Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[Nuts]

Haha charming SBS, glad that wasn't addressed to me, off to work Not 'Safe' though is it- that is the point.

[doogs]

My local sawmill closed down at the end of last year with 5 people losing their jobs. I'm sure many would love to blame the Greenies for this unfortunate event but in reality it closed because the miller could no longer source any suitable timber locally for his milling operation. I live close to the forests that run down the Eastern spine of mountains in the state and it would appear that all trees suitable (from my limited knowledge of his sawmill aged between 70-100 years) had been harvested.
I am a supporter of forestry as an industry but only done correctly using methods such as 'selective logging' which give animal habitats and ecosystems a decent chance to recover. Unfortunately there are still plenty of very recent clear felling scars that I see every time I venture into a forestry hot spot.
PS. I hate the phrase 'Old growth' as it suggests that any forest that has previously been logged can't regenerate to be of outstanding conservation value and is therefore unsuitable for listing in a WHA.

[stepbystep]

...Compared to yesterdays foresters, those of today are trained to a higher standard, with a stronger scientific base. The modern forester also benefits from improved mapping, that enables the identification and protection of rare communities and are able to focus their activities with greater precision within those areas dominated by common communities of little conservation value.

G'day maddog,

You are so correct, however somehow with their high training, strong scientific base and improved mapping somehow they miss the odd bit...I guess that's where the 'protection' comes into it

One tiny bit of one valley.

Modern, precise conservation technique.

As for Tony's 4 points...I'm speechless that people can swallow that tripe. Much as I'm speechless that you can advocate the notion that the modern timber industry do anything that resembles what could be called conservation. As we speak 4 coupes are about to be approved in The Tarkine. Old growth Myrtle, BH Sassy and Euc for the grand total of $22/tonne. Most will be chipped.

THIS is how a politician with integrity speaks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtqrfiEV8Gs

I agree with doogs 100%, why is it that people can't just acknowledge that there are better and smarter ways of doing things? I sure as hell don't advocate everything The Greens say.

[Pteropus]

I know its dangerous getting involved in this debate....but we all know Abbott’s speech is about politics and getting votes because it makes him look like he is supporting forestry jobs, and has nothing about conservation. While jobs appear to be a noble cause, Abbott's current form shows he only cares to help out industry with jobs if it suits his purpose. Even the Tasmanian forestry industry wanted Abbott to honour the forestry peace deal and not push into the World Heritage Area, because customers do not want to buy timber obtained unsustainably.

And why would Abbott want to support jobs in an unsustainable industry that doesn't actually employ that many people, but has been wrongly believed to be a key industry in Tas? Consider this: there are 12 federal senators for each Australian state and two for each territory. So Tassie, with a population of ~500,000 has one senator for every 41,000 people. Compare that to NSW and Vic with one senator for every 600,000 and 475,000 respectively. The ACT with a population of just 373,000 has one senator for 186,500. Of course these values don’t consider the voting age, but it is this political power that makes Tasmania a political battle ground and why Tasmanian forestry gets subsidised to the hilt by successive governments. This is also why Cadbury gets $16 mill from a government that is talking strong against corporate subsidies recently, especially for companies with multinational owners. Forestry practices in Tasmania may just be one thing that is holding the state’s economy back, not the Greens, precisely because their outdated practices are not sustainable. And so old growth forest and millions of dollars will continue to be wasted simply for votes....

[Clusterpod]

Its a blatant and unsubtle attempt at the further marginalisation and kindling hatred for conservation groups.

The LNP/Murdoch promise to "destroy The Greens" failed despite spending tens of millions of dollars on purely negative advertising, creating spin and inventing fantasy.

So if they can get people at each others throats with a simple speech, note the use of the word "simple", then great.

Conservationists aren't going anywhere. The Greens aren't going anywhere. The Independents aren't going anywhere.

Laberal ideology offers nothing that hasn't been tried before, and promises a lot that we know doesn't work. Its just cargo-cult faith that failing industry will save the nation.

Business as usual.

[Jaala]

I see a lot of bickering, not a lot of civil debate. Can't see the forest for the trees.

[maddog]

G'day SBS,

Thanks for the photos. Though I am unfamiliar with the area in question, I shall hazard a guess that in the first photo the cleared patch is the result of recent timber harvesting. Perhaps the mature trees left within the patch, to the side of it and along the waterways are being left as buffers to sensitive areas or riparian zones. Less mature vegetation to the left of the patch appears to be a recent plantation crop that will be harvested to provide useful timber products into the future? It all looks very well planned. Should the viewer be shocked?

