Thank you, MWPOYNTER, for some science to counter the emotional and often untrue rantings of the anti-logging brigade.
As a West Australian, the only comment I can make about forests in south east Australia is that the logging of ANY forest primarily for woodchips is unfortunate, since timber plantations on cleared land can produce the same low value product without all the biodiversity conservation issues. Logging for saw logs really should be the way to go.
In WA, the timber industry has just about lost everything. Jensen Jarrah was once the state's largest exporter of jarrah outdoor furniture, employing 200 people. He had his clearing sale last Saturday and is continuing on with just 18 employees, thanks to the non-availability of one of the planet's most sustainable materials - wood. The old growth forests that were 'protected' against logging by the Geoff Gallop government in 2001 (together with 3 times as much logged forest to act as a buffer around the unlogged cores) are now rapidly degrading, thanks to a withdrawal of management funds. Threats are feral pigs, jarrah dieback fungus, inappropriate fire regimes, illegal timber removal and an absence of modern silvicultural techniques being applied to forest logged 50 or more years ago.
Chris James may be well intentioned in her desire to solve what she sees as excessive logging in SE Australia but she is poorly informed and should talk (and listen) more to foresters and forest scientists.

Chris James:
Before you publicly accuse someone you should get your facts straight. If you go back through my posts you will see that I have refrained from mentioning your doctorate or even calling you by your preferred 'doctor' because, even though you obviously believe it adds to your credibility, it is irrelevant to a discussion about forests. If you have been sleighted it has not been by me.

Bernie Masters:
Thanks for your support. Sawn timber is indeed the target product from Victorian forests but the woodchip component is understandably high when (as the 'greens' do) you include the chips produced from the waste wood and off-cuts generated in sawmills whilst turning round logs into rectangular sawn products.

I agree, the unwillingness of our mostly urban-based 'greens' to countenance local production of hardwood sawn timber is tragically short-sighted given the wider consequences of shifting demand to developing countries and withdrawing funding and management capability from an environment that needs periodic managed disturbance to ensure its survival and renewal.

MWPOYNTER

Who "sheppered" the forest before the logging industry came along?
You are paid mouthpeace for the logging industry and are doing your job.
Most who protest "clear felling" like walking in forests, not the wastelands after the loggers have done their deeds.

Can you tell me the proportion of logs going to chips? as opposed to saw logs?
Forests are the concern of all, not just the people who earn from there destruction, even when having the uni quals you claim.
Healsville is a thriving and famous tourist resort from all accounts and I have friends who live there, despite the endless logging traffic.
The tragic outcome of his retirement. which was forced, resulted in disillusion, he had a monitoring roll as well as fire fighting. He still regrets the loss of his roll in forestry, as he puts it he had untold knowledge of the "hills" and trails he knew so well.

The caring loggers you portray are an elusion, they are there to exploit lax control of authority. Does the industry still pay empoyees
to subvert the greenies protests? Paid for by the industry, supported by organisations with "caring titles".

I'm too old now to bother with the BS fed to me me by spin and pretense, mores the pity, I would be there otherwise!
fluff4

MWPOYNTER states that "timber production .... is permitted within just a 12% portion of the forests in Melbourne's 160,000 ha water catchment area" and I would contend that is too high a portion. No logging should be permitted in water catchments. I am fortunate to have a Shire councillor representing my ward who agrees with my views, rather than the views of MWPOYNTER!

Re-use of re-cycled wood, replacement of some timber products with more quickly regenerating bamboo plantations, and pine plantations are just three alternatives (of many) to the logging of native forests for timber production.

For the information of earlier critics, our values are clearly stated on our website.
It is amazing that some people have an expectation that AEF would support the existing ideological viewpoint of environment groups that mostly, have a stated public policy of ending well regulated native timber harvesting in public forests.
AEF supports forestry under the Codes of Practice because the science and evidence demonstrate this is sustainable. AEF supports the distribution of the book Saving Australia’s Forests and Its Implications because it portrayed a factual account of the campaigns supported by ‘environment groups’ to destroy the timber harvesting industry.
AEF supports the informed discussion on the development of nuclear power generation in Australia – no more, no less – because the science supports such a view. A view that is supported by a growing number of politicians on both sides, Bob Carr included, and significant forces within the union movement. It is incredible that this, the safest form of power generation after hydro and people are afraid to even discuss it. If the arguments are so strong to oppose nuclear power generation in this country on scientific grounds then the discussion would probably be short lived.
AEF supports GM technology because the science supports the technology and its environmental benefits are clear. Also supportive are the Victorian chief scientist, the previous Australian chief scientist, the NSW Government and Opposition, the Victorian Government and Opposition, the Australian Government and Opposition. Most environmental groups are united in their opposition to GM technology – they are not supported by the facts or their governments.
AEF supports the proposal for the Gunns Bell Bay pulp mill. AEF visited the Gunns operations, had a detailed presentation on the proposal at its annual conference in Melbourne last year, which is more than can be said for any other environment group and agreed with the facts and evidence put forward. As did the former federal environment minister and the present federal environment minister.
The foundation is entirely unconcerned that its evidenced based approach is contrary to other ‘environment groups’ ideology.
Max Rheese, Australian Environment Foundation.

People are not stupid, they know the difference between genuine advocacy for the environment and greenwashing.