Can't believe the hype of the people who will profit by opening up the timber coups in the water catchment.

Wasn't there a big hullabaloo at the latest industry conference when the keynote speaker said that forestry had never undertaken worthwhile scientific studies of the impact of the industry practices. Didn't the keynote speaker say that the studies were too narrow in area of geographic study and the studies had never been conducted over a long enough time. Didn't the expert also warn that the bug that has turned all of the British Columbia dense forests to firewood is moving into Alberta and could presumably appear here as well. The bug would rip through the Gunn's plantations because it would have no predators.

Now any one who paid attention in Grade 3 knows that we need trees to produce rain and common sense says leave the water catchments alone.

In those Victorian shires that still have a forest industry there are many more people earning an income from the tourism industry and tourists can see the devastation and ugliness of newly cleared coups. Tourists who want a pristine nature experience will decide to holiday in Queensland or New Zealand if the forest industry makes the landscape too ugly.

Regular thinning also improves understorey biodiversity and this can actually perform the same water quality function as the removed trees. The thinning also improves the nutritional value of retained vegetation and increases the stocking density of forest dependent species.

The vigorous competition for soil moisture in the unthinned regrowth means that the soil is pumped dry sooner between each rainfall event. And this means that the moisture content of the leaves spend more of the year at levels below 65% and 1.8% nitrogen which is the point below which polyphenyls are released which render the leaves indigestible to Koalas and many other leaf eating species.

The removal of some of the trees leaves the remaining stocks of soil moisture to be shared by less stems and this boosts runoff when a new rainfall event falls on a fuller soil profile. This fuller soil profile keeps the soil microorganisms producing nitrogen for a longer part of the year which also boosts both the growth rate and nutritional value of the leaves, sap and buds of remaining trees.

And this, of course, enhances the survival rate of young forest dwelling species and improves the reproductive capacity of adults.

And as thinned forest acts as a retardant of wildfires, due to their inmproved moisture budgets, the species within these parts of the forest are less prone to bushfire mortality and less likely to die crossing a road in search of better food supplies.

These benefits of thinning are particularly important if those forests and their dependent species are to adjust to warmer, drier conditions due to climate change. To ignore these considerations is gross negligence causing entirely foreseeable harm.

If the wildlife could sue someone for their predicament it would be the "lock it up and leave it" brigade.

Mark’s article gives us two good arguments for limited forestry harvesting in our water catchments, increased water yields and severe bushfire prevention but IMHO both cases demand a wider input to operations supervision than we get now with regular harvesting.

As our catchments nationally cover extensive areas of various bushland types it would be wise to consider something scientific and practical beyond the RFA process.

But this is such a sensitive issue that we need some fresh accreditation procedures for all forestry contractors to provide the public at large some certainty our environment will be improved long term in addition to our water quality.

The first step should be the formation of an independent group of industry experts including water, fire and forestry for starters to advise state agency managers on the way forward.

Mark; we also need bodies such as the ACF on side

Taz, Mr Poynter doesn't need the ACF/Australian Conservation Foundation, he's a member of the Australian Environment Foundation (ready-made by the Institute of Public Affairs, sharing an office and a phone number with the Landholders Association) to push any issue The Institute of Foresters of Australia (his day job) need to maximise returns to shareholders.

Shouldn't this article go with the paid IPA ads?

On the articles claims that thinning increases runoff, there is evidence supporting that, no doubt.
In the short term.
So for a few years after thinning, more runoff, great.
Longer term, more forest disturbance spreads disease, weeds and pests; thinner forests in some situations promote grasses and more burning, where thicker moister forests resist burning; more vegetation overall reduces erosion, improves water quality, lowers peak runoff, improves infiltration, and cycles moisture to hopefully make more rain further inland. Oh, and retaining veg helps all that bleeding-heart biodiversity & climate change stuff too.

So for possible short term increase in runoff, the Forestry Industries media advisor thinks we should cut more timber. About as surprising as a merchant banker calling for more steeper water pricing. Who do you gurriers think you're kidding?

Liam: It’s my own idea that we need to work over both catchments and reserves for quality timber. I spent long enough watching Melbourne’s outskirts grow and I saw lots of nasty bushfires round about. I also know there is no reduction in demand for resources anywhere.

Till growth can be reversed we are stuck with some difficult choices like using our own wood or theirs from some even less fortunate place. After all, wood is a renewable resource when managed properly. All I’m asking for is here a truly independent umpire in seeking what’s possible and sustainable up in our remaining forests.

