Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[maddog]

G'day NNW,

Whatever the motivation, the public seem to be displaying a definite preference for right wing politics at the moment. Joe Bageant observed in 'Deer Hunting with Jesus', there is a class war going on but only one side understands that. The solution to our problems is to drink more beer.

Back to the topic, Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck disputes ABC report on Tasmanian forest de-listing:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-28/t ... ms/5351344

Cheers.

[north-north-west]

The solution to our problems is to drink more beer.

Sure, if we spend enough time pissed out of our tiny cotton-pickin' little brains, we won't care about any of this any more. Problem solved!

Back to the topic, Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck disputes ABC report on Tasmanian forest de-listing:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-28/t ... ms/5351344

Yeah, and I can see the validity of his doubts. After all, he must know better than the people who have actually been studying the matter rather than just relying on hidebound ideology.

[Nuts]

I stowed the 'yeah but's' long enough to find this an interesting read maddog:

Sub 73 - Eric Lockett.pdf

(83.63 KiB) Downloaded 558 times

Might be a generational thing, I found this very funny Clusterpod (then was able to think that was ok) (is this your work? ):

Screen Shot 2014-03-27 at 9.16.22 PM.png (237.58 KiB) Viewed 22294 times

[doogs]

I spent yesterday on the Nile River in North Eastern Tasmania (not the one in Africa). Whilst there I had a very interesting chat to a retired gentleman who had owned a shack on the rivers edge for 40 years or more. During the time that he had owned the shack he mentioned small amounts of erosion in the first couple of decades, but in more recent times river the rate of erosion had increased dramatically. He had check the statistics on the BOM website and there had been no significant change in the amounts of rain events and total rainfalls over the years. The only plausible explanation he could come up with was that the clear felling of forestry plantations upstream had led to an increase in run-off and therefore increased the erosivity of the water during the natural flood events. This has led to other problems associated with the erosion such as an increase in the number of trees falling into the river creating a large log jam.

[north-north-west]

I spent yesterday on the Nile River in North Eastern Tasmania (not the one in Africa). Whilst there I had a very interesting chat to a retired gentleman who had owned a shack on the rivers edge for 40 years or more. During the time that he had owned the shack he mentioned small amounts of erosion in the first couple of decades, but in more recent times river the rate of erosion had increased dramatically. He had check the statistics on the BOM website and there had been no significant change in the amounts of rain events and total rainfalls over the years. The only plausible explanation he could come up with was that the clear felling of forestry plantations upstream had led to an increase in run-off and therefore increased the erosivity of the water during the natural flood events. This has led to other problems associated with the erosion such as an increase in the number of trees falling into the river creating a large log jam.

There are always downstream effects from every action.
I can recall, a very, very long time ago, back when I was a young and innocent public servant clerking away busily for TasPAWS, reading a study - I think it was connected with someone's PhD dissertation - that showed a statistical link (not necessarily causative, of course), between the increase of land-clearing in Tassie's eastern forests and the reduction of rainfall in the same areas. Perfectly logical when you think about it.

[maddog]

G'day Nuts,

Thanks for that. I found myself very much in agreement with Eric Lockett. His critique of the environmental movement is quite accurate:

Regrettably, after many hours listening and talking to environmentalists and reading their writings since then, I have now been forced to the conclusion that, by its nature and origins, environmentalism is a protest movement rather than a conservation movement. It is only by recognising this fact that one can make sense of the behaviour of its adherents. The seeking of advice from those best qualified to offer it is alien to any protest movement, which operates on the principle that ‘we know best’. Environmentalism is more about psychology than ecology, more about feeling good than doing good. The easiest way to feel good about oneself without going to the trouble of actually doing good is to first demonise these of a different view. One can then feel highly self-righteous just for attacking them. This proves (if only to themselves) that the environmentalists are on the side of the angels, regardless of whether that is actually true or not.