The second photo appears to be burning after a clearing operation to clear the ground of rubbish and perhaps germinate seed within the soil. How would you describe the fire in the photo with recent bush fires in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales? Modest? Insignificant perhaps?

You may be interested in learning more about becoming a forester yourself. Education can balance ones outlook. If the Prime Minister has his way, the industry has a bright future:

http://www.forestry.org.au/members/beco ... r/students

And as for the Prime Ministers other points, the influence of Murdoch, and the importance of the Senate vote. Your critique, and those of Clusterpod and Pteropus are no doubt quite valid. But the issue being debated, is the role of foresters in conservation. The Prime Minister contends that nations foresters are the 'ultimate conservationists'. Like yourself, I am happy to reject this claim. But our foresters are clearly not environmental vandals, as some would have us believe. For years the custodians of what we now call national parks, it is the condition that those areas were left in, that allows the foresters to lay claim to the title of the 'original conservationists'.

And a good job it is that they do.

Cheers

[stepbystep]

But our foresters are clearly not environmental vandals...

I disagree, but I'm not going to try and convince you. If education is your thing, I suggest as I did at the beginning that you familiarise yourself with the many and various issues surrounding Tasmania forestry before making your judgement. You clearly do not have a grasp of them, or of the extent of the problem. Come back to the debate when you are the full bottle.

Cheers!

[Pteropus]

But our foresters are clearly not environmental vandals, as some would have us believe.

Unfortunately forestry is not like the good ole days of selecting the best and leaving the rest, and has little-to-nothing to do with conservation. Clear felling logging operations could be considered akin to vandalism. Modern forest practices reduce biodiversity and lead to species extinction. For example, take the case of Leadbeater’s possum in Victoria. And in most places harvesting native forest is no longer profitable, with millions of dollars losses in Tas, Victoria, NSW, and probably most other places. As a result, forestry research has been gutted of funding overtime. To chase profits, more trees need to be cut, but if the market is not there, why keep harvesting old growth? Which, mind you, is competing with mature plantation forests that have more desirable timber in most markets places?

[walkon]

Pteropus you are right. When my grand pa showed me photos of how logging was done in yesteryear there were heaps of timber left standing. Now with wood chipping most of the remaining trees come down as well. In Nojee vic some trees that were to be left from a nature viewpoint were burnt and fell over in the clean up. From a modern logging view its a better regrowth timber for them if its a clear fell site, I dont know why. I'm not against logging, though it would be good if everyone would stick to the agreements re tassie and the codes of practice.


Ps nuts I like your eloquence

[stepbystep]

Some clever clogs up in NSW too by the looks of it.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/devas ... 34bd5.html

"...carbon emissions 8 times that of coal..."

[Penguin]

But our foresters are clearly not environmental vandals, as some would have us believe.

Unfortunately forestry is not like the good ole days of selecting the best and leaving the rest, and has little-to-nothing to do with conservation. Clear felling logging operations could be considered akin to vandalism. Modern forest practices reduce biodiversity and lead to species extinction. For example, take the case of Leadbeater’s possum in Victoria. And in most places harvesting native forest is no longer profitable, with millions of dollars losses in Tas, Victoria, NSW, and probably most other places. As a result, forestry research has been gutted of funding overtime. To chase profits, more trees need to be cut, but if the market is not there, why keep harvesting old growth? Which, mind you, is competing with mature plantation forests that have more desirable timber in most markets places?

It has been a couple of years since I worked in the NW. But towards the end I came in contact with quite a number of bush workers who, after having been in the logging industry for many years, had left in disgust. Practices like splitting logs so that they became eligible for the chipper rather than the saw mill, destroying around rivulets so that the timber nearby could be harvested and a few others.

This is a polarising debate. A logical discussion seems hard to find. Not surprising given the threat to livelihood on one side and passion for forests on the other.

As stated above, why are we pillaging old growth forrest for around $20 per ton?

Are all forests worth protecting? Probably not. But it seems that wilderness areas are the ones with scrub under 2m high and state forests are the areas with the trees. After all Tasmania has decommissioned National Parks in the past - so it may be called a "tradition"

[maddog]

G'day SBS,

The Prime Ministers accolades were directed at all of Australia's foresters, not just the Tasmanian ones, so a full bottle of the Tasmanian situation is not a necessary qualification.

