Poor maate, he ignored my links of a video showing harvesting in the Styx valley that has occurred since the 1940s, and a current video of a coupe now labelled high conservation value. Instead he invited readers to look at articles, one from a ‘film maker’ about a myrtle tree, and the other from the former spokesperson for Doctors for Forests. Both had similar posts from maate.

Others have introduced issues such as claiming all forests in Tasmania at time of white settlement were old growth. Such a claim ignores the fact that forest must be old to be old growth and all those young trees in 1750 that are now 200 -300 years old were regrowth. Perhaps only about 25% was old growth. Other forest was even younger, in the north west the Tarkinener people used to visit the inland red ochre mine from their home at Sandy Cape, burning the rainforest as they went to create green pick for the return journey.

Also introduced is Peter McQuillan on the basis of rare and threatened species and the care of biological diversity. Well a quick look at the Trial of Wielangta, that flawed Federal court case that was overturned by the Full court, has the following from Professor McQuillan on the ancient Wielangta stag beetle:

The animal is so rare and at such low densities that all individuals are important in the breeding pool?---Yes, I said that.

The court heard he laid 8 lines of pit traps filled with a substance to catch a beetle as evidence:

So if a broad-toothed stag beetle is unfortunate enough to fall into one of your pitfall traps,it is going to die unless you are there to save it?---Yes, yes, that's true.

And the substance you use is what?---It's a solution of ethylene-glycol, which is anti-freeze.

And that kills and preserves the specimen?---Yes. [P- 1206]

That it was appropriate to kill them for the purpose of Senator Brown's research that he had commissioned through you; is that the case?---Yes. [P-1207]

So much for biodiversity and conservation!

rstuart

I'm sorry to upset your sensibilities, but am at least gratified that you acknowledge the frequent lying and deceit that ENGOs engage in re forestry matters.

What I find it a bit tiresome is the presumption that environmental activists are the little guys battling against big corporate demons and that they never have any success. I think that view is at least 10-years out of date.

In case you've missed it, the major ENGOs are now large corporations in their own right. The Wilderness Society has an annual budget of $15 million and employs 140 people. Their core business is essentially to wage campaigns against resource use industries, so their paid activists go to work each day to formulate strategies to prosecute these campaigns - its no wonder they come up with ever more outlandish claims, its their job.

In 2009, it was reported that Australia’s four largest environmental groups had spent a combined $70 million in the previous financial year, of which 60% (or $42 million) went to lobbying, fundraising, membership drives and other activities not directly linked to on-ground conservation works. Resource use industries are in the business of producing things, not spending $ tens of millions defending themselves - that would probably send most forestry companies broke.

Also, in case you've missed it, at each State election since the mid-1990s in NSW, Victoria, WA, and Queensland, political decisions are made about rural industries to garner the urban 'green' vote. These have had a particularly significant impact on native forest timber industries, mostly without any rational or scientific justification. There is almost no balanced media coverage in relation to forestry, so these articles are written to give a voice to the forestry profession who have to live with these decisions.

Oh good, you're finally awake Mark.

Here's the reference for the "Markets for Change" claim:

38. BRS 2009. Australia’s forests at a glance 2009. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/forests-at-glance-new09.pdf p.3.

It says -

Total forest area 147.4 million hectares
Forest area in nature conservation reserves (IUCN I–IV) 23.0 million hectares

That's 74.4% outside reserves, what's your problem with that? That it includes all the stuff you reckon is rubbish or that it's out by about 1%?

I can't find reference to the TWS pamphlet online and haven't seen it I so can't comment without sources and references.

Interesting that you can find time for this nonsense but not my important questions Mark. It tells me a lot.

And cinders, where are ya goin'? Over here mate!

Mark's sulking about the other stuff and he wants you to handle this one:

Using as a model a wet/damp eucalypt forest in SE Australia having total carbon storage of 1000t/ha (the ones you like to log), the carbon is distributed roughly as follows:

100 - 34% in soil profile
- 8% root biomass (I have seen a figure of 60% of carbon in the soil but I can't find the reference at the moment - compared to 42% from this reference)
- 2% litter layer
- 7% coarse woody debri
- 6% dead biomass in stags
Total so far 57% (after Brendan G. Mackey, Heather Keith, Sandra L. Berry and David B. Lindenmayer 2008)
- 47% living biomass

My estimates:
- 15% ground cover (mosses, grasses etc), under-story, non target species
- 15% crowns, foliage, bark (I'm feeling generous)
- 12% boles (trunks) left on site due to defects etc

= 5% carbon removed from site as logs

Less 85% woodchipped = leaves 0.75% treated as sawlogs.

30% of a sawlog recovered as sawn timber = 0.224% of 1000t/C

2.25 tons out of 1000 might end up as tomato stakes or, if we're really lucky, it might end up as something of value...like a shipping/freight pallet?

Can you point me toward any research that might help me tighten my case?

Forestry Tasmania’s release of the first year of their three-year wood-harvesting plan. The plan includes new roading into iconic high conservation areas including the Upper Florentine and Styx valleys despite these areas being earmarked for National Park protection under the new agreement.

Any comments on the above Mark, perhaps a spin on this as to how good it will be for the tourists to see forestry in action and even breathe in the lovely fresh wood smoke from a burn off?

MWPoynter
It is not only logging reducing the area of land under forests there are other pressures including urban expansion and population pressures. Many of the forests you are talking about have been previously logged but you are right about one thing, and that there are more areas being protected now than ever before although mining interests nearly always win over environmental concerns eg. the Tarkine, Kakadu.

What you won't acknowledge that much of forestry protection initiatives are largely due to Green groups.

http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/caring/index.html

PS: I only mentioned my science background in the light of other people's sharing similar information. Possession of any formal qualification does not automatically assume all graduates of those disciplines are in agreement otherwise we would not be here discussing these issues. I note no equal censure for those pro-forestry posters in mentioning their backgrounds? It wasn't a competition to see whose was bigger as clearly I declared a shift to to politics part way through.

How much biodiversity is enough?

I am sure you are just as capable of researching topics you wish to learn more about but here goes.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/month.html#why

That is almost unquantifiable hugoago if you are seeking an exact figure of how many species are required to assure the diversity to sustain human life. It is a silly question. The answer in evolutionary terms is the more species the better protected we are, the fewer the more risks there are to human health and sustainability.

A good example within the realm of my own experiences and interest is seed diversity. Limited varieites of seed mean any potential pathogen can wipe out a whole species; a wider range of varieties with varying genetic properties increase the chances of survival against ensuing disease.

Humans are intimately involved and affected by their environment. Why is that so hard to fathom. It is a series of balancing acts and my own view is that without the efforts of Green groups of which there is growing and propagandised Greenaphobia, many achievements would not be realised.

Pelican

"It is not only logging reducing the area of land under forests there are other pressures ....."

Sigh .... mate, with all due respect, why can't you understand that logging does not reduce the area of land under forest? Logged areas are immediately regenerated into new forest - a one-year old stand of regrowth is still land under forest.

Sadly, this sort of misconception indicates the degree to which this debate has been dumbed-down and is why people like me find it so offensive to think that forest policy is dictated by such muddle-headed thinking.