Doogs,

It is likely the removal of trees increases the flow of water in creeks and rivers. Increasing stream flow is also possible where forests are thinned. Conversely the establishment of large areas of plantation forestry and regrowth vegetation is commonly blamed (by adjoining landholders) for sucking up all the water and causing creeks to run dry. The impact is thought greatest in the first 20 years or so.

NNW,

Any impact that trees have on rainfall is linked to transpiration (and perhaps condensation nuclei). But their influence in the greater scheme of things is minimal (topography, latitude, climate, and proximity to the ocean are far more important factors). Otherwise we could irrigate plantations in the desert for a few years, they would bring rain and become self sustaining. But they don't so we don't.

Cheers.

[Nuts]

Lol, yes, or on the moon given water+ hot air..

What doogs describes is not isolated, such practices and secrecy (the extent of which appears uniquely Tasmanian) just aren't good enough. In common law there would be precedent to expect no downstream effect, but here even farmers seem to be allowed to get away with wasted topsoil (which is quite ludicrous). We should have always expected more from responsible agents, iv'e seen water rangers bullied by 'big' farmers into effectively- not doing their job. This won't change even with a cabinet full of sincerity. These agents need the weight of community support, proper funding and big guns. The protections in place need to be enforced or their guns put away, whatever it takes put an end to the nepotism and half-competence. Not regulation by 'frowning'..

I too can relate to Locketts critique. Iv'e known people working in conservation who would also agree. At the same time iv'e met 'greenies' who are quite happy to garner popular support (or support such) knowing full well some of their constituents are nothing but- gullible. However, that's politics. It seems obvious though that .. for 'Conservation' to proceed it must be more than Faith based (ie. even further marginalised). These issues, even land tenure, should be resolved as much as possible by Foresters and Conservationists, hopefully yes, with a world view and a dose of empathy.

[maddog]

G'day Nuts,

Creek erosion certainly is not just a Tasmanian phenomena (I will refrain from comment regarding Tasmanian secrecy). But unless valuable infrastructure or property boundaries are threatened, I am just not convinced it is (in itself) much of an issue. Over time creeks meander and erosion is part of that process. We loose soil in one area and gain it in another. Big trees fall into creeks and cause log jams, localised erosion creates scour pools, a chain of ponds. Fish and the platypus gain habitat. In the absence of large woody debris and erosion our creeks become little more than lifeless drains emptying the landscape of water.

See for example:

http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/river- ... debris.pdf

And for an excellent resource more generally:

http://lwa.gov.au/products/list/3364

Cheers.

[Nuts]

Coastal rivers from steep country maddog. Soil is deposited in river estuaries (or along the coast). This may eventually be a rich floodplain with a forest in all stages of succession. I doubt this makes it useable (or even visible) in the foreseeable future so meanwhile can only equal a net loss of resources, habitat or amenity.

I'd agree though, from an event within a closed forest, away from boundaries such an occurrence may also not be 'much' of an issue. Surely better planned than haphazard. Not necessarily leading to a more viable or productive habitat, just altered. Even if careful management only really preserves what we have (even a view) and has no other lasting benefit, better applied than not? Also a human construct, a conservation viewpoint does effectively need to include social as well as economic aspects of any action- unfortunately all filtered through political hands.

Not that theory can sometimes just complicate things that are evident through observation and practice. A professional approach very much needs both.. as the best conservation scientists or unhindered foresters would agree.

It's been some time since i've caught up with the reading. So long in fact I had to check wiki for doogs term 'ecosystem services' Need more time.. The way concepts have evolved I find interesting. Personally, all I really have left from studies is a way of looking at things around me (to satisfy a 'casual/amatuer interest') but I'm always learning something from these discussions and links.

[doogs]

NNW,

Any impact that trees have on rainfall is linked to transpiration (and perhaps condensation nuclei). But their influence in the greater scheme of things is minimal (topography, latitude, climate, and proximity to the ocean are far more important factors). Otherwise we could irrigate plantations in the desert for a few years, they would bring rain and become self sustaining. But they don't so we don't.
Cheers.

