The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Logging to save the planet > Comments

Logging to save the planet : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 27/10/2006

Anti-forestry activism threatens to exacerbate warming and water problems.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I do not believe in locking up the forests as keeping people away only encourages ignorance as people are denied the ability to learn what actually lives in the bush.

Where society needs to change in my view, is to begin adapting our homes so that they blend in with trees. By over land clearing to build houses increases the temperature and reduces rainfall.

Rockhampton(Australia) has experienced a dramatic drop in rainfall and increase of weather since over clearing for housing development. Such over land clearing that the local council cleared land never zoned for development, leading to salt rising to the surface.

I easily forgive our forefathers for they did not have the knowledge of the Australian environment, I can not forgive today's society as we do have the knowledge today. As a dollar figure to something, people suddenly care.
Posted by Spider, Friday, 27 October 2006 11:00:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interestingly another article in today's OLO blames afforestation for reduced water flows into reservoirs. I'm sure along with the other commentator that trees bring train; could be why it has just started snowing here in my leafy neighbourhood.

I don't disagree with selective logging particularly if aged trees are put to high value uses such as timber, not primarily woodchips. However I don't care for 'hot' burnoffs that consume fallen timber. I think recently fallen timber and understorey should harvested for pulping and new processes such as woodchips-to-diesel. I believe the quolls and lyrebirds will return if understorey harvesting is done in a patchwork fashion. Burning it is a waste of a resource as much as air pollution.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 27 October 2006 12:58:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
logging to save the planet, I dont know, but we need to stop logging and start expert guided regrowth of our forests or we are going to be drinking neutronium flavored water from processed sea water for which we will be paying a private enterprise a lot of money for, while we sit and view the border to border man made desert with carcasses of animals of we call Australia soon.

It all comes to the words 'atmospheric water vapour pressure', if it does not reach a critical level...no rain, even rain laiden clouds overhead are going to vanish without a drop if the local atmosphere is too dry.

On the other hand go for a walk in a forest that is yet allowed to survive, feel the moisture in the air which is held in by the canopy from the drying effect of the sun...leaving aside the peaceful feeling and calming effect...

Or take a plane ride towards the interior from the coast and see how quickly the land becomes dry and barren, the desert is encroaching at an alarming rate and almost at our back yard. We all have to do something soon.

If a government program to reforest all hill tops, while the lower inbetween areas are left for grazing, I will be there doing my bit to plant trees for I know that it will eventually lead to water from regular rainfall, water worth more that all money in the world when you dont have enough of it...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Friday, 27 October 2006 7:25:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we feel the need to thin large portions of our dam catchments, which is an intensive, expensive and ecologically disruptive exercise, in order to increase water supply, then how on earth can we be just sitting back and accept that the demand on these water resources will continuing to increase with no end in sight?

As with most other writers of articles of this type on this forum, Mark Poynter has completely overlooked the continuously increasing demand side of the equation.

If we had addressed that factor a couple of decades ago, we wouldn’t even need be thinking about thinning vegetation in catchments in order to increase runoff and storage capability.

And if we don’t address that factor now, there is not going to be much point in increasing storage capability, because it won’t improve reliability of supply, it will simply cater for the ever-increasing population.

Similarly with selective logging. The argument in favour of carbon sequestration is fine. But if the author is just going to accept that human activity in this country, and thus overall greenhouse gas emissions, are going to increase with no end in sight, then what’s the point?

Alright, so WHEN we start addressing the issues of water supply and logging (or of resource-stress and supply in general) in a holistic manner, including total demand stabilisation, then and only then would I be able to condone these activities to some extent.