G'day Pteropus and Walkon,

You both acknowledge in your reply the foresters served us well in the past and are undoubtedly correct in your observation that ye good ole days have indeed past us by. But we should not worry too much, because todays forestry operations are well planned and strictly regulated. However, given the doubts raised in this thread, it is worth looking at one of these operations. As an example, the Mt Mitchell State Forest Operational Harvest Plan No. 2790 (2006) will suffice.

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/_ ... g-Plan.pdf

In this plan we learn that the proposal entails:

Selective harvesting of regrowth native forest stands, using Single Tree Selection

Does not sound like the clear felling approach some would like to imagine.

We are also informed that the trees largely belong to four mapped forest types, that the area has a long history of harvesting and silvicultural operations, that the compartments were last harvested in the 1980's, that the stands are of medium quality and primarily consist of residual mature and over mature trees, and the expected basal area removal was 35%. It is suggested that in 30 odd years some further thinning may occur, and over a 40-70 year time frame Single Tree Selection will continue to occur, supplying the market with domestic poles and small quota logs.

We do still need domestic poles and small quota logs don't we Pteropus?

Sounds a little like the the photos your grand pa showed you Walkon. We can reminisce:

of how logging was done in yesteryear there were heaps of timber left standing.

The plan commits to abide by the specific conditions of the Threatened Species Licence and Environmental Protection Licence, going on to describe a variety of threatened species and protection zones that exist within the area which require species or site specific prescriptions'. We learn, amongst other things, that:

* To protect frogs a 10m protection zone will apply to all dams.

* 10-40m protection zones will apply to wetlands.

* 100m protection zones will be applied on possible bat roost trees until they are inspected by an ecologist.

* An ecologist shall inspect all caves, rock overhangs, tunnels and disused mines hafts for the subterranean roosts of bats. If bats are discovered a buffer of between 50 and 100 m shall be applied depending on the significance of the roost.

* Flying-fox camps shall be protected by a 50m protection zone until species are confirmed by an ecologist.

* A search for the Red Goshawk (a raptor) shall occur during tree marking and a 400m protection zone will be placed around any nest discovered. NPWS and an ecologist must be notified if any nest be discovered during harvesting operations.

And so the list goes on. Would you expect similar conditions to be applied to the logging of forests in Papua New Guinea or Borneo?

Cheers.

[tastrax]

..and the buffer to a state reserve in Tasmania equals ????

[Nuts]

maddog, for a short time in the late 80's i worked for NSW forestry (in the Bondo plantations near Tumut). No doubt that historically and potentially foresters have as much capacity for forest conservation as anyone. Wasn't 'old growth' but a good chance to see operations first hand. Conservation wasn't happening back then. I can tell you that some practices (such as ripping planting rows vertically, across contours) were geared toward profit (in this case at the cost of erosion). I can say that, even then, buffer zones were more about leaving scenic road corridors. Lots more effort was put into being occasionally 'seen' to do the right thing, to calm what greenies see -the visual impact- than ever went into better (likely more expensive) practices. This was what I found.

A discussion and images from that time eventually made their way into a submission to the state environment minister. At that time operations were carried out without contractors so there really was no separation between profit and the damage done (with a public resource). Like to think it made some difference, probably not. Many more contractors now, perhaps less oversight...

However,

At the end of the day, this really shouldn't be seen as an us V them argument. We can have quaint cottage industry, for a long future we can transfer even more damage to another country, '*&%$#! in someone elses nest', so-to-speak.. Much better, in my mind, would have been a transition of the existing industry to one of sufficient (or possible) scale with sustainable practices in place. This may not work, diverse plantation culture and the slug on profits may not provide such a scale, may always be a cottage industry. Nevertheless better than just propping up existing practices. To me.. this may have happened sooner if there wasn't such a polarised community and greenies would stick to working with industry (or stick to what they do with their working day.. foresters would already know what 'could' be done..). Participate in conservation rather than just be 'green'. They seem to have very few realistic alternatives to the damage they are also involved in.. to blame for..

Wood is a renewable , potentially sustainable resource.. simple!
Viewed in contrast to mining- no wonder the concept of 'just wanting to lock stuff up' has gained traction. Not as a catch phrase- but in reality..
Idealism seems to give tunnel vision to any useful way forward. Without a strong economy and with all levels of industry there may come a time when we eventually have No say in what happens to forested areas. We can't eat or sit on or burn tourists..

[Clusterpod]

Wood is a renewable , potentially sustainable resource.. simple!
Viewed in contrast to mining- no wonder the concept of 'just wanting to lock stuff up' has gained traction. Not as a catch phrase- but in reality..
Idealism seems to give tunnel vision to any useful way forward. Without a strong economy and with all levels of industry there may come a time when we eventually have No say in what happens to forested areas. We can't eat or sit on or burn tourists..

