Logging ancient forests is like burning works of art in the fireplace. Once gone what will replace them is not as aesthetically pleasing, biologically diverse or carbon absorbing. A good example in Tasmania is the tourist drive to the Big Tree Reserve in the Styx Valley. About 5km along stands of magnificent swamp gums (Vic mountain ash) have been felled on both sides of the road. What once seemed like an enchanted wilderness now looks like a war zone. With global warming, local drying and woody weed infestation those 70m tall trees are unlikley to come back in the lifetime of anybody today.

Old growth logging is essentially mining of living things. We don't pretend iron ores bodies will grow back like a Magic Pudding but foresters do. You'd think by the 21st century it would be all plantation timber. The fact that plantation blue gums don't make good enough timber seems to be an admission they can't do it sustainably. Many split logs from ancient trees go to the chipper to make paper which within weeks rots or burns back to the atmosphere. We are treating national treasures as if they were a backyard vegie patch.

Taswegian, you are so correct.......................
Logging old growth is sheer stupidity.

Forests are a resource that do grow again, if harvested. With so much forest now locked up with little in the way of fire breaks to control bushfires, it is almost certain that places like East Gippsland will experience a major fire sometime in the next few years. That will be far more devastating to threatened species than a bit of controlled logging.

These two are "Doctors for the Environment". I doubt that they are any different from any other 'ratbags for the environment' - totally obsessed, unbalanced and annoying.

these Doctors for environment should move to Indonesia where true vandalism is taking place.

'Sadly, the survival of these creatures is in jeopardy as their habitat is degraded for logging and mining.'

can't see their own hypocrisy as they fly the planet, use mobile phones and have more comforts than any other generation.

This is the same sort of emotionally disturbed, diabolically dumb, ideological imperatives that lead to those disastrous bush fires that wiped out millions of hectares of native forests and many critically endangered plants and animals! Many of which have never really recovered or have been supplanted by introduced opportunistic feral species!

These landless, banner waving, slogan shouting, rent-a-crowd, misfits have already been allowed to do far too much harm to our forests!

Pacifists one and all, who'll bash and brain you if you dare disagree with their mindless mantras/broken record rethoric!

Trees store carbon whether horizontal or vertical! But not when they are all but burnt to the ground; as a end consequence of ecological extremism!

Native peoples have been selectively logging their old growth forests for millennia, and to the overall benefit of flora and fauna!

Robust young forests collect vastly more carbon, while old growth forests collect much less in any fair comparison that quite deliberately, and it should, exclude already stored carbon!

It's what you collect now, not what you stored over a 100 years ago that matters!

Its this myopically focused, for rank political purpose, typical errant nonsense, that prevents more intelligent sane rationalists, from effectively addressing climate change!

Well done, you should feel proud of your achievement! More barbequed glider possum anyone? My Koula is a little underdone! And the snake is charred beyond recognition!

What would we do without these environmental activists and their, lock it up and leave it, charred earth outcome? Go back to cave dwelling and running your food down with a stone tied to a stick, perhaps?
Alan B.

ttbn,
Time you woke up and accepted that no healthy environment means no you.

Could these people actually lie straight in bed.

In Queensland we have areas which 80 years ago were totally cleared, & planted to improved pasture. Now regrown much of this stuff is now declared "pristine" native forest, & permits to reclear are refused to the landholders.

Either forests can't regenerate, or this stuff is not pristine. Of course, we don't expect anything but ideological claptrap from such twerps.

Incidentally a recent study using satellite data showed that there are 26% more trees in Oz now, than there were at white settlement. I wonder what these ratbags would consider enough for us to use a few for house building?

I wonder if the Dr bit is Dr of environmental science, or just a nice handle they give each other. If the former, I once read the course notes of the Environmental science course at a major university. It was obvious that after studying for a BSc for 4 years, these "scientists" would still not have enough math to make change for a bus ticket, & they have the hide to call it a science degree.

The authors of this article may be well intentioned, but they should have looked up from their stethoscopes and undertaken a bit of basic research into East Gippsland's public land tenures and forest management regimes before making such errant claims.

Most of East Gippsland's forests are not used for timber harvesting. Around 85% is already in some form of reservation. Such as formal National Park or other type of conservation reserve; or informal reservation, such as a State Forest Special Protection Zone or management reserve (ie. streamside reserve); or is simply unsuitable or economically inaccessible.

Included in these vast conservation reserves is all the region's consolidated areas (>1 ha) of old growth forests. Most were already reserved, but in 2006, the Brumby Govt reserved the remaining 43,000 ha that the timber industry had been expecting to base its future around. So the central premise of the article that old growth forests are being extensively harvested is simply wrong.

