If you owned hectares of useless eucalyptus forest, is it not your right to destroy it to use the land for other uses? If not, who should pay you to preserve these trees?
Queensland is losing 2% of grassland every year to what is euphemistically referred to as ‘woody weeds’. In many instances this is due to the wide spread of eucalyptus trees. Not only are they robbing our country people of grazing land, many of these trees cover the hills surrounding the reservoirs constructed to store water for city use and are partly responsible for the lack of water now causing severe restrictions. They rob the catchment in two ways. These eucalyptus trees drop litter which acts as a mulch, thus preventing water running down the slope, so instead such rain water is absorbed into the soil. The eucalyptus trees flourish by being able to draw up this subsoil moisture, preventing it draining down the slope. I suggest city people go for a drive into the country and look at the age of the eucalyptus trees along their roads or on the hills surrounding dams and estimate the age of these trees. If the tree has hollow limbs it may be a hundred years old. Draw your own conclusions, but early photographs show that the country has become more heavily timbered since it was originally settled. The main reason that this has occurred was the introduction of the European honey bee as a pollinator and the cessation of Aboriginal burning.
There are much better species of trees that could be planted for carbon storage than eucalyptus and if the community of Australia don't want to see the 'wild' trees of the countryside felled than they should be prepared to compensate the land owners for preserving these trees.

“If you owned hectares of useless eucalyptus forest, is it not your right to destroy it to use the land for other uses?”

Noooo!! Absolutely not Country Girl.

Depending on the nature of the country you might be able to clear some this “useless” country. But only under strict conditions:

It is the sort of country that will be significantly more productive and stay so in the long term if the trees are removed,

It is not on erodible soils,

It is not a rare or overcleared vegetation type,

It does not entail the clearing of any rare or threatened plant species,

It is not critical habitat for and rare or threatened animal species,

Sufficient areas of natural bushland are left for ecological processes to be preserved,

Connectivity between bush areas is maintained,

Buffers along creeks and around areas of high conservation value are left,

Etc.

Encroachment of trees into natural grassland or thickening of woodlands should not be used as an excuse to clear country, except perhaps the actual encroachment areas.

Yes this thickening has been caused by the cessation of Aboriginal burning practices. In some areas we can manually thin timber and/or practice fire management similar to Aboriginal burning. But for the vast majority of country involved, we are just going to have to live with the changes as the vegetation finds its new ecological equilibrium. We need to adjust our utilisation of the land accordingly.

Landowners should be compensated for lost productivity that they thought they could get from their land but now can’t if they bought it before the tree-clearing restrictions were implemented. But no one should be compensated for preserving trees or natural environmental health. That should just be an accepted part of the deal for all rural people who have natural areas on their properties.

Thanks Ludwig, I agree with everything you said.
But who will compensate the country people for land they have bought prior to the restrictions?
Have you protested on their behalf?
Who will be the best judge of land use?
Have you ever looked at the cost of approaching the Natural Resources people to get permission to clear even a fence line?
Have you ever looked at the best tree species?
Have you ever looked at the way eucalyptus trees are degrading national parks?
Have you ever looked at the way proliferation of eucalyptus trees are leading to massive bush fires.
Have you ever looked at the way proliferation of eucalyptus trees on hillsides are robbing water catchments?
A tree should not be seen as a sacred cow that can't be killed.
There are desirable tree species and undesirable tree species.
There are trees in the wrong places.
The are other places that require trees.

Wow…so many questions!! (:>0

Alright, here goes…..

Answer to questions 1& 2: I have always called for much larger compensation packages and continue to let my discontent be known, loudly and often. Premier Beatty also called for adequate compensation right from the start of Queensland’s tree-clearing legislation process, well prior to its implementation in 2001. Eventually the Feds came to the party to some extent. But it was too little too late.

3: The best judgement of appropriate landuse can be gained through a combination of scientific expertise and people on the land with experience in those matters. We need a cooperative approach.

4: The cost of applying for clearing permits or essential infrastructure construction or protection is not large when you consider the cost of building or maintaining this infrastructure. It is also not large when you consider the amount of work needed to properly assess the average application. I reckon costs should be a combination of tax-payer-funded and user-pays contributions. A significant cost needs to be attached to an application in order to make sure applications are significant to the landholders who lodge them.

5: The best tree species? Sorry I’m not sure what you are getting at. Different species are good indicators of the type of soil, in terms of fertility, salinity, erodibility, etc. So certain species, or the woodlands that they dominate, shouldn’t be cleared at all, while others can be quite extensively cleared.

6 & 7: Eucalyptus trees are not degrading any national parks. Insufficient fire management, which is allowing woody thickening and/or much larger grass fuel loads and hence much hotter and more damaging fires, is degrading some parks.

8: Yes, the thickening of trees in some catchments is reducing runoff and groundwater recharge. I think that there should be scope in some instances for massive treatment of this problem, both via manual thinning and improved fire regimes. But it would be hugely expensive to do to any great extent in hilly country. It would have to done without disturbing the soil.

The ignorance displayed here is appalling, trees help conserve water, mulch and roots trap water and release it slowly over time, that is why mountain streams still run for weeks or even months without rain and why they run crystal clear and not muddy.
If you cut down the trees the water rushes down the hills and mountains at a great rate of knots, causing floods, erosion and silting of waterways and dams, also soil degradation as this rushing water leaches nutrients from the soil.
If we understood the importance of trees, then those farmers you are on about would never been given that land in the first place, besides they got it for a song because it was considered useless.
As for trees in National Parks, the reason that a National Park is declared, is to preserve the natural enviroment.
The removal of trees is the major cause of dryland salinity, and reaforestation is the major remedey.
Firestick farming generally speaking never burnt trees only grasses.
Burning off to prevent bushfires is of dubious value as burning promotes growth,( re firestick farming).In Victoria the firefighters were shocked to see land that had only been burnt 3 years previously go up in smoke again.
Also I think you will find that Australia has less than 10% of native trees that it had 200 years ago.
PS I also live in the country and the enlightened farmers around here are replanting the trees their grandfathers chopped down.
I suggest you google "tree cover in Australia".

Meh, cut 'em down, who gives a rats? Other plants will take their place. Blah blah, the cycle of life goes on....