There is a strong link between the deforestation of the Midlands area of Tasmania and the frequency of drought, and I know it has been studied but I haven't read the papers. But it would go something like this!! Trees release water vapour into the air through evapo-transpiration, this obviously puts water into the local atmosphere. During the summer when storms build up on the Western Tiers and start to move over the wide plains of the Midlands the air is so dry and warm that a lot of this moisture is 'held on to by the air' and the rains peter out after a couple of kms. If trees were still present in abundance I believe that there would be more frequent summer rain across the Midlands

[maddog]

Nuts





Doogs,

About three months ago I visited a property that had been purchased some years previously by a tree plantation company. The property was in the process of being sold after the company went belly-up. The trees (Silky-oaks) had not done well and had been cleared to attract potential purchasers. The surrounding farmers are not interested in buying the block as they knew the original owners had struggled there for generations. Unlike the plantation company, who purchased the land relying on regional rain fall estimates, they believe the property is cursed by its geography (many such blocks have been sold to plantation companies over the years).

You see, the topography of the land is such that if the neighbours get heavy rain this block gets light rain, if the neighbours get light rain this block gets none. It made no difference that the plantation company had covered it with trees, or that the surrounding land has plenty of trees. The block is in a rain shadow. You can have all the transpiration and condensation nuclei you like, but it's topography, latitude, climate and proximity to ocean that determines where rain falls. If we could attract rain with trees we would have lots of plantations and no desert.

Cheers.

[Nuts]

Haha, yes, that's an oxbow lake formation alright! I was trying to recall the term earlier. Never had occasion to use it outside school.. I'd imagine there may be, may have been such formations in the lower Forth.. they probably come and go year by year, the natural flow has been disturbed by hydro in Their quest for the crown of 'ultimate' conservationist.

[Pteropus]

...You can have all the transpiration and condensation nuclei you like, but it's topography, latitude, climate and proximity to ocean that determines where rain falls...

Seems the thread is going off topic here, and will it ever end...but I’ll throw another log on the fire coz I just can't help myself...while topography has an important effect on rainfall, and at small scales such as the property trees do not have that much effect on rainfall, at the regional scale vegetation cover does have a significant influence on rainfall. On these grounds there is a strong case for large-scale revegetaion.

See:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1939.x/pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 6/abstract
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... zkWDKgix6E
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 6/abstract
etc...

Also see http://jpe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/109.full for the history of deforestation in Australia.

I’ll totally sleep better now

https://xkcd.com/386/

wrong on the internet.png (13.77 KiB) Viewed 22107 times

[stepbystep]

G'day Nuts,

Thanks for that. I found myself very much in agreement with Eric Lockett. His critique of the environmental movement is quite accurate:

Regrettably, after many hours listening and talking to environmentalists and reading their writings since then, I have now been forced to the conclusion that, by its nature and origins, environmentalism is a protest movement rather than a conservation movement. It is only by recognising this fact that one can make sense of the behaviour of its adherents. The seeking of advice from those best qualified to offer it is alien to any protest movement, which operates on the principle that ‘we know best’. Environmentalism is more about psychology than ecology, more about feeling good than doing good. The easiest way to feel good about oneself without going to the trouble of actually doing good is to first demonise these of a different view. One can then feel highly self-righteous just for attacking them. This proves (if only to themselves) that the environmentalists are on the side of the angels, regardless of whether that is actually true or not.

What a load of regrettably stereotypical. generalised, popularist rubbish. Look at what was achieved with the TFA. The 'Dark Green' forces of Still Wild, Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Centre accepted the truce despite having to compromise by some 200,000ha. The Wilderness Society and Environment Tasmania negotiated the deal and traveled to Japan to give their backing to the likes of Ta Ann, twice. The Greens also got behind the deal from the sidelines and respected environmentalists also got in behind it, however reluctantly, and at great expense to their personal networks. All in the name of compromise.

Is this an accurate statement maddog?

The Liberal party and now the forestry sector is going to betray that good will. Who's 'feeling good' and who's 'doing good' in this equation?

