A very timely dose of intellect and common sense, Glen. But one point you did not raise is the fact that wildlife, the real experts in forest ecology, actually prefer well managed regrowth forest to EPA mismanaged old growth forest.

The uncontested Guru of eucalypt forest ecology, RG Florence, has made it clear that maximum leaf area, maximum flowering and maximum seed production, is exhibited by vigorous early mature trees that are striving to occupy recently created gaps in the canopy. That is, trees in selectively harvested forests.

This mosaic of gaps also boosts understorey growth and diversity.

And this means that, provided adequate nest sites are retained, the entire leaf, sap, bark, bud and seed based food chains are best served by regrowth forests.

Furthermore, it goes to the very fundamentals of good gardening, as well as good farming, practice to adjust the spacing of plants in response to a changing climate. So as conditions get dryer a good custodian reduces stem numbers so that the remaining plants can have their original allocation of a reduced supply of soil moisture.

It is a matter of record that the various EPAs of this world lack the wit to grasp this most basic of ecological considerations.

And frankly, this fetish amongst the ignorant over old growth can only be regarded as a very sick joke given the vast hectares of it that is routinely subjected to "broadscale clearfiring" due to EPA incompetence.

The damage caused in an average harvesting coupe, in contrast, would be less than that which occurs from a best practice Fire Service response to a single lightning strike.

While Gunns continue to lay 1080 poison to kill all predators in their forestry areas to minimise the damage wild indiginous animals do to tree seedlings when they are foraging and nesting then I will look on all publications from forestry lobbyists as irresponsible. CF the following article about Pinochet's globalisation experiment in Chile and ponder the ethics of Gunn's behaviour.

http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2#more-1551

A very interesting article, right or wrong; especially when read in conjunction with William J. Lines' thoroughly documented book "Patriots" published this year.
Lines is quite thorough with data relating to the dichotomy between agressive forestry and those opposing it. When the trouble is taken to look into the detail, the opposition seem to be way ahead in scientific objectivity - emotion aside.

Glen's assertion that 'as timber harvesting is sustainable and mostly occurs in regrowth stands, carbon uptake across the whole forest exceeds the carbon removed in harvesting' is not substantiated by any evidence.
There is an argument that the harvesting of plantation timber is sustainable (if the species planted are fast growing and there is an intelligent harvesting cycle).
But there is no crebibility in the suggestion that harvesting of old growth forest is sustainable unless timber harvesters are prepared to wait three or four hundred years for seedling trees to mature.
The quality and quantity of water in our catchments is enhanced by maintaining native vegetation. Logging in sensitive parts of the catchments diminishes water quality (not to mention the biodiversity implications)

I agree that the response of our fire services to 'events' is less than ideal and Glen's comment that 'The damage caused in an average harvesting coupe, in contrast, would be less than that which occurs from a best practice Fire Service response to a single lightning strike.' is right. Except that what we usually see is not a 'best practise' response.

I became involved in this campaign in the mid 90's after being told some incredible porkies by the government and the logging industry about logging in the Otways, particularly the in Barwon dam catchment. I was informed that logging only involved 0.3% per annum while the true figure for the catchment was closer to 2%. Although I found both sides loose with the truth the pro-logging camp always won the deception stakes hands down. This article is either more of the same or just revealing plain ignorance.

To settle the debate at the time the then Environment minister Sheryl Garbutt commissioned an independent report by Sinclair Knight Mertz which found, to the government's dismay, that logging in the Barwon Dam catchment was responsible for around 10% yield reduction. (SKM Impacts of Logging on Water Yield and Quality in the Otways. December 2000).

What Mr Kline has also failed to mention is that logging within a catchment usually involves mountain ash which only grows in the upper reaches of the catchment where the rainfall exceeds 1000mm per year. This area is far more extensively logged and has a far greater impact on water yield.

You may notice the lack of the word woodchips in Mr Kline's article. Woodchips drive this industry. The best coupes generally yield around 1 sawlog for every 2 woodchip logs however I have being in coupes within Geelong's water supply where the ratio is a disgraceful 1 to 8.

I personally feel there is a case for selective logging within our native forests but the greed and destruction involved in clearfelling is just plain wrong. Not only for the water values but also for issues of biodiversity, erosion, soil compaction, poisons, and tourism.

However water was a lynch pin issue in the campaign to stop logging in the Otways and for the creation of The Greater Otway National Park. There is no doubt the Thompson Dam catchment is coming under similar pressures and the only logical move possible by a responsible government will be to cease clearfell logging there as soon as it is politically possible.

An apology to Mr Kile's for misspelling his name in the above post. Dashed it out late at night and at over 450 words had some culling to do before uploading and so was squeezed a little for time to proof. Still, not good.