Everyone misses this point. And yet this is biggest and most important point of all. For goodness sake, let’s not do things that we think are increasing resource supply security or improving our environmental credentials if they are going lead to exactly the opposite. And if they work towards facilitating population growth, that it is exactly what they will doing.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 28 October 2006 12:01:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark is good at expressing the industry view. The sad thing is that he probably believes what he writes. Native forests are complex ecological systems which have many values - but the industry apologists see only the timber (and most of the time they only see the value of wood chips).
The recent deal in the Strzeleckis, between Hancocks, the Victorian State Government and the community shows what can be done to protect the headwaters of catchments and the biodiversity values of unique forested areas. It was a win/win for everyone even though I have no doubt that Mark, as well as some in the community are not satisfied with the result
Posted by freeranger, Saturday, 28 October 2006 3:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take my hat off to those foresters with acumen and commendable foresight over the past century or so. They have been a small minority in their industry, and almost invariably fought losing battles against governments' direction and against that of their peers.
Unfortunately, not enough has changed, as demonstrated by this piece of antediluvian NGO-bashing dressed up as science.
"The scientifically acknowledged requirement to regularly burn the landscape to mimic natural processes must be undertaken by land management agencies--." Codswallop! The only scientific consensus resides in acknowledgment that regular burning produces a much more fire-prone understory than would be part of natural processes.
Fungal decomposition of forest-floor litter minimises, long-term, the fire hazard compared with regular prescribed burning. Its beneficial aspect has been demonstrated in the Olympic Mountains of north-west USA; and it is evident in the Australian scene to impartial observers.
The article is a curate's egg of good and bad, with minimum relevance to scientific underpinning for this serious topic.
The saddest part of all in its context is the total absence of the matter of growth. Not growth of forests, but growth of consumers in the water market.
Poynter might envisage the possibility of a few per cent improvement in forestry practices, but fails completely to show us how this will continue to provide adequately for our grandchildren's needs. It has the permanence of the British Prime Minister Neville Cahmberlain's pact with Hitler in 1939: "Peace in our time." God help our grandkids as Australia's population continues to grow at a million every four years - and faster if Industy has its way. Our present water deficiency, from "drought" (or is it the norm?), or overpopulation, is nothing to what they will face.
Posted by colinsett, Sunday, 29 October 2006 7:20:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the 5 years since all old growth logging in south west WA forests was stopped by the newly elected Gallop government:
* not one management plan for any of the 35 newly created national parks has been prepared
* human disturbance of the forests has increased due to the greatly reduced presence of forestry staff in the forests, the worst example being the deliberate release of feral pigs throughout much of our forests by illegal pig hunters
* there has been a crash in the population of a previously endangered marsupial, the woylie, whose population had significantly increased in the the 80s and 90s
* the reduction in forestry employees and their heavy machinery working in the forests had reduced the government's ability to fight forest fires, with temporary crews more recently employed over the summer months to conduct control burns and manage wildfires.

Mark's article accurately highlights the problems that well intentioned but ignorant, anti-logging urban greenies and Labor state governments around Australia have caused. In future decades, we'll have to clearfell and log some of our forested national parks in WA in order to repair the damage that is now being done to them by a policy of benign neglect.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 30 October 2006 10:24:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have written a discussion paper that looks at a sustainable way forward for our forests.
I am opposed to logging of native forests and in favour of nuturing our forests ("The sounds of childrens laughter not chainsaws")
I believe in outcomes that benefit regional timber communities (I have lived and farmed in them most of my life), and address the real environmental, social and economic challenges facing our environment and our society.
Environmental - nationally, our forests are in a precarious state of health with no strategy to tackle introduced plants and animals - my paper does this.
Social - we have many challenges - cost of housing, provision of water etc - my paper addresses these things
Economic - the present logging industry generates its profits by depleting the value of a publicly owned asset - our forests. This is a blatant example of economic irrationalism.

I am interested to know what is the methodology used by the forestry industry in claiming they use "Sustainable forest management" when our society has not existed in this country for the life cycle of a Eucalyptus tree. Sounds a tad arrogant to me.