[Nuts]

I provided the link to Eric Lockett's submission. He doesn't agree with much of the TFA, he sees the RFA as being sufficient.. so stands to reason it's not going to matter what shade of green supporters were or how supportive they were in their 'concession' to the rest of the world.

[stepbystep]

.. so stands to reason it's not going to matter what shade of green supporters were or how supportive they were in their 'concession' to the rest of the world.

Apparently! Let the responsibility of what happens next fall on those that walked away from the table.

[maddog]

On these grounds there is a strong case for large-scale revegetaion.

G'day Pteropus,

Not on the Tasmanian Midlands there isn't:

'The Tasmanian Midlands is fringed by mountains to the west, south-west and the north-east. Prevailing, rain-generating winds originate from these directions, leaving the midlands in a distinct rain shadow…During the last glacial age in Tasmania which ended some 14,000 years ago, the island was drier and colder and the Tasmanian Midlands was desertified.

For the last 10,000 years, the natural ecosystems of the Tasmanian Midlands has been a mosaic of native grasslands, open woodlands, wetlands and shrubby forests…particularly rich in herb and wildflower species.

In general, the ecology of the Midlands survived European settlement…

http://www.natureaustralia.org.au/cs/gr ... 062390.pdf

http://secure.environment.gov.au/epbc/p ... smania.pdf

Some years ago, driving through the area it reminded me a little of the New England region of NSW.

Let the responsibility of what happens next fall on those that walked away from the table.

SBS,

The question of whom is to blame for the current situation is certainly an interesting one. After the recent elections, we are left in no doubt that Lockett's view is reflective of a wide cross section of society:

History reveals the constant moving of the forest management goalposts by environmental activists. In my experience, opposition to the clearfalling of old growth forest has become opposition to the clearfalling of native forest, then opposition to the logging of ‘high conservation value forests’, then opposition to the logging of old growth forests, which is now becoming opposition to the logging of native forests. Opposition to pine plantations became opposition to eucalypt plantations until the existence of those same plantations is now claimed as grounds for opposing the logging of native forests. Opposition to land clearing has become opposition to the re-establishment of trees on cleared farmland. How confident can we be that once the activists have been able to find some environmental benefits from eucalyptus plantations (especially given that they are mostly on previously cleared land) they won’t oppose their harvesting when the time comes?

Similarly, while environmental activists have purported to support downstream processing, which we urgently need, whenever a proposal has looked like becoming a reality, they have found some reason to oppose it. Their vehement opposition to a much needed pulp mill and their current attempts to commercially sabotage Ta Ann’s operations are cases in point. This is what happens when people have built careers on forest conflict. Whether they win or lose a particular battle they can simply shrug their shoulders and move on to another target. They are most unlikely to declare themselves redundant and quietly go away. In contrast, those who depend for their livelihoods on stability in the industry have no such luxury and can be very seriously impacted by the actions of an irresponsible, self-serving few.

Cheers.

[stepbystep]

On these grounds there is a strong case for large-scale revegetaion.

The question of whom is to blame for the current situation is certainly an interesting one. After the recent elections, we are left in no doubt that Lockett's view is reflective of a wide cross section of society:

History reveals the constant moving of the forest management goalposts by environmental activists. In my experience, opposition to the clearfalling of old growth forest has become opposition to the clearfalling of native forest, then opposition to the logging of ‘high conservation value forests’, then opposition to the logging of old growth forests, which is now becoming opposition to the logging of native forests. Opposition to pine plantations became opposition to eucalypt plantations until the existence of those same plantations is now claimed as grounds for opposing the logging of native forests. Opposition to land clearing has become opposition to the re-establishment of trees on cleared farmland. How confident can we be that once the activists have been able to find some environmental benefits from eucalyptus plantations (especially given that they are mostly on previously cleared land) they won’t oppose their harvesting when the time comes?