Surely you can see that this is also idealism.

That returning to the old ways may not be a useful way forward.

That all available evidence tells us that the forestry industry, as it has been, does little to create a strong economy but has in fact, for quite a long time, done the opposite.

Is it not idealism to think that the same political ideology that has forced so many other industries and businesses out of Tasmania will now, somehow, not continue down the same path with the same results?

Personally, I think the potential for forestry is awesome. We could have so many products to replace dinky, foreign-made plastic *&%$#!, that will last for ever. But it hasn't been handled well. Theres been corruption and cronyism and lies at every level. We are being deliberately divided for political purposes, when it is the politics itself which is the enemy.

[Nuts]

Yes, I suppose any 'better' way involves a certain amount of idealism. I despair that such important moves are dictated by politics (politicians) or demanding extremists. Ideally the options for industry would be dictated by consumers, that doesn't seem to have worked either. I just don't think there is enough acceptance of 'blame' and admission that the people to sort these things out are within industry and science, not politicians, certainly not pandering to extremists.

[maddog]

G'day Nuts,

I agree with you regarding plantation management, though I would focus on weed infestations and species selection issues. Noxious weeds, such as lantana, require management, not just at establishment or harvest. But weed control costs money. Species selection can be criticised, in particular the avoidable problem of planting environmental weeds such as introduced pines (cheaper because they grow into timber fast).

Given our forests are public property, run by State Owned Corporations, albeit heavily reliant on contracted plant and labour, I fail to understand why environmentalists insist that, if legitimate, forestry must be run at a profit. Subsidy for a service providing public good is justifiable (timber and space for a wide range of public recreations).

On the supervision of contractors, we also agree. Gifford Pinchot's forestry service, and the equivalent in Australia, were set up to prevent the plunder of a valuable public resource from the deprivations of short sighted, profit motivated robber-barons of the day. The need for a strong forestry service has not diminished over time. After all, the private sector is still short sighted and motivated by greed.

It is for these very reasons that, as you say, conservationists must avoid attacking foresters. Stop demanding forestry run at a profit, there really is no need. Appreciate the contribution to conservation that foresters have made. And recognise that our nations foresters are the experts in their field, as the Prime Minister has done.

Cheers.

[Nuts]

Well.. he has done a lot more than that. If retracting forested areas already agreed means the failure of Tasmanian forestry then that is unfortunate, I can't vote for that outcome. There is not enough (agreement).

Anyhow, yes, erosion. maybe it was just the environmental flavour of the time. On one crew was a forestry student, as i recall he had a good grasp of the impact of operations. Iv'e also met local foresters (here) since and can only imagine some despair at their education being used for increasing profit. And they were- 'educated' as I recall (there, at that time in NSW) an extended term at ANU was the only way in(?)

[climberman]

It is for these very reasons that, as you say, conservationists must avoid attacking foresters. Stop demanding forestry run at a profit, there really is no need. Appreciate the contribution to conservation that foresters have made. And recognise that our nations foresters are the experts in their field, as the Prime Minister has done.

Cheers.

It is difficult to fully convey how stridently I disagree with you on many aspects of forestry. If all forestry were only about managed plantation forests this would be reasonable. But it's not. Foresters aren't arguing for increased access to managed plantations, they are arguing for increased access to areas with a quality conservation value.

I am also perturbed that you think we should be comfortable that a commercial enterprise be run at a loss, and backed by government in that loss.

[Nuts]

Minimal profit? There is a place for these industries in taking responsibility for our own resource and impact? Even the transport of such bulk produce has an environmental cost.

[maddog]

Clusterpod and Nuts,

State forests provide a public good. While profits are the concern of accountants, insisting forestry be measured for the value of timber alone is a trap. Expenditure on line items such as weed control, public access, protection of wildlife and threatened communities can be seen as a cost, or an investment in environmental and recreational assets. Viewed this way, "losses" incurred by forestry are quite justifiable.

Plantation forestry is a biological desert created by monoculture planting of same age timber. In contrast, native (regrowth) forestry provides for a range of species and habitat (the timber is not all the same age). Though logging is significant disturbance, rotating operations in a cyclical manner between compartments does not eliminate habitat over a greater area. The disturbance may be comparable with natural events such as fire or storm. The NSW EPA (who play a part in the regulation of forestry operations), realise that forests grow back after logging. Native forest logging is a better option than plantation timber. Native forest logging is sustainable. See for example:

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/forestagreeme ... mework.htm

Also, I have not argued in favour of the current Prime Minister, nor the reclassification of existing national parks. The debate is over the contribution of our nations foresters to conservation.

