As a professional forester with an appropriate university degree, neither Mark nor his article advocates for the forest to be "plundered". Instead foresters and timber workers have a vested interest in ensuring the forest is managed in a sustainable way, after all they are the ones that choose to work in it every day and hope to be able to harvest again in the future.

An example of the careful planning that goes into a harvesting plan can be found in http://www.forestrytas.com.au/assets/0000/0511/article_5-resized.pdf
This paper tells of the planning undertaken prior to the proposed clear felling of 57 ha of wet forests and shows how the harvesting plan protected a wedge tailed eagle nest as well as water course and other values.

Nor is Mark advocating that the last old Growth tree is cut down, he continually points out that most old growth is within forests reserves.

Victoria‘s State of the Forests Report 2008 states on page 12 that there was "474,000 hectares of old-growth forest, 77% of the total old-growth in Victoria, was protected in CAR reserves."
Then goes on to state "There has been a significant decrease in the area of old-growth forest harvested in Victoria, from 730 hectares in 2001-02 to 50 hectares in 2005-06."

One of the beaut things about wood from our native forests is that they store carbon in their products and provide a totally renewable source of energy, but you won't find Government support for this concept in its latest plans to Tax carbon to encourage the use of carbon friendly products or credit for burning mill and harvest residues.

Rather than reflect the well researched approach that Mark advocates, the Government seem to willing to accept the leadership of the Greens and their opinionated beliefs.

Cinders, you say that "foresters and timber workers have a vested interest in ensuring the forest is managed in a sustainable way". To be more specific, foresters/timber workers have a vested interest in the sustainability of the commercial value of a forest. When a forest is logged, the yield and future yield of the coupe is all that matters to these two groups. All others issues relating to forests are peripheral to the commercial focus. These goals conflict with the values of broader society which recognises the environmental services and non-commercial values of forests.

You raised the issue of old growth forest but I'm interested in protecting any area of forest that has not been significantly disturbed or modified since the advent of industrial forestry.

If foresters can log regrowth forest without compromising natural systems I would not object. I actually advocate restoration forestry which raises forestry from the status of bean counting to a real biological science. I would like to see broadacre industrial monocultures converted back to natural forest and managed to facilitate production and ecological restoration. We could be expanding our timber and fibre production by incorporating it into existing agricultural practices on farmland.

After 200 years of plundering native forest it seems reasonable to draw a line in sand and leave untouched forests alone. It's time we had a vision for the future and left exploitative and narrow 18th century utilitarian mindsets where they belong.

BTW, I address the myth of "carbon friendly products" (from native forest) at one of the links above. If you want to argue with my assessment I'll be happy to oblige.

As getup is no more than a coalition of the Australian greens and the wilderness society under daddy bob brown what more would you expect Mark? With a political agenda to close down any form of native forest harvesting, facts and figures don’t matter to getup, the greens or their supporters.

They don’t care if the impact of their consumption is shifted off shore, to speed up the extinction of the urangutans and Sumatran tigers. The political agenda is all-important and shifting impacts doesn’t concern them, because they just want to control what happens in their back yard.

A typical response I have received from local activists when raising the issues of shifting consumptions impacts to less regulated countries is, “so what!” Many of your critics would appear to have similar attitudes.

Twenty first century “environmental” activism has taken the art of hypocrisy to a new level. Most critics of the native forest industry are ardent consumers of timber and paper products and delude themselves that this can all come from plantations.

For example, a popular brand of photocopy paper is made from so-called sustainably managed plantations. The company that manufactures this paper is still clearing Indonesian rainforests and draining swamps to establish more plantations.

When I raised this issue with a stockist, I was told that the company was an Australian company. When merchants can’t tell the difference between a brand name and a manufacturer, you understand the uphill battle we have to maintain a native forest based industry in Australia and get consumers to make responsible purchasing decisions.

ralph j,

Apart from your Greenaphobia, are you seriously saying that if there were Orangutans and Sumatran Tigers in the Tasmanian forest, FT would not log them?
Come on, the facial tumors on Devils, Virus in platypuses and the wholesale slaughter of other native animals is not stopping them.
Also the highest rate of cancer in Australia does not seem to worry them either.
They are using chemicals that are banned in most of the “first world” countries.
It’s the almighty dollar that counts.

I am green and I am also a forester. I do not consider this a contridiction. It is my passion to conserve our world's forests and biodiversity at a landscape level whilst still produce carbon friendly products. This is what forestry is about. I was so passionate about it, I spent nearly 6 years at university to become informed and qualified to do this. Hearing some of the aggressive, misinformed and naive diatribe on some of these posts is frustrating, even if the authors' of the posts are well meaning. Mark's observations about the media's lack of objectivity in regards to forestry issues as well as a lack of consultation from forestry professionals in regards to forest policy decisions are very valid.

Muddy Boots
Most Greens are not advocating the banning of forestry only that there is no interest by some forestry lobby groups and organisations in protecting some old growth forests or wilderness.

We all rely on forestry products in our everyday lives. I also did a Science Degree (Biology and Biochemistry) for two years before changing to Politics and if you are indeed trained in this area you would also understand the importance of biodiversity and the differences between the biological systems of plantation forests and older forests. Does every forest need to be exploited by man purely for economic purpose without consideration of other values. These decisions ultimately affect the wellbeing of human populations and short term thinking can at times prove detrimental.

These forestry issues are all part of the wider problems around overpopulation and consumerism. It is the mantra of continual economic growth that drives these policies and that influence decisions around forestry.

While some people are quick to trash the policies of the Greens they are the only party advocating for greater protection for the environment and for voters this is important.