Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[maddog]

G'day Pteropus,

I would agree that Poynter defends the forestry industry with great vigour (he has been an impressive contributor on The Conversation). Being a forester certainly does not disqualify him from comment, in fact it makes him something of an authority in his field (it was one of his points that industry foresters were not contacted for comment - the odd selection of 'expert opinion' left the ABC open to accusations of bias in this instance). I note with interest you have not attempted to rebut any his arguments, but countered his views with ad hom.

On the subject of cutting subsidies to forestry, abolishing compensation payments for those forced to exit the industry would represent a significant saving (no need if Tasmania is 'open for business'). Reducing costs associated with the activities of activists (by introducting draconian legislation) would also help return profitability. According to Premier Hodgman, he will legislate to:

Introduce a new indictable offence of invading or impeding access to a workplace, with on the spot fines of up to $10,000 for an individual and up to $100,000 for corporations that incite or encourage this illegal behaviour;

Mandate a minimum 3 months imprisonment for second and subsequent convictions for invading or impeding access to a workplace;

Provide for automatic recording of a criminal conviction if an offence is proven;

Have offenders pay for the damage and/or economic loss their actions cause;

Introduce a new indictable offence of intentional damage caused to premises or equipment, with fines of up to $50,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or both, for an individual, and up to $250,000 for a corporation that incites or encourages this illegal behaviour;

As a matter of public policy, instruct police and emergency services to recover the costs of dealing with illegal protest activity; and

Return to business the right to sue groups who disseminate false and misleading information about their company, and its operations.

http://www.willhodgman.com.au/policy-st ... protestors

I understand Hodgman will find it difficult to post these measures through the upper house. A further measure is the scrapping of 'green tape' (e.g. reduce protections for threatened species, EECs, etc, at both a State and Federal level and lessen requirements for consulting ecologists and foresters to plan and supervise operations, etc).

The selling of forests to the private interests is also a possibility:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment ... 34e9n.html

For such reasons the idea that forestry needs to be profitable to be legitimate should be abandoned by the environmental lobby. An alternative justification, that forestry provides necessary timber products while contributing to the cost of managing a multiple use estate, seems preferable.

Edit: in bold.
Cheers.

[photohiker]

Introduce a new indictable offence of invading or impeding access to a workplace, with on the spot fines of up to $10,000 for an individual and up to $100,000 for corporations that incite or encourage this illegal behaviour;

Mandate a minimum 3 months imprisonment for second and subsequent convictions for invading or impeding access to a workplace;

Provide for automatic recording of a criminal conviction if an offence is proven;

Have offenders pay for the damage and/or economic loss their actions cause;

Introduce a new indictable offence of intentional damage caused to premises or equipment, with fines of up to $50,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or both, for an individual, and up to $250,000 for a corporation that incites or encourages this illegal behaviour;

As a matter of public policy, instruct police and emergency services to recover the costs of dealing with illegal protest activity; and

Return to business the right to sue groups who disseminate false and misleading information about their company, and its operations.

http://www.willhodgman.com.au/policy-st ... protestors

I understand Hodgman will find it difficult to post these measures through the upper house. A further measure is the scrapping of 'green tape' (e.g. reduce protections for threatened species at both a State and Federal level, EEC's, lessen the need for consulting ecologists and foresters to plan and supervise operations, etc).

It seems the trend among some recent Governments is to wildly overplay their hand, delivering a victory to their opposition at the next election. I think this looks to be a classic example. Who'd have thought a democratically elected government in Australia would stoop to these levels? Sounds more like Russia than Tasmania...

There doesn't seem to be any reality in the goal, either. If the bulk of the timber goes to woodchip competing with Asia at $20 a tonne, how can the industry hope to flourish without their hand in the government's purse?

[Nuts]

Anyhow, I’m currently in Tas for a bit (and haven’t done nearly enough bushwalking as I would have hoped!)

Where, doing What- Your in Tas with free time.. and It's not raining

[Pteropus]

For such reasons the idea that forestry needs to be profitable to be legitimate should be abandoned by the environmental lobby. An alternative justification, that forestry provides necessary timber products while contributing to the cost of managing a multiple use estate, seems preferable.