A small addition if I may. I wonder if Mr Kile, as the Executive Director of Forest and Wood products Research and Development Corporation, would support the position that the logging industry now pays for the water yield loss incurred through clearfelling within domestic water catchments at the standard rate of other industry?

The modelling is now of quite high standard and would be up to the task. Of course we would need an investment trust as it is doubtful many of these companies will be around for the 100 odd years that it will take for the coupes they log to return to prelogging water yield levels. However I am confident a workable system would be relatively easy to implement.

I'm sure the public, farmers, and other industry who all are forced to pay for their water usage would look more favourably on the logging industry if they were to make this commitment.

Dr Glen Kile, in his role as the Executive Director of Forest and Wood products Research and Development Corporation, is right to point out that less than 0.2 per cent of Melbourne's water catchments is harvested annually to produce a sustainable supply of timber products.
This small amount is not likely to have any major impacts on Melbourne’s Water supply that is currently struggling to meet demand due to population growth, infrastructure shortfall and the current drought.
Dr Kile’s ability to talk on the sustainability of forestry is undoubted as prior to his appointment to the FWPRDC, he was Chief, CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products.
Foresters invented the term sustainability long before ecology, resource management, biodiversity or environmentalism existed as topics.

Practical measures to sustain and conserve forests were spread around the world during the colonial era, including to Australia. This included forest reserves and regulations and controls on how much could be harvested, so as not to exceed regrowth.

Today our concept of sustainability go far beyond timber yield, but include social, spiritual, landscape and amenity values, water quality and quantity and sustained yield of non timber forest products.

These concepts are incorporated into all forest management and are a priority for all sectors of the industry; they are the major focus of research of groups like the FWPRDC and CRC’s for Forestry.

This careful stewardship of our native forests lead to the common mistake of thinking that all forests are pristine wilderness, when in fact much of it has been subject to industrial scale harvesting for a century, including clearfelling and export of woodchips for almost forty years.

Wow Cinders, Who would have thought that foresters were so sensitive that they had regard for the "careful stewardship of our native forests" or that it was a "common mistake to think that all forests are pristine wilderness, when in fact much of it has been subject to industrial scale harvesting for a century, including clearfelling and export of woodchips for almost forty years".
In the scheme of things 40 years is less than a blink of an eye. How does "stewardship" equate to the exploitation of trees which are 200 -300 years old. True sustainability surely means that your foresters will wait until the regrowth has reached maturity (ie 200 - 300 years) before further clerafelling.

My area of interest was Geelong's water supply however there is some good information including visuals on Melbourne's Thompson catchment here. http://www.tcha.org.au/water.html

As explained it makes a dramatic difference to the amount of water yield lost depending on where you log and coupes in high rainfall areas can result in 4 times the effect of those in low rainfall areas. It is just wrong when people keep using the mantra that such a small per annum logging percentage must have little to no effect of water loss. This is not true and comes from either ignorance or deception.

I acknowledge the Green's campaign during the last state election was also incorrect in the wording used on this issue. The Green's candidate I explained the science with was prepared to alter his message to better reflect the facts. Here's hoping the other side is prepared to do the same.

Dr Kile claims are supported by scientific and engineering reports. Reports that include the independent hydrological study of the Otway Ranges by Sinclair Knight Merz that has been misquoted by critic csteele.

In releasing this report 2001, the Minister for Environment , Ms Sherryl Garbutt, said the study showed that claims that the Geelong region’s water shortages could be solved by stopping logging were not backed up by facts.

“Early claims that there would be significant increases in water yield if logging was stopped were a distortion of the study’s findings,” .

No where in the SKM report is csteele’s claim “that logging in the Barwon Dam catchment was responsible for around 10% yield reduction.”

This is a claim made by OREN, a political lobby group and is based on an incorrect interpretation of SKM results that was never intended by the report’s authors.

This is a favorite trick of the green spin masters, other tricks include quoting unpublished figures or thesis, or using references not readily available to the general public.

For csteele to now make this false claim in this discussion, damages the reputation of SKM and makes unjustified criticism of Dr Kile.

The report, available at the Department of Sustainability http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenfor.nsf/childdocs/-F4B79B67B63D8D744A256AA40012A1A3-C6D91D4FDF0213B84A256AA400129538-3D06476972A58EDACA256F810018D772-ABD9EB675D5EADE84A2569D2000BC2DB?open.
The report applyied models to theoretical scenarios of no logging-no bushfires, logging and no bushfires, and bushfires only. The first two will never happen as Australian forests will always be subject to bushfire.

Whilst the SKM predicted some difference in water yield between theoretical scenarios, it also concluded that the “logging only” results in little change in stream flow over the 100 years of the model.

The bushfire scenario was said to:

“result in changes of stream flow (increases and decreases) that are more than double (at some point in time) that the changes caused by the other scenarios.

Will csteele be “prepared to alter his [her] message to better reflect the facts” now that the science has been explained