Anyone interseted in my paper can get a copy by email - haywoodfarm@yahoo.com
Posted by a differents, Monday, 30 October 2006 12:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Bernie Masters - 'benign neglect' is an interesting way to put it. Old growth forests left alone to do their own thing need minimal interference (sorry 'management'). But I agree that detrimental human intervention in whatever form is a matter for governments and for effective land management.
This doesn't mean that clear felling is the only to manage our native forests.
Posted by freeranger, Monday, 30 October 2006 3:32:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's important to make two more points, especially in light of the last post about clearfelling. WA has two main forest types: jarrah and karri. Our jarrah forests were selectively logged, never clearfelled (except in areas badly degraded by previous selective cutting where regeneration was poor even after many years). In contrast, karri was only clearfelled. The reason for these two different logging treatments was because of the ecology of the two forest ecosystems: jarrah trees are largely unaffected by fire, regenerating from lignotubers and epicormic cells scattered throughout the trees, so new trees grow only when old trees die. On the other hand, karri is highly susceptible to fire and wildfire can kill young as well as old trees, leaving dead stags around which new forest grows. So, in WA, logging has for decades mimicked natural processes, with the result that logging is one of the least impacting of human actions.
Conversely, the limited amount of logging that I have seen in eastern Australia suggests that clearfelling is the norm, regardless of its ecological applicability or not. I was appalled when I saw woodchip operations around Bombala in south east NSW some years ago: the entire forest was cleared mainly for woodchips, with just a small proportion of logs sent off for high-value sawmilling.
The second point that's of crucial importance is the 40,000+ years of management that Aboriginal people have imposed on all of Australia's ecosystems. That's now been lost from our forests for over 200 years, resulting in an urgent need for modern "management".
As I said in my first post, WA's forests are now quickly degrading, in part because of the major reduction in logging activities over recent years.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 30 October 2006 4:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately clear felling is the norm here in Victoria and sawlogs are frequently downgraded to feed pulp mills. There has been little in the way of good forestry practice for the last 15 years or so. Until the deal to buy back part of the Strzleckis, which was earmarked for wood chipping, there was no hope of meeting any of the regional biodiversity targets espoused by the State and Federal Governments. The latest major catchphrase in Natural Resource Management is 'Net Gain' and it's a pathetic joke in the light of clearfelling practices in our native forests.
Posted by freeranger, Monday, 30 October 2006 4:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Karri in Western Australia, the Mountain Ash and Alpine Ash forests of Victoria are clear-felled (in coupes not exceeding 40ha) that likewise mimic natural processes. Conversely (and like Jarrah), the drier forests of Victoria such as the Box/Ironbark and River Red Gum forests have long been harvested selectively.

Fire is not the only reason for these regimes; its also a matter of shade tolerance. Species like Karri and Mountain Ash are very intolerant of shade, that is, under the low light levels of selective harvesting, seedlings of these species simply will not persist. This is the reason that unburnt forest of this type will gradually give over to the fire-intolerant temperate rainforest until fire returns.

The Box/Ironbark forest species are less intolerant of shade, that is, seedlings won't persist under a full canopy but will under scattered cover like that resulting from selective harvesting. The natural process here is regeneration after weather events (eg windstorms) or dying trees (from age, fire, insects, etc). Detailed observation like that made by foresters like Max Jacobs (in "The Growth Habits of Eucalypts") led to the analogue forestry practiced today in these and other forest types of Australia.
Posted by Deej, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:54:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still the point is not just about natural processes, its also about resources for humans. We need to do all that we can to reduce our consumption of limited natural resources *AND* we need to increase our use of renewable natual resources in place of finite ones. So its about time that EVERYONE recognise that wood (for building, furniture, pole products, paper products, various forms of energy, etc) walks all over most of the alternatives. When you couple that with the ecosystem services provided by forests (habitat, clean water, carbon sequestration, oxygen, etc) then you're really limiting the options.

Some may say of the forest industry that it "can't see the forest for the trees". But when it comes to many environmental NGOs in Australia is seems that they "can't see the planet for the forests".
Posted by Deej, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 9:56:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If and when Mark Poynter stopping writing comments based on flawed logic and information for The Forum.

He can always become a Spin Doctor for The logging industry.

Of course, if he not already a Spin Doctor for The Logging Industry?

