For those that want a close look at the the High Conservation Value forest claimed to be outside the 1.4 million hectares of forests already reserved in Tasmania check the video at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/

Get up! has now moved on to secondary boycotts of retailers and grocery stores. These type of boycotts are illegal under the Competition and Consumer act unless exempted for an environmental purpose. Boycotting a company like Harvey Norman for selling beautiful furniture made from sustainably harvested native timbers see http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/07/04/still-waiting-gerry/ , or selling the food we eat every day from Coles or Woollies is hardly an environmental reason.

The advertising campaign against retailers selling furniture from Australia's native forests was organised by a secretly funded group called Markets for Change that is staffed by ex Wilderness society activists and has a Board with strong Greenpeace links. Just where are the ethics and the demand for openness and transparency of funding of these political groups. It wasn't so long ago that the Greens were demanding exposure on political donations. All that has stopped since the Federal election. I wonder why!

It would seem that a large number of rednecks (instead of a crop, perhaps a crap of them) have come out of the woods to snarl at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the wholesale pillaging of old growth forest to make a profit for the megaforestbiz.
Just to put it in simple terms it is considered a bad thing by anyone with an IQ that can be counted on more than two hands, to clear fell millions of tons of very unique old trees, to wood chip and sell offshore to make a dubious product called wood pulp. It IS considered OK to selectively fell quality trees to mill and on sell for fabrication of various end products such as furniture, houses, boats ETC.

The pulp can be produced by other means such as hemp,plantation timber, sugercane waste Etc but that would mean that the aforementioned Megaforestbiz, would not make huge profits only reasonable profits.
This of course excludes Gunns which is in the throws of bankrucy.
I await your next outburst of abuse.

Sarnian, rstuart, etc

Sigh ....... I can't work out whether you are deliberately trying to wind-up people on this site or are genuinely as ignorant about what happens in forests as your words suggest....... but, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are imbued with self-righteous ignorance.

Until you learn the basic fundamentals of how much logging there is, how it is conducted, and what is happening with 'old growth' forests, it is pointless engaging with you as your personal abuse (ie. mentions of rednecks, and IQ levels etc) can really only be met with similar ridicule.

Can I suggest you arm yourself with some factual information by doing a bit of basic research. Try Googling the 'Australia's Forests at A Glance 2011' publication by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture Resource Economics and Sciences.

@MWPOYNTER: I can't work out whether you are deliberately trying to wind-up people on this site or are genuinely as ignorant about what happens in forests as your words suggest

For me it's probably more of being a pendent.

It was this I was reacting to:

@MWPOYNTER: Accordingly, an old growth forest may hold less carbon than a younger forest.

Which plain wrong.

I can imagine selectively old removing trees from an old growth forest would yield a very different result. I presume this is what you are talking about since you bring up "how much logging there is, how it is conducted".

MPoynter
I enjoy reading your articles and it is pleasing to have some truthful and in depth information that those with open minds may read and absorb, rather than the one lines that are heard in the mainstream media. I have followed up on a lot of the information and all appears to be factual. It is very disappointing that i come to a forum to discuss and learn, and am confronted with personal abuse and and belittling of anyone that may dare to read, verify and support the facts that you have spent a lifetime researching and studying.

"Until you learn the basic fundamentals of how much logging there is, how it is conducted, and what is happening with 'old growth' forests, " @MWP

Well Mark, the last time I wanted information about what was happening here in Victoria, you couldn't (or wouldn't) answer.

Refresh your memory:

What percentage of logging operations in East Gippsland are carried out:

1/ in mature (& older) forests?

2/ in forests less than 100 years old?

3/ in regrowth from previous clearfell operations?

4/ in wet and damp forest types?

5/ at elevations of 0-200m, 200-400m, 600-800m, 800+m?

Do you want to answer these simple questions about "how much logging there is, (&) how it is conducted"?

(Background as to why I would want these particular questions answered can be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11727&page=0 and http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/use-up-to-date-research/show_comments )