Similarly, while environmental activists have purported to support downstream processing, which we urgently need, whenever a proposal has looked like becoming a reality, they have found some reason to oppose it. Their vehement opposition to a much needed pulp mill and their current attempts to commercially sabotage Ta Ann’s operations are cases in point. This is what happens when people have built careers on forest conflict. Whether they win or lose a particular battle they can simply shrug their shoulders and move on to another target. They are most unlikely to declare themselves redundant and quietly go away. In contrast, those who depend for their livelihoods on stability in the industry have no such luxury and can be very seriously impacted by the actions of an irresponsible, self-serving few.

Cheers.

Full circle huh maddog? Whether the views of Lockett reflect a wider societal view does NOT make them correct. Does it?

While I take your point, to some extent. Your chosen quote is sweeping over complex issues with ridiculously wide brush strokes. Pine and Euc plantations have all sorts of knock on environmental impacts, some of which have been discussed. The proposed Tamar Valley Pulp Mill, well, I just don't have the time or energy to go into that.

My point however would be this. And we see this mistake time and time again in Tasmania and all over the planet. Aim for world's best practice, not 80% best or 90% best. World's best. No compromise should be given and none sought, but what we see time and again is half *&^%$#@!, poorly planned options that fall flat due to lazy and dare I say corrupt processes. A 50-100 year+ consultative process considering all options without fear or favour(of corporate buddies) and what you will have is a conservation movement, satisfied. We see none of this however and can but sit back and watch the train wreck on issues various...

FWIW, I know absolutely no 'career activists' that are self-serving. They serve the planet, society and the environment passionately and unfortunately the "targets" are impossible to miss. Right now "we" are bunkering down for the fight of our lives on a wide range of issues and the apathy of "wider society" is dismaying.

[doogs]

On these grounds there is a strong case for large-scale revegetaion.

G'day Pteropus,

Not on the Tasmanian Midlands there isn't:
......

As a resident of the area I would beg to differ, the Midlands is degraded land largely through the removal of trees. Large scale removal of trees degrades land. Removal of trees can change the local climate, look at the Sahara as an example of accelerated desertification through the impact of tree removal by man. If Forestry can get their act together and change their current practices then we have a good sustainable industry. Unfortunately we are still in the mass harvesting of our natural resources for maximum profit mindset at the moment, hopefully people can learn to think differently.

[wayno]

eastern side of South island NZ is very dry, devoid of forest, it used to be wet enough to sustain a forest through most of it, but the maoris burnt it all down and the moisture in the ecosystem was lost forever, trees couldnt grow back, just lots and lots of grass.... thats whats happening in teh amazon and the soil changes. dries out seeds cant get established theres no more decaying matter on the forest floor to provide nutrients to help plants grow.... no shelter to protect sapplings....

[maddog]

My point however would be this. And we see this mistake time and time again in Tasmania and all over the planet. Aim for world's best practice, not 80% best or 90% best. World's best. No compromise should be given and none sought, but what we see time and again is half *&^%$#@!, poorly planned options that fall flat due to lazy and dare I say corrupt processes. A 50-100 year+ consultative process considering all options without fear or favour(of corporate buddies) and what you will have is a conservation movement, satisfied. We see none of this however and can but sit back and watch the train wreck on issues various...

G'day SBS,

You are probably correct. There have been some poor planning options in the reserve system, but to solve these issues we need a two way process, an issue touched on by Lockett:

Maps that have been released whenever new reserves were created show a clear pattern of what could be characterised as ‘reserve creep’…A crucial question that needs to be asked is why, given that around half of Tasmania’s native forests is already in formal reserves (a figure between four and five times the worldwide average), do we need to reserve more. If the current reserves were so ill-chosen as not to incorporate all the ‘high conservation value forests’ then they must include large areas of low conservation value forests capable of wood production. The overall proportion currently reserved vastly exceeds all the comprehensiveness targets that have been set for individual forest ecosystem types … meaning that some types must already be grossly over-represented. Which areas of these forests would the environmentalists be happy to release to ensure that logging remains sustainable in return for any additional reservations?