Opps sorry he is, as a forestry consultant, for the Institute of Foresters of Australia.
Posted by Kwv, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 3:33:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Also The Australian Environment Foundation, should be asking themselves why do they allow a spin Doctor for the logging Industry to be a Member of The Australian Environment Foundation?
Posted by Kwv, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 3:38:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder why that would be Kwv?
Posted by freeranger, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 4:38:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Double standards are one thing - I note that Kwv criticises Mark for being a logging industry spin doctor - but he doesn't tell us anything about himself. He could be a paid anti-development environmentalist for all I know, doing exactly the same thing - spinning!

More seriously, the worst decisions that many people make in their lives is when they have such closed minds that they won't even bother reading or listening to contrary points of view. Kwv, I'm really keen to read your views on why Mark's article on Logging to Save the Planet is wrong or why you otherwise disagree with it. It's easy and cheap to snipe away saying he's an apologist for the logging industry, but that only shows your closed mind and, in the absence of any coherent argument from you, it suggests that you're the ignorant person here, devoid of logical, arguable reasons against logging.

Come on, tell us what you think is wrong with Mark's article.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 5:21:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come on Bernie tell the truth, because in reading your own comments, your would see your comments is more then enough proof you are the one with double standards and are the ignorant person here, devoid of logical, coherent argument and reasons for logging.

As you ask me what I do, but you don't me what you do and that in your comments, you don't even tell us why you are for logging, if in fact you are for logging, because once again you don't tell us.

So may I suggest next time you start by reading your own comments, do some research on logging and what ignorant, devoid of logical, coherent argument means and you might open your mind up regarding the truth especially about logging.
Posted by Kwv, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 4:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Kwv,
In the last line of your last post, what "truth" are you referring to? Please explain.
I suspect you won't be telling us as you're trying to play a not very subtle psychological trick on me by attempting to get me to doubt my own beliefs. Nice try, but you won't win too many arguments that way, except maybe against the dim witted.
For the record, if you look at some of my past posts, you'll see that I'm a professionally qualified zoologist and geologist, a former state MP in WA and I was the shadow minister for the environment for 3 years to 2004. My stand is on the side of the environment, which includes the 6 billion people who shouldn't be ignored when trying to work out the future of our planet.
Have a happy day.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 5:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie,
Maybe you say you are "a professionally qualified zoologist and geologist, a former state MP in WA and you were the shadow minister for the environment for 3 years to 2004".

But as your own comments prove, it seems you don't have the experience and knowledge to know you need to read people comments first and to get evidence before replying, as your claim that I am paid anti-development environmentalist is false.

So have a good day yourself as I have other people that I would like to reply to and hopefully next time you reply, you work out that in claiming someone is something you need facts, not false claims.

PS Going off at me and making false claims about what you think I do for a living, I find it is hard to believe that your stand is on the side of the environment.
Posted by Kwv, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 5:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv
I don't think youv'e enhanced the argument by attacking Bernie Masters!
Posted by freeranger, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 7:10:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kvw

You ask Bernie to open up his mind regarding the truth especially about logging. Please, enlighten us with the truth. I ask you don't waste our time and simply regurgitate the propaganda we know so well from the WWF, ACF or other NGO websites. Reveal solid evidence you can back with from peer reviewed research. Not a big ask to back up your claims is it?

Also, you accuse Mark Poynter of writing comments based on flawed logic. Could you please elaborate and give examples? You also accuse him of being a "spin doctor for the logging industry" by his association with the Institute of Foresters (IFA). For your information, the IFA is the scientific organisation representing the profession of foresters. It has no links to the forest industry. The industry focuses its main arguments on maintaining business and employment. Foresters main interest is ensuring the forests are managed on a scientific basis. If you want to dispute this claim, please avoid a personal vitriolic attack on me and simply explain to me and other readers the reasons why.

If you can't back up your claims with a sound argument, please don't waste our time participating in this debate.
Posted by tragedy, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 8:14:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tragedy
You want me to enlighten you with the truth, but you considered information from WWF, ACF and other NGO websites as propaganga?

