservation value trees protected and why not. To cut them for a pittance and to see them go for pulp is an affront to the planet.

A very thoughtful article that accurately addresses the complexity of the relationship between forest management and good environmental outcomes. Sadly, this complexity will ensure that it probably remains unread by most of those who most need to hear its message.

While a better solution than the 'lock-up-and leave' conservation model that is in vogue amongst the ENGO's and our Green-Left politicians is imperative for good conservation outcomes, its attainability relies on opponents of forestry being reasonable enough for meaningful engagement.

Unfortunately, the evidence of responses to any forestry discussions on Green-Left blogs such as the Tasmanian Times and ABC Unleashed shows there is scant chance of this - quite simply too many have devoted their lives to the cause of 'saving' forests and are captive to conspirarcy theories and ingrained beliefs that are unscientific, totally lack perspective, or just plain wrong.

Sarnian provides a good example with his “cut as much as we can, while we can still away with it” belief - as if this can be the case when the majority of forest is in land tenures that cannot be used for timber, and the environmental performance of the industry is so strongly regulated. But then again, these and most other forestry facts are routinely dismissed as lies.

It is also apparent that (despite Sarnian's plea that the Greens support selective logging for craft and building) the formal policies of the major ENGO's and the Greens are to end almost all Australian native timber production. With these policies in place, the forestry sector has always demonstrated remarkable naivety when thinking that it could negotiate a lasting compromise, when it is clear that there is unlikely to be a true 'peace' in the forests until there is no industry, or perhaps just a tiny cottage industry that cuts only a few trees each year.

Then again, these problems must have been faced in British Columbia, and so it would be interesting to know whether there really is a lasting peace in their forests despite an ongoing timber industry. I have my doubts.

Why should those who want to use land to produce housing or food have to pay for it, while those who want to use it to produce parrots get it for free by forcing everyone else to pay for it, whether or not they want it used for that purpsoe?

The simple, ethical and practical solution to the problem is for those who want to use forests for conservation to pay for it like everyone else. What's the big deal? Why can't the conservationists just buy the forests they want? The contribution per head from so many people would be negligible. They could charge for using it for purposes sympathetic to conservation. If this did not cover the costs, tough luck, that's the value they claim to stand for.

And if they could not outcompete the bids of foresters, it simply disproves their claim that society values the forests more for natural beauty than for timber.

The problem is not inherently more complex than that of any other scarce resource with conflicting possible uses. The definition of 'wicked problems' does not describe anything intrinsic to the nature of forests. It describes the planned chaos, misallocation of resources on a grand scale, bullying and corruption that is intrinsic to the nature of economic interventions by government.

Some readers may find this essay annoying. Others may find the responses of others to it annoying. But instead of venting anger and exposing one's own prejudices, why not use this space to critique what the essay has to say? If you feel it doesn't stack up, say so and support your case with a rational argument, preferably based on facts and logic. If you feel it does stack up, how about opening up the discussion about what it implies about the state of our society that we seem prepared to allow extremists to set the agenda, even though the economic, social and environmental consequences fall on the rest of us?

Thanks for a sensible, balanced article, Simon. Since the 2001 decision here in WA to immediately stop logging of old growth forests, the consequence has been a severe under-funding of the state govt agencies responsible for forest management. Just 10 years later, management issues such as Phytophthora dieback being spread by thousands of feral pigs and poor fire management regimes have seen environmental values in our forests fall.
If the suggestions in Simon's article are not put into effect in Tasmania, then its forest values are doomed to a slow, steady decline in the same way that it's happening in WA's jarrah forests.

Yes I can see that the best way to “manage” a forest is to clear fell it. That way there are no trees to get in way of the management team and we will have a nice waste of stunted, monotype scrub that is easy to look after.
Shame about the lost carbon sink and the rainfall loss due to lack of transpiration, complete absence of wildlife but it will be tidier

Sarnian, this is an article on forestry and conservation, not intensive agriculture (though that might be an interesting comparison for you to have a think about)