As we speak a Senate enquiry hears of the government's plans to de-list sections of World Heritage forest. When questioned yesterday, the Wilderness Society's Viva Bayley, would not rule out future calls for further increases to the WHA (over and above what has been achieved by the Agreement). But if environmentalists are unwilling to consider removing unnecessary reservations as part of this process, perhaps Lockett is correct after all:

anti-forestry activists… have made it crystal clear that they will not cease their actions, as the Agreement expects. To anyone familiar with history, the claims of ‘peace in our forests’ invoke a hollow echo of Chamberlain’s ‘peace for our time’ following the signing of the Munich agreement just before the outbreak of World War Two. Any belief that peace will eventuate seems to owe much more to wishful thinking than an honest, realistic appraisal of its prospects…Experience shows that the ultimate aim of many activists is not to ensure the reserves are adequate but to pursue a goal of total reservation.

As a resident of the area I would beg to differ, the Midlands is degraded land largely through the removal of trees. Large scale removal of trees degrades land. Removal of trees can change the local climate, look at the Sahara as an example of accelerated desertification through the impact of tree removal by man. If Forestry can get their act together and change their current practices then we have a good sustainable industry. Unfortunately we are still in the mass harvesting of our natural resources for maximum profit mindset at the moment, hopefully people can learn to think differently.

G'day Doogs,

Tens of thousands of years ago an ice age, a rain shadow caused by topography, and aboriginal burning combined to create the Tasmanian Midlands as they were discovered by europeans. The open and grassy landscape was attractive to early settlers, for the grazing of sheep. By the 1830's, 99% of area was held by private interests as freehold. It is not forestry that caused the damage to the delicate ecology of the midlands, or the grazing of sheep. The cause of the damage was primarily the application of superphosphate, and pasture improvement.

What is of value today in the midlands are remnants of the original mosaic of native grasslands and open woodlands. The Commonwealth Government has classified the 'Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania', as a protected ecological community. The community is principally defined by a floristic assemblage of grasses. Key threats include conversion of native grasses to improved pasture and crops, the application of fertiliser, herbicide applied to grasses, heavy grazing and a lack of fire. Forestry does not rate a mention.

Cheers.

[MrWalker]

As we speak a Senate enquiry hears of the government's plans to de-list sections of World Heritage forest. When questioned yesterday, the Wilderness Society's Viva Bayley, would not rule out future calls for further increases to the WHA (over and above what has been achieved by the Agreement). But if environmentalists are unwilling to consider removing unnecessary reservations as part of this process, perhaps Lockett is correct after all:

Perhaps we should allow for about 40% of Tasmania being in reserves/National Parks/WHAs, etc.
Then any time someone wants to go over that limit they could nominate an equal area to be taken out of the reserves.

[Nuts]

Maddog, maybe forestry doesn't rate a mention coz there's not much left worth harvesting

At the risk of being an ernie everywhere I had 8 years on a property near Inverell (New England), our house paddock was nearly 900 acres of (mostly intact) native forest. It was surrounded on three sides by bare nibbled sheep paddocks.... Grasslands may be more prevalent higher up (Armidale- Glenn Innes) in a 'natural state' but I can only think they were not dominant without human intervention. Remnant forest scattered right throughout the New England region.

Same same in the midlands here. Participated in some of the earlier audit work and supervised seed collection and tree propogation/ planting (earlier projects Nathan mentions). We collected local provenance seed from Avoca to Hamilton (so had a look around ). I would expect any higher ground, small scale and regional, would have been forested, given that forest now ends at fences and roadsides.... This is what I was looking at, a much reduced forest area, there may be surveys that show otherwise? I can tell you that (for maintaining moisture, sheltering stock and pasture, providing corridors for the movements of wildlife, perhaps local/occasional sustainable use.. even for 'looking good.. ) they could do a lot more trees down there!

By and by, it's interesting to see perhaps the opposite though related situation on the middlesex 'plains' (setting aside transpiration). Devoid of trees though obviously once widespread forest at least on the higher ground.. obviously not through lack of moisture.. yet - no trees..