The 2003 bushfires taught me just how much we can loose in a day or two. Some states are more advanced than others in accepting that we must either periodically clear or burn a bit of mature forest to keep it viable. Thinning with wildfire is haphazard to say the least. With climate change driving events right under our nose now we have to get smarter in maintaining what’s left of the bush. Repeated fires like 2003 won’t do anyone any good; neither will this years extensive back burns in NSW around the Grose Valley during the peak fire threat do.

As protected forests completely dry out somebody takes a hell of a risk.

Does it hurt when you try to think, Liam? Is there some sort of little demon in your head that prods you with an electrode whenever you mind might stray beyond political diatribe? Do you get altitude sickness whenever you stray from generalities to specifics?

Or have you simply forgotten your medication today?

And ditto for poor old Billie.

If what you two have written could be translated into Koala, Possum, Glider and Owl you would be gobsmacked by the lengths these species would go to peck out your eyes, scratch your arms, crap on your heads and sink their claws into your scrawny necks for the harm your ignorance does to their survival prospects.

On behalf of humanity I apologise to all forest dwelling species for all the ills that people like you have forced on them in the name of ecology. The wildlife are the real experts in forest ecology and they regularly vote with their feet and move to well managed, regularly thinned regrowth forests.

Like them, I live and work in a forest too. So tell us, fellas what proportion of your life have you actually spent in forest?

I hear what ya say Mark but really....looks like we'll be left holding the baby in Iraq and bit worried about Pacific situation, price of petrol can shoot up anytime, my job's looking a bit dodgy (manufacturing's heading to northern asia), the kids are accumulating big mobile phone accounts (but at least they're not on drugs..I think), the house urgently needs a coat of paint...the kitchen needs..let's not go there; super is hardly enough to support me and mum (fido and puss are hanging on by a mere thread); my car was designed to use leaded petrol and I have to add this other (expensive) stuff; I did put a spa in afew years ago but my conscience gets to me everytime I even think about filling it up! The drought is taking its toll on us all eh. And ...oh yeh...the Thompson....I've been up there and watched and checked the maps and that river flows down Sale way, so it's a real furphy that the Thompson and Melbourne water are connected. At least you're spot on with those fires...I've seen em on tele and they look real bad and it's still spring! If you come across a tree with a possum family I'm sure you will let it stand and, you're right, the young trees come up again and the hardware stores need timber and we all need toilet paper, not to mention cardboard. So at least I got a ticket to the boxing day test and let's hope we don't get interupted by wet weather.......then again.....maybe it would be good for the catchments!? Oh I don't know what I want now!

Taz, i think you're trying to meld quite different objectives - protecting humans & their capital from fire, and maintaining 'viable' forests (do you mean economicly? not a bad thing). I think its a huge leap to say thinning can serve both causes, looks more of a politically & economicly convenient marriage to me. I'm not against reassessing value of standing forests in light of climate change and fire vulnerability, but something tells me another Howard appointed hack (ala ABC, Reserve Bank, Refugee Review Tribunal, High Court, ...) will wave thru who makes the biggest donations to the Coal-ition.

You are right that there is no let up in demand for resources, no surprise when you have resource pricing that willfully ignores all the services natural capital provides to us. City slickers must pay much more for Australian timber, and imported timber should likewise be slugged for transport-kms & demonstrated replanting in country of origin.

Instead we have political and economic elites dedicated to maintaining the economic fraud of keeping so many 'externalities' (extinctions, climate change, lower rainfall, erosion...) uncosted in timber pricing, so they can keep robbing the ecological commons and cra**ing on the future.

-

Perseus, thanks for again demonstrating the standard fare of RightThink - insult, smear, and irrelevance. You should apply to Mr Murdoch, his Dolt on the Hun isn't toeing the bosses new line ("A-bo---ut-FACE!") on climate change and could be vulnerable.

Again 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% (THREE POINT EIGHT PERCENT) 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.

Liam, a mind like yours might consider a query as to "how much of your life have you spent in a forest", as a right wing conspiracy but few others would. Come on, just for the record, have you ever lived in a forest?

Or are you just a day tripping planeteer, flogging gratuitous salvation for virtual ecosystems?

Perseus, since you're not obscene on this thread (tho as irrelevant as usual), i'll answer. My favourite living in a forest experience was near Northcliffe in south west WA for several months 10+ years ago. The dairy farming family that put up us greeny ratbags found the fashion sense of some curious but were very glad of our 4am roadblocks - meant they could go do the milking and know the local karri was safe from roading and woodchipping. They had their turn when we went strawberry picking, gotta earn a living eh?