How has the total NATURAL forested area changed during the "proud" 200-year history of cutting it down? As long as the rate of logging exceeds the rate of NATURAL replacement the industry is unsustainable, which means sunset.

Emperor Julian

If you'd read the article properly, you'd see that only about 6% of Australia's forests are being managed for wood supply on a cycle of harvest and regrowth. That leaves 94% that is growing unfettered subject to natural disturbances such as fire, except for perhaps a small portion affected by human disturbances such as urban expansion.

On that basis, the rate of wood removal for forest produce is dwarfed by the rate of wood recruitment over the whole forest, including post-harvest regrowth and new growth in reserved or unused areas.

I guess the tone of your post is indicative of what the article is attempting to redress - the skewed conventional wisdom emanating from the decades long cause celebre that harvesting native forests is evil.

MWPoynter writes that 94% of our forests (when you include planted monocultures) are growing unfettered - I think he forgot to note that this means residual forests, remaining after Australia's "proud 200 year history as a forestry pioneer".

Having touted the 94% growing unfettered he adds that this is something the article is trying to redress!

A lot more informative than the 94% would be an overall statement of what the "proud 200 year history" has achieved by comparing current total area of natural forest with total area before the "pioneer" loggers and squatters got to it.

Emporer Julian

I will agree with you that the author's use of the term "200 years as a proud forestry pioneer" is somewhat fraught because the first 100 or so years of this was generally not forestry, but land clearing for agricultural development, cities and towns.

The early foresters were in fact at the forefront of stopping this largely unregulated expansion by successfully lobbying State Governments to reserve large areas of forests which form the publicly-owned forest estates of today, including today's national parks and State Forests.

Since then, the area of publicly owned native forest has been virtually unchanged despite a century of timber production upon which our Australian society has been built.

Overall, since 1788, about one-third of Australia's original forests and woodlands have been cleared for agriculture and urban expansion. Despite this Australia still ranks sixth in the world for total forest cover, and fifth for per capita forest cover with around 8 ha per person, compared to the world average of 0.6 ha per person.

From a conservation perspective this is surely a pretty good situation, but if you are intent on blaming someone for the loss of forests since 1788, you should perhaps blame Captain Cook for discovering Australia and yourself and your forebears for having the temerity to need housing, heating, and paper.

The title of this piece should be turned around. The forestry industry led the way (closure of Gunns Ltd etc) and not the reverse. The motor industry is following with Ford now scheduled to close domestic manufacture.

Both industries have been affected by the high dollar, world recession etc. While the motor industry has been showered with subsidies from government (and is in demise in spite of this), forestry has been undermined by growing government restrictions on access to forests and by economic sabotage by Green activists. In other words its demise has been planned externally.

Given how Gunns Ltd has been treated in Tasmania, no sensible investor (forestry or otherwise) should invest a cent there.

Bren - Given how Gunns Ltd has been treated in Tasmania, no sensible investor (forestry or otherwise) should invest a cent there.

I don't know a lot about the situation in Tasmania although I did (albeit briefly) consider a tree-change to the central highlands a few years back before figuring another location was better suited. During my due diligence I formed the distinct opinion that what one can do in Tasmania (like most places) depends on who one knows and / or what palms one greases. For example, look at that horrible paper mill polluting the Great Lake, and the environmental vandals desecrating the Tarkine. I suspect Gunns may have been a squeaky clean & totally above board operation not prepared to play the grubby political 'incentive' game. Alternatively, their profitability may have been such they weren't able to provide meaningful incentives. Maybe so, maybe not, its just the impression I got over a few weeks poking around the place.