[Nuts]

As we speak a Senate enquiry hears of the government's plans to de-list sections of World Heritage forest. When questioned yesterday, the Wilderness Society's Viva Bayley, would not rule out future calls for further increases to the WHA (over and above what has been achieved by the Agreement). But if environmentalists are unwilling to consider removing unnecessary reservations as part of this process, perhaps Lockett is correct after all:

Perhaps we should allow for about 40% of Tasmania being in reserves/National Parks/WHAs, etc.
Then any time someone wants to go over that limit they could nominate an equal area to be taken out of the reserves.

I think it is Vica m/d? Anyhow, I agree it would be good to draw a solid line in the sand.. again.. though they don't seem to have much value.

[maddog]

.G'day Nuts,

In the New England, as the name suggests, park like surrounds greeted the pioneer, not impenetrable thickets of scrub. No doubt aboriginal people played a significant role in the creation of the landscape, one that had evolved with their influence over tens of thousands of years. The Midlands too were attractive to the settlers as they found them, open woodlands and grasslands ideal for the grazing of sheep, itself a landscape created by dry conditions and anthropogenic fire.

It is interesting that many do not value open woodland, grassland and savannah, as they do monotonous scrub. If they see few trees, they wish only for more. No matter how strong the contradicting evidence, they detect despoilment and are quick to decry the industry of man, never accepting rational explanations for the phenomena they see before them.

Cheers.

[Nuts]

The default in a modern context would be forest reverting to it's natural boundaries and character. Unfortunately, additionally with people around, this would also result in further intense, barely contained or uncontrollable bushfires each summer as forest never really reaches maturity and understory provides a continuous cycle of drying fuel. So realistically needs some form of management intervention. Anyhow.. without influence I can only imagine the forested areas of N/E would be far larger.

There would be something wrong if passionate people can't show their concern for the environment (especially on a bushwalking site). Personally, I have more time for that (in all it's forms) than the 'self-improvement' or equipment motivated daily grind. We Are all shaped by our experiences, all at least must know someone who doesn't care. Would have to agree though, that and the subtle differences between theory, observation and practice.. mixed with emotion and passion can stifle conservation efforts. What we found in the midlands were some farmers as passionate and informed as anyone, falling over themselves to improve their lands for a greater good, couldn't care less who suggested it or helped out. Occasionally... Mostly they are suspicious of 'greenies' and conservationists by default. As noted in that conservation fund article (interesting, thanks btw), it was a chore with mixed success to convince them otherwise. And I don't accept in this case that they are mere pawns, useful innocents, led by media and politicians any more or less than those who believe they are. Regardless, most of those who participate soon loose any stigma, the influence of media and politics is fleeting when people actually get together.

I read Locketts submission with empathy. I can't agree with all his points against environmental groups but can relate to how he feels without loosing respect- to me it reads as merely frustration... seems pretty obvious. I'm sure he didn't set out for a career as an anti-environmentalist.

(And I'm not a career jurno. Find it an odd, time-consuming attraction here so must force myself to take leave of this topic )

[geoskid]

(And I'm not a career jurno. Find it an odd, time-consuming attraction here so must force myself to take leave of this topic )

Hey Nuts, I too find it a bit time consuming - I do follow links and think about considered different points of view.
To me, these types of topics keep me coming back and interested.
Maddog - Keep doing what you are doing - I am learning so much. There are a few here that keep the conversation fresh, honest and most importantly challenging . Links are great as well, I first learnt about The Conversation from Tony (thanks Tony) a couple of years ago now.
I too am all about open honesty (more than almost anything I care to admit).So yes , Nuts, there may be more important things to do, but are there more important things think about whilst we do the things we need to do.
Lets just keep talking about what matters to you(any member). I promise I will keep listening.(and learning).

And Nuts- I see (over many threads) you have somehow come to learn about, adopt, espouse the concept of Instrinsic (or is it innate value) - varies depending on who is asserting it.