I'm not sure if the "environmental lobby" do have the idea that forestry needs to be "profitable to be legitimate". I think they would rather see no forestry in many native forests, especially ones with high conservation value that they have fought to be listed as world heritage areas, and I am sure they would support timber products from certified sustainable plantations at the same time. I do think that many people would rather not see our taxes prop up industry which increasingly lacks environmental credibility...and of course its not just forestry either. And as to the threats of fines and gaol, that hasn't stopped passionate people in the past. Some people even put their lives on the line for what they believe in. I don't think people will just walk away.

[Pteropus]

Anyhow, I’m currently in Tas for a bit (and haven’t done nearly enough bushwalking as I would have hoped!)

Where, doing What- Your in Tas with free time.. and It's not raining

Just sitting on the interweb on the forum...its great procrastination lol...but free time is not as free as I would imagine...and it only seems to rain on the weekends too!

[maddog]

G'day Photohiker,

I agree regarding Premier Hodgman's plans. Recently in Northern NSW there was a tragic incident at a logging operation in which a forester was killed. A view has been expressed that, due to the presence of activists, the forester was closer to the operations than he would otherwise have been (the investigation is ongoing). Strengthening legislation to require activists to adhere to OH&S regulations where forestry operations are being conducted has been suggested as an appropriate safeguard into the future. A measured response compared to Hodgman's gulag initiative.

Cheers.

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/jc- ... b/2051243/

http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/pro ... p/2071965/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 6755308954

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-11/l ... es/5016350

[Pteropus]

Being a forester certainly does not disqualify him from comment, in fact it makes him something of an authority in his field (it was one of his points that industry foresters were not contacted for comment - the odd selection of 'expert opinion' left the ABC open to accusations of bias in this instance). I note with interest you have not attempted to rebut any his arguments, but countered his views with ad hom.

It’s a little ironic that you are appealing to authority by saying he is an authority in his field, but saying that I have responded with ad hom. Truth is, I know nothing of Poynter, except from his arguments with various authors and other commenters in The Conversation comments after various articles. Some of his arguments are with experienced and well published scientists who actually conduct research in forests. I haven't seen evidence beyond the claim that he is a 'forester' that he is any more expert than anyone else blogging, writing letters to the editor of newspapers, or perhaps arguing on internet forums. But to the contrary, like I said, after a quick search online I found a LOT of apparently highly opinionated articles by Poynter. I even skimmed a couple. He comes across as anyone blogging about his various axes to grind. Just like us in this thread I suppose

[maddog]

Pteropus,

From looking at his various opinion pieces it would appear that you are correct in saying that like us, Poynter has a bit of fun. According to the ABC's The Drum website:

Mark Poynter has 29 years experience as a professional forester in Victoria and Tasmania. This has included working for a government forestry agency, the forest industry, and for the past 13 years as an independent forestry consultant based in Melbourne.

He is the author of the book Saving Australia's Forests and its Implications released in September 2007, and has had articles published in The Age, and on e-journal sites such as Online Opinion.

He acts in a voluntary capacity as a media spokesperson for the Institute of Foresters of Australia (IFA) which has represented the forestry profession since 1935 and currently has 1300 members.

You can buy his book (to go with your Gammage) here:

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Saving-Austr ... 0688034143?

Read about possums here:

http://www.forestry.org.au/kcfinder/upl ... 281%29.pdf and here: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-p ... he-possum/

Learn about the Institute of Foresters here:

http://www.forestry.org.au/about-the-in ... -australia

A little more substance than the average blogger I suggest.

Cheers.

[Pteropus]

meh, he seems to exclusively post opinion pieces in his capacity as media spokesperson for the IFA. It doesn’t make him impartial. In fact, quite the opposite. Of course he has issues with criticism of forestry. That is the crux of most of the posts i skimmed. Foresters defending forestry. I wouldn’t expect anything less...

[Nuts]

Hey, you guys should 'get a tent'?
haha, it's almost a wonderful world, try Bill Manning Pteropus?

[maddog]

G'day Nuts,

I'm sure we would find plenty to talk about Coincidently, before I left to go to work this morning, I was reading an essay in which Bill Manning's views were discussed (in the context of Gunns and Tasmanian corruption). Links between Norm Gallagher of the BLF and Jim Bacon were a feature too.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2007 ... ut-control

On topic, I met up with a academic (research) forester today. While our meeting was for an unrelated purpose, we indulged in a somewhat lengthy discussion of recent events of topical interest. He was appreciative of the long-overdue recognition that foresters had received, though was concerned that our PM's intervention may invite (unnecessary) retaliation against foresters by members of the environmental lobby displeased with current events. Perhaps not a great concern to members