We as a society recognised many years ago a simple truth; that in order to preserve what limited native forests we have left, along with the biodiversity and populations of native species they serve to protect, we needed to move to plantation timber. We did it not only for the environmental benefits but also to create and sustain timber resources and jobs.

This was done by providing massive tax breaks to plantation companies, so much so that the usual charlatans and thieves came to feast. There were impacts on farming communities and also admittedly some negative environmental consequences.

But the aim was to phase out native timber harvesting, particularly its ferocious feeding of the woodchip mills which exported jobs and essentially propped up the native forest timber industry.

And it worked.

The value of plantation timber has now outstripped our native forest timber many times over. On current prices Australia's plantation timber assets are worth 9.9 billion dollars while our standing native timber is just 1.5 billion. That's right less than a fifth and rapidly declining.

This of course doesn't mean timber companies are going quietly as this article demonstrates. They know that the timber royalties paid the the state governments are a quarter the cost per tonne compared to plantation timber and the almighty dollar features very strongly in their decisions.

But our values continue to change. Large sections of the community are rightly ashamed that Australia's rate of mammal extinction is the highest in the world and want our governments to do something about it. We are demanding more from those governments and they are appropriately reacting.

Moving to save the leadbeater possum is one such response.

SteeleRedux

You're rationale that plantations were established specifically to replace native forest timber production is wrong.

In 1964, the Australia Forestry Council instigated a massive program of softwood plantation establishment in recognition that the nation's growing population and demand for wood would exceed the capacity of native forests. These plantations were meant to complement the native forest resource not replace it, based on an appreciation that the two resources supply different products.

Similarly, the more recent hardwood plantation expansion was specifically to produce only woodchips, with no intent to replace hardwood sawn timber from native forests.

Yes, plantation timber now supplies most of the market because it has replaced native hardwood in its former high volume but low value uses. But it will never replace the demand for durable and decorative high value hardwood.

Your comparison of the value of plantations versus native forests is also problematic because most of the public native forests in southern and eastern Australia are now in reserves and so is no longer available for use. If it was still available, the value would be much higher of course.

You mention the need to 'preserve our limited forests' - the forests in question which support LBP still occupy over 95% of their original range and harvesting and regenerating a minor portion of them doesn't reduce their extent.

Your final two paragraphs suggest that you haven't read the article and appreciated that closing the timber industry will not save Leadbeaters Possum

SteeleRedux, I have another question for you and other readers to ponder. Why is there so much attention on 'saving' the leadbeaters possum? Because it is photogenic and lives in photogenic forests, of course! There is also a readily identifiable 'bogey man'. 'Good vs. evil', the simple black and white message beloved of the green movement. Shame for all those non-photogenic species that live in outback Australia under threat from cats and foxes. No money for the green movement in 'saving' those species so no-one hears about them. Shame one big fire will wipe out the leadbeaters possum...

SteeleRedux

What has the rate of Australia's mammalian extinction record got to do with the LBP? If you are implying there is a link between existing recorded mammal extinctions and native forest harvesting then such a link is spurious. Not one of the recorded mammalian extinctions was due to native forest logging, particularly as the vast majority are species that were inhabiting the semi-arid and arid interior, and where no eucalypt tree species utilised for sawn products are found.