Okay I ask you don't waste my time and simply regurgitate the propaganda we know so well from the Looging Industry and groups connected with the logging . Reveal solid evidence you can back with from peer reviewed research. Not a big ask to back up your claims is it?

Or reading your own comments will it be the case, the "arguments"I called it a debate, will be just like from Mark and Bernie well be flawed and one sided?

And talking about Mark, if care to read Mark comments and who is connected with, you would soon realised reality as why I considered his comments to flaw.

So if you can't back up your claims with a sound argument, please don't waste both of our time participating in this debate.

PS You don't speak for everyone, so why didn't the last bit say "please don't waste SOME OF OUR time participating in this debate"?

Freeranger (and Tragedy), why do you think expressing an opinion is attacking someone? and on this basic maybe I should say you are attacking me with your opinions, but I won't as I am not like you, as I accept expressing an opinion is not attacking someone. And Freeranger do you think Bernie has enhanced the "argument" by writing false claims that I am paid anti-development environmentalist, without checking facts?
Posted by Kwv, Thursday, 16 November 2006 11:23:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv
There is no doubt that Mark is a 'spin doctor' for the logging industry - his position is well known. But as for your comment about Bernie Masters, I didn't see any allegation from him about you. His post read: 'I note that Kwv criticises Mark for being a logging industry spin doctor - but he doesn't tell us anything about himself. He could be a paid anti-development environmentalist for all I know, doing exactly the same thing - spinning!'

What's wrong with that?
Posted by freeranger, Friday, 17 November 2006 6:29:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Freeranger isn't good you done some research and you finally changed your mind about Mark after I pointed out the truth to you about him?

And about Bernie Masters, if you failed to see any allegation from him about you.

Then why did you repeat the allegation from him that I could be a paid anti-development environmentalist?

So freeranger what's wrong with checking other people comments for the truth before replying?

PS Bernie is a Ex-Member of Parliament and as I see he cannot speak for himself, I guess you are his spin Doctor?
Posted by Kwv, Friday, 17 November 2006 4:01:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To people other than Kwv: thanks for your attempts to make this an interesting, rational and fact-based discussion about logging, but now seems to be a good time to quit since we're never going to get any useful or sensible comments out of Kwv.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Friday, 17 November 2006 4:11:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To people apart from Bernie, Freeranger and Tragedy (where ever you are?), thanks for your attempts to make this an interesting, rational and fact-based discussion about logging.

But Bernie, Freeranger and Tragedy now seems to be a good time to quit since we're never going to get any useful or sensible comments out of you 3.

As your own comments is proof that you are not interested in interesting, rational and fact-based discussion about logging especially when you cannot or will not accept reality.
Posted by Kwv, Saturday, 18 November 2006 1:00:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have enjoyed reading your article Mark and agree with much of what you say but please check your facts about what is happening in Perth water supply catchments. The Wungong catchment is only 3.8% of the area of Perth catchments. So you are incorrect to say, "Western Australia has been quick to take advantage.."
This thinning is only a tiny TRIAL, just a PR effort so the WA Govt water orgs can trumpet that they are doing something and most of what they say has to have spin "fine tooth combed" out before truth emerges.
The reality of what is happening in Perth water supply catchments can be seen in my graphic at http://au.geocities.com/perth_water/ scroll down to, "Graphic of Catchment Efficiency 1980-2005 showing disastrous falloff 1996-2005 after ceasing catchment management." Click on thumbnail for a larger graphic.
It is perfectly clear from my graphic that the WA Govt is de facto decommissioning Perth catchments. If catchments had been managed post 1996 as they were before that date so as to keep yields steady, Perth would have enjoyed about 90 GL extra water per year on average. Equal to production from two Kwinana sized seawater desalination plants, which require an investment of ~$500 million each now. That puts on scale the cost of catchment neglect.
Posted by Warwick Hughes, Friday, 1 December 2006 6:29:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy