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.

Manufacture of horse drawn vehicles, gas lights and whale bone corsets, where all sunset industries. Propping up destructive resource extraction for non-essential produce such as native hard woods, is based on pure greed along with contempt for the opinions of scientists, most lay-people and the original inhabitants of an ancient and unique continent (including Tasmania - which was part of the mainland less than 12,000 years ago). The beneficiaries of the wholesale destruction of the small amount of original forests remaining, are 1)mulitnational consumers of woodchips, 2) manufacturers of forest harvesting machinery and log transporters - again multinationals 3) local and overseas owners of forest concessions to log and / or clear fell forests. Note direct revenue to any tier of government in the form of royalties, is neglegable.

The following excerp from an article published in a respected international journal, in my humble opinion, sums up the currrent state of the Australina timber industry very well:

http://jpe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/109.full
Corey J.A.Bradshaw (2011) Journal of Plant Ecology

"The patterns of deforestation and forest degradation in a country well-known for its relatively low forest cover globally indicate that major shifts in environmental policy are required. While state and national legislation to protect forests came into force throughout the 1990s and 2000s in most parts of Australia, the legacy of deforestation means that a business-as-usual attitude will be insufficient to prevent further extinctions."

It's an interesting post GreyCells but not really relevant to this article. Landclearing for agriculture has little resemblance to forestry and no resemblance to the sustainable forestry practices of today.
As for scientific research, you may wish to open your eyes a little and look at this link http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/434643/Harvested-forests-provide-the-greatest-ongoing-greenhouse-gas-benefits.pdf
Among other things, it says: Managed, multiple use production forests have the capacity to store carbon on site; produce wood products that continue to store carbon off site; provide substitutes for more GHG-intensive building products; minimise the need for GHG intensive imports; and produce residues that can be used to generate renewable energy, displacing fossil fuels. The data show total GHG emissions abatement and carbon storage from a multiple use production forest exceed the C storage benefit of a conservation forest.

I won't reiterate the stats on forest areas that are harvested but your silly insistence on claiming 'wholesale destruction' of forests when in fact the amount harvested is less than 3% gives a pretty good clue to your perspective.

Whichever way the corruption game has been played out regarding Gunn's, the outcome of two "proud" centuries of deforestation is plainly shown in Figure 2 of the Oxford paper cited by Grey Cells. It makes a propaganda nonsense of the claim by Nigel of Jerrabomberra that less than 3% of the forest is being "harvested" (what? - per day or something?).

The fact alluded to by MWPoynter that two 100-year assaults followed each other in removing timber - and by the way the squatters are still at it and the loggers are still clamouring (see article) for more of what's left) - doesn't lessen the immensity of the assault on our land and the land of our Aboriginal predecessors. A mugging victim cleaned out by two attackers taking turns is no less robbed.

The argument about carbon sequestration by logging does hold, for the reason given in the NSW Logging Department paper cited. With growth being in equilibrium with forest-floor rotting of fallen wood, a forest in its natural state is carbon-neutral. Logging it and processing the wood into lasting artifacts means less of it rots on the ground releasing its carbon as CO2. This may be of some comfort to those who buy the AGW speculation, but deforesting the rest of the continent seems far too high a price to pay.

The recent posts by praxtice, Emporer Julian, and Grey Cells are in my view quite fascinating for the insights they give into public perceptions about forestry and how they've been influenced by activist campaigns, the media, and skewed academic 'opinion'.

That praxtice believes that Gunns' proposed pulpmill was going to pollute the Great Lake in central Tasmania, despite the reality that it was to be built at the mouth of the Tamar River just a few kilometres from Bass Straight, exemplifies the role of environmental activism supported by an unquestioning media.

Particularly in the early stages of public discourse about the mill, anti-activism strove to create an impression that the mill was to be built in a pristine valley (rather than an industrial precinct) and would decimate old growth forests (rather become plantation-based). I can still remember, our ABC repeating these errant claims without question, replete with footage of a mountain stream (on their TV reports). So I guess, its hard to blame people who still believe the mill was to be built inland and would destroy and pullute pristine mountain environments.

Emporer Julian has obviously been affected by the frequent images of post-logging 'destruction' and it seems, has no inkling that forests actually regrow and eventually regain their former conservation values.

The fact that large areas of our National Parks, including recently proposed areas in Tasmania, include substantial areas of forest that were logged and regenerated up to 70 - 80 years ago, confirms this, but again, this isn't something widely publicised through the media (there is great difficulty getting anything other than a 'doomsday' perspective about forestry published in the mainstream media), so I suppose there is some excuse for laypersons thinking that forests are gone forever once they've been logged. Unfortunately, it seems too much to ask that people do some research on this before becoming self-righteous anti-forestry critics in the public sphere.

To be continued ........

Continued.....

