Mark,

After reading all the recent posts I can see that I allowed my self to be distracted. When I originally read your article I was impressed by the connections that you drew and observations made. I recognise that I became somewhat incensed by some of the ill-informed comments that followed and subsequently assisted in detracting from your topic. Amongst many things there needs to be close scrutiny of lobby groups and funding. Sadly and increasingly there does not appear to be a desire for journalists to investigate matters fully, especially in relation to forestry matters.

I love trees, and I love timber products, and the best timber products are made from Australian timbers.

This is the first reply to my origional post.

I sometimes wonder where you keep your brains, where the sun don't shine, methinks.
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 6 July 2011 11:21:25 AM

This is your answer to my last post
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. by MWPOYNTER

Mark, I would say that I was only returning the abuse that was served up to me in the beginning of this thread.
Am I not allowed a right of reply?

maaate

As I recall saying to you back then, these are not simple questions. They would probably require days of research through getting in touch with two government agencies. You seem to think I work for these agencies or live in East Gippsland - I don't.

Then, at the end of it all - if past experience is a guide - if you didn't agree with the findings you would simply dismiss them in a paragraph or two.

As I said to you then, go and do your own research - contact those agencies yourself. The fact that you don't already know these things, yet voice such strong anti-logging opinions already paints you as someone who lacks an open mind on this. I have learnt from harsh experience on blogs like this, that engaging with the likes of you can be very time-consuming and is largely pointless.

If you believe GetUp to be misrepresenting the forestry industry then you have equal right to put your case. In fact you have in this article. The Wilderness Society, Greenpeace and The Conservation Foundation have done similar over the years.

It all depends on your POV. If you believe old growth and/or native forests can continue to be plundered without care or understanding about the long term impacts on the environment and ultimately, human populations then you won't like the GetUp campaign.

People are free to boycott consumer goods based on ethical reasons important to them eg. fair trade, child labour, Australian made and/or owned, locally grown over imported, GM free, sustainable timbers, presevative free.. and so the list goes on.

This from the TAS Forestry site:
"There’s nothing quite as natural as harvesting and re-generating native forests. Using techniques that mimic nature, Forestry Tasmania harvests and regenerates about one percent of State forest each year, without using any chemicals – no herbicides, no pesticides and no wildlife poison."

This is good spin but "quite as natural" - really? There is no recognition about the difference on biodiversity (essential in evolutionary terms) in continual regenerating compared to permanent protected wildernesses.

And would Forestry organisations and logging companies even be undertaking those better forestry management practices (even if some of it is purely for show) if it wasn't for pressures from organisations (like GetUp) to ensure standards were improved.

What about the many examples as happened in the SE Victorian Forests where, despite government policies, logging companies intentionally encroached into areas that were legislated as protected from logging. What about further encroachments into the Tarkine Wilderness (by mining companies).

On balance the corporations are winning most of the battles - if you don't believe me just look at past decisions around forestry and mining versus environmental and heritage protection. The wins by environmental conservation groups or GetUp pale by comparison.

Do you really think some of the legal and political shenanigans throughout the Gunn's Pulp Mill debate were ethical?

Is there any wonder that many people do not trust the industry.

As we both know Mark, my questions are "Dorothy Dixers".

I don't have exact figures but using the general information and maps that are publicly available, in addition to on ground observations, I know that the answers will paint a damning picture of native forest logging operations in Victoria.

If a Fellow of the Institute of Foresters of Australia (is your voluntary role as spokesperson official or self-appointed?) does not have ready access to these figures, who does? How likely is it that a member of the public will get access to this data? The fact that such information hasn't been collated, isn't readily available &/or accessible raises a raft of issues in itself.

It's all very well for you to dismiss me as a "vexatious inquisitor", but from my point of view, it shows that when your propaganda is scrutinised and challenged it falls over. It seems to be a convenient excuse.

Pelican

<< There is no recognition about the difference on biodiversity (essential in evolutionary terms) in continual regenerating compared to permanent protected wildernesses. <<

Thanks for writing the post I was probably not going to get around to doing.

There is zero acknowledgement of the impact on both understory flora and fauna as well as the life supported in the forest canopy. Evolution allows for natural impacts such as fires, storms, natural attrition but cannot keep pace with human intervention.

The absolute necessity for continued viable flora and fauna is BIODIVERSITY - rarely mentioned on these and other media pages. We would not be here without the support of a healthy biodynamic functioning eco-system - it is arrogance and deliberate ignorance to think that a mono-culture of plantation trees is an adequate substitute.

Seems we will only learn this lesson the hard way, when the last old growth tree is felled.