Outside of the reserved areas of consolidated old growth forest, there are scattered individual old trees or very small patches of old trees, and some of these occur in the designated wood production zones which are typically comprised of younger forest. So, yes, some old trees are still harvested or affected by harvesting, but hardly enough to threaten wildlife species as this article is claiming.

In a perfect world we would be able to produce durable and decorative hardwood timber (which is incidentally much in demand amongst the wealthy demographic inhabited by medical specialists) without any discernible impact on wildlife. But as it is not a perfect world, the best we can do is to limit and strongly regulate timber production in a minor portion of a forested landscape overwhelmingly dedicated to conservation. This is effectively the current situation.

Mark Poynter, Fellow, Institute of Foresters of Australia, Vic Division.

Slightly off topic, but many would have seen the tragic result of environmental busybodying and interference in property rights (remember, property rights are one of the pillars of democracy) on 'Sunday' on Channel 7 recently. I refer to a Mr. Turnbull and his successful prosecution for the murder of an government inspector policing environmental legislation - some might say, 'telling people what they can or cannot do on their own property. A truly awful event, in which a young family was robbed of a husband and father (for merely doing his job), and an eldery man, hard working man, wealthy from producing the most important commodity of all - food - will spend the rest of his life in jail. All because of rampart environmentalism brought about by climate hysterics and elites who have never done a proper job of work in their lives. Pagans who worship trees, and look down their noses at human beings.

My first sympathies went to the slain inspector, perhaps because I was at one time also an enforcer of government legislation: I was lucky to cop no more than abuse, and I have no idea how this man conducted himself in his duties, but he did not deserve death. However, I can feel for Turnbull, a man of my own generation, who has been bewildered and angered by a bunch of crackpot elites who condemn fracking on productive land, but who also prevent people from clearing their own very valuable land to produce more for an increasingly hungry world. Whatever your opions on this shocking event are, it would not have happened if it had not been for the excessive, maniacal religion of environmentalism that has been forced on us all.

Several reviews in recent times have shown that timber harvesting (anywhere in Australia) has not caused the extinction of any species, so the authors are going way over the top to claim that it does. There is not 'an appalling rate of extinction in this state'.

Contrary to the Doctors' claims, it is my understanding that VicForests does employ specialists to conduct ecological surveys to help inform their harvesting plans.

The authors rightly say that forests provide opportunities for recreation and exercise, etc, but State forests (which may be occasionally logged) are far more available for a greater diversity of outdoor activities than national parks will ever be.

The good doctors should be aware that for every hectare of Australian native forest that is 'locked up', there is increased pressure on SE Asian forests where logging is not subject to the high level of regulation that we have in Australia.

One day someone will be brave and honest enough to see how many lives of humans and animals have been caused by the Greens not allowing burn offs in many places where there is housing.

I think it is now imperative that we MUST preserve, for the long-term health of the planet, ALL of what remains of our precious ecosystems. Especially forests.

Dear Dimity and Kathrine. Are you both aware that the healthiest option for any Forrest is to actively harvest timber in a professionally selective manner and logging these days is a strictly managed

For every dominant tree removed, known as 'mill logs' up to ten sub dominants strive to be the next dominant tree, hence there is an increase in the amount of CO2 intake due to the increased growth activity.

Of cause there are also the jobs, but most academics seem to overlook this crucial side effect.

Runner:

Given their druthers? Most greens claim they prefer cool burns to much more efficient cell grazing that protects housing estates? And because they believe that Aborigines are in the main, simple minded easily influenced folk? Who used burning as a control method, in the complete absence of domesticated grazing herd animals?

Cell grazing by herded (temporary solar powered electric fencing) domesticated goats, is vastly superior as a fuel reduction strategy than fire, that can be conducted as necessary, regardless of weather conditions!

Burns almost always create Co2, and can lift tons of nutrients skyward with every fuel reduction burn, sometimes as far as the ocean, where it does nothing but harm to the marine ecology.

Burns often bake and harden the topsoil, making it impervious to the rain that does fall and as a consequence, adding to the inevitable runoff and associated erosion!

Very short term highly intensive cell grazing by goats, reduces the fuel load and their small hooves, coupled to lower bodyweight, chops up and breaks open hardened topsoil, thereby allowing full penetration of any rain!

Add dung beetles to that management strategy and the manure is dug in, massively reducing any subsequent fly problem!

Given these days of recorded increased wind velocity! Cell grazing would seem to have much more going for it than burning, which can and does get out of control, sometimes resulting in tragedy. And ought to be reserved for those areas, where cell grazing is impossible?
Alan B.