Grey Cells citing of an academic article to prove his point is indicative of a growing problem of academic-activism where (particularly with regard to environmental issues) scientists feel free to step outside their area of expertise to push personal agendas that they believe to support their scientific discipline.

It is interesting that the article Grey Cells has cited is written by an ecologist who is a co-director of the Environment Institute, which suggests that he may naturally be inclined to take umbrage at activities such as forestry which clearly disturb the environment in the short term (which he is presumably intent on saving).

Sadly, critiscism about forestry in Australia from conservation biologists and academics is notoriously lacking in perspective about scale and proportional extent in comparison to areas that are not disturbed, as well as the future values of regrowing forests. These factors are critical to any analysis of environmental impact, but when they are just ignored it can only be concluded that there is a lack of scientific objectivity.

Grey Cells also peppers his post with assertions that are straight from the ENGO/Greens songbook. According to Grey Cells hardwood timber is unnecessary; resource use is driven by greed (rather than societal demand) and its proponents are contemptous of science (despite the reality that foresters, geologists, and others are also scientists); that there is wholesale destruction of the small amount of original forests remaining (check my earlier post), that benificieries are multi-national corporations and overseas owners of forest concessions (where does that come from?); and that direct revenue to any tier of government in the form of royalties, is neglegable)??).

No evidence is provided to support any of these assertions but they roll easily from the tongue and can be used to make a good post on an online discussion. Sadly, Grey Cells like so many other e-activists prefers to simply parrot an agenda put out by others rather than examine these matters for himself. Such is the world we now inhabit.

MWPOYNTER - praxtice believes that Gunns' proposed pulpmill was going to pollute the Great Lake

Thats not what I said at all. Another company has however managed by fair means or foul (probably the latter) managed to get official dispensation to do their worst on the Great Lake.

My point was that the demise of Gunns may or may not have been wholly legitimate.

The fact that an apparently better financially resourced company has been been able to indulge in environmental vandalism with relative impunity suggests the gubmunt has been paid off.

praxidice

I may have misread your post about polluting the Great Lake - you referred to a paper mill, and did not mention Gunns by name.

However, this is immaterial really because there is no paper mill located anywhere near the Great Lake let alone polluting it, so where you've got this from is I suspect from misinterpreting anti-pulpmill campaigns which as I said in my post are rarely if ever questioned by the media and are promoting misinfo0rmation to fit an unwarranted agenda of environmental armageddon. Your other comment about eco-vandals in the Tarkine further exemplifies this.

MWPOYNTER

When I visited the area a few years back as part of whats best described as a due diligence exercise, locals (whom I have no reason to believe had an axe to grind) took me to a very suss operation that was spewing vast quantities of whatever evil foamy looking liquid directly into the Great Lake. I can't recall a company name or even if there was one visible (mind you the direction I was taken didn't involve the front gate) nevertheless I believe it was described as a paper mill by the locals. Just the sight was a major disincentive to live within cooee of the place. There were other issues I discovered that convinced me Tasmania wasn't what I'd expected, although the other matters were development related and not as confronting as the Great Lake experience. I haven't had reason to re-visit Tasmania in years so I haven't a clue as to what has happened in the Great Lakes area since. The development situation was the ultimate deal-breaker in the final wash-up although the other left a very bad impression. The information I've received re the Tarkine came from a different source I have every reason to regard as impeccable.

praxidice

Your Great Lake experience is perplexing. Having worked up there and still a regular visitor to nearby areas, I can assure you that there is not and has never been a paper mill or any other industrial development in that area. Perhaps you are mistaking what you saw in some other place with the Great Lake, that's all I can think of.

Re the Tarkine, I agree that there are campaigns against mining that are painting an erroneous picture of environmental disaster on a supposedly grandiose scale. You can choose to believe it, but the reality is that mining has occurred in the region on a small scale for 70 - 100 years (as I understand it). The campaigners don't like it and are determined that it goes away, so grossly over-stating the threat is sadly to be expected.

MWPOYNTER

Whatever, any state that allows what I saw certainly doesn't deserve to be thought of as environmentally responsible.

I'm aware of the old mining operations and agree they should, subject to reasonable scrutiny, be allowed to continue, the issue I alluded to was logging. Whilst I haven't seen it personally, I've been provided with photos, videos & maps by folk in whom I have every confidence. The story they tell isn't a pretty one.

My objective with the potential tree-change was move to a location that would never be subject to either enviromental vandalism or 'development'. By development I mean having housing estates pop up around me. In the central highlands towns I checked out, I discovered old subdivisions that were still 'on the books' with a surprising number of new homes. That didn't suit my agenda, consequently I switched my sights elsewhere. Tasmania proved to be a disappointment, I'd expected to find a near pristine wilderness with only a few tiny towns amid old growth forest & folk with a predominantly tree-hugger mentality ... maybe I had unrealistic expectations however I ended up finding almost exactly what I wanted elsewhere.