Cheers.

[doogs]

Plantation forestry is a biological desert created by monoculture planting of same age timber. In contrast, native (regrowth) forestry provides for a range of species and habitat (the timber is not all the same age). Though logging is significant disturbance, rotating operations in a cyclical manner between compartments does not eliminate habitat over a greater area. The disturbance may be comparable with natural events such as fire or storm.

All very true, but we still have storms and fires, we are just increasing the occurence of these clearing events. By logging in patchwork you may conserve biodiversity in an area to some extent but you also give weeds more of a chance to spread into an area. Also you do not get the benefit of the ecosystem services offered by a selectively logging. As a side note can the ecosystem services be quantified into a dollar figure?? and if so I'm sure Tasmanias reserved forests would be worth many many billions of dollars..

[photohiker]

As stated above, why are we pillaging old growth forrest for around $20 per ton?

QFT

There is no worthwhile, cashable profit in clearfelling old forest, trucking, investing in supporting and operation infrastructure, processing and chipping if the end result is $20 a tonne. Add to that the very few people actually employed and the amount of government time spent and support results in a strong case that the industry is actually hidden unemployment.

Crazy, regardless of personal ideology.

[Nuts]

A regrowth forest may well look like a plantation if the plantation is 'sustainable', it really only matters in discussing the existing state of the land. The debate (for me) really has nothing to do with foresters as conservationists, not really even the pm saying so. I agree that not much profit is necessary and that there so many good reasons for even increasing multi-use areas. His intent is all that will matter (and not getting my precious vote of course).

In Tassie, contrast the earlier graph figures for social services, consider the more measured conversation article. In this sense forestry is (or was) a significant employer. Maybe not if done sustainably (unless someone can produce figures for an altered industry profit), which aspect of the local reality to focus on?

[maddog]

Plantation forestry is a biological desert created by monoculture planting of same age timber. In contrast, native (regrowth) forestry provides for a range of species and habitat (the timber is not all the same age). Though logging is significant disturbance, rotating operations in a cyclical manner between compartments does not eliminate habitat over a greater area. The disturbance may be comparable with natural events such as fire or storm.

All very true, but we still have storms and fires, we are just increasing the occurence of these clearing events. By logging in patchwork you may conserve biodiversity in an area to some extent but you also give weeds more of a chance to spread into an area. Also you do not get the benefit of the ecosystem services offered by a selectively logging. As a side note can the ecosystem services be quantified into a dollar figure?? and if so I'm sure Tasmanias reserved forests would be worth many many billions of dollars..

Doogs,

Well managed (and funded) forestry operations will reduce the risk of fire so the two, as causes of disturbance, probably cancel each other out. Though, as agreed, disturbance is often a good thing. Compartment logging, and Single Tree Selection, replicate natural disturbance, offer useful timber products, provide a reservoir from which forests can regrow, and maintain habitat for fauna.

It is true that any form of disturbance potentially facilitates the establishment of weeds. The incursion of weeds is more likely if the area is isolated from a reservoir of native flora. Weeds that do invade need to be eliminated before they become established. Weed control was common practice in NSW before bean-counters demanding profits, aided and abetted by environmentalists, took control.

There is no need to quantify the value of ecosystem services. Like oxygen or water, the value is self evident. Rather than paying accountants and economists to apply arbitrary values and provide a theoretical estimates to justify natural assets, we can just assume that the value is infinite. The money is better spent on managing the forest itself.

Cheers.

[Clusterpod]

It has to be looked at in the larger context of the nation at large.

[Clusterpod]

Oh, look what happens when you "unlock" areas for development.

http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/s ... 34csb.html

Of course, now that Labor and the Coalition have voted down the right for landholders to deny coal and gas exploration and mining on their land, even your own property isn't "locked up" anymore.

Have you seen how much of Tassie is up for CSG exploration?

[Strider]

Are you from Tasmania, maddog?

[photohiker]

Easy. "Man and the environment are meant for each other." *

If you want it, take it. Australia is open for environment crushing business.

If you're female, apparently, you're out of luck...

* Tony abbott, Speech to ForestWorks dinner.

Tasmania has been split over the forest industry for years. The parties came to a tortured agreement in the forest peace deal, and now Tony steps in and opens the wounds once again and pours a bucket of salt on the gash for his trouble. Whilst bemoaning that (a paltry) 4% of the nation is locked up in National Parks. Not Pretty.