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.