Edit - Btw, my view , after lots of reading, and lots of thinking (with my eyes closed tightly), the concept of intrinsic value
is nonsense. Therefore any idea of conservation based on intrinsic value is nonsense, and contributes to the apathy shown by the populace towards demanding action by leaders to formulate policy to mitigate the consequences of our collective actions.
Another thread perhaps, but is it possible that this concept is preventing the two extremes of the topic of the OP from finding the middle ground?
So we are now in the realm of accurate anthropocentric views and false anthropocentric views.
Like Pteropus, I like to throw a log on the fire - I want to learn.

[Nuts]

And Nuts- I see (over many threads) you have somehow come to learn about, adopt, espouse the concept of Instrinsic (or is it innate value) - varies depending on who is asserting it.

(I'm not sure what you mean geo? Are you simply using me as a seguay to your opinion, what you want to discuss? (that's fine btw)
Maybe quick assumptions or I haven't explained things well enough (both very likely.. fine too btw not a scientific journal..)

Anyhow, no.. this is not a correct observation. Studied the key concepts of conservation and environmental management many years ago from some notable identities long before I heard of tony or madgod or the convo (though, yes, have learned and re-learned of many historical facts and points of view from here).

I'd pull out the locks and chains but don't espouse or adopt Intrinsic/Innate/Esoteric(?) value of wilderness as part of decision making. Perhaps this is from where the problems arise. A concept of environmental management with no overriding realistic clearly defined place in management, let alone politics.. To most people at the very least it may mean value in being able to look at old forest.. even this is not really 'for the forest'. It would be fine left alone completely, happy that you just know it's there. Yet people 'need' to look at their assets, have an ideal of what wilderness should look like, and politicians need people.

Supporting the use of the concept may seem changeable from my scratchings. To me, maybe I can offer that it may come from not feeling a need to align with anyone's particular opinion Iv'e found my feet It is just a fact that such concepts (however well appreciated) are front and centre in a political discussion in this context whether or not we like or value the concept or fact I wish it wasn't this way, don't have many answers. Clusterpod wanted to know what alternative for environmental decisions than (+filtered) from politicians (+via media).. I don't know, they seem to be the popular focus for answers and blame.

“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment.” ― Ansel Adams )

[maddog]

G'day Nuts and Geoskid,

I would have to agree that these threads are the fun ones and participants benefit from discussion that challenges their ideas. BwA is a good place as it provides one of the few online forums where things (almost) never quite boil over and participants are able to discuss issues free from political party line allegiances. Back to topic, forester Mark Pointer, who will be familiar to those following forestry debates in The Conversation, has written an opinion piece critical of the ABC's 'fact checking' coverage of the WHA delisting issue:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.as ... 184&page=0

Cheers.

[Pteropus]

forester Mark Pointer, who will be familiar to those following forestry debates in The Conversation, has written an opinion piece critical of the ABC's 'fact checking' coverage of the WHA delisting issue:

Not the first time Poynter has been critical of the ABC and nor is it the first time he has put effort into discrediting people who work in forest ecology, especially those who work for ANU’s Fenner School (in this case ecologist Professor Brendan Mackey of Griffith Uni, formally of ANU, but Poynter also seems to target ecologist Prof. David Lindenmayer’s on several occasions). Of course Poynter himself works for the forestry industry and so is hardly objective in his own views, which after a quick online search are prolific and dogmatically pro-forestry.

Anyhow, I’m currently in Tas for a bit (and haven’t done nearly enough bushwalking as I would have hoped!) and so have been paying much more attention to Tas political issues than I normally would, and so noticed this article that was posted yesterday. I am curious to know how the government expects the Tasmanian forestry industry to continue to operate if they “axe a $95 million taxpayer subsidy” and “Not let FT fail” at the same time?? And of course if logging is supposed to expand into new areas that are currently listed as World Heritage Areas, then surely they need even more money to operate? Seems that the new gov is trying to deal with difficult economic reality and at the same time giving the appearance of keeping promises to the forestry sector? I noticed the other day that federal treasurer Joe Hockey wants the states to sell off public assets to fund public infrastructure...now this is total speculation but could selling Forestry Tasmania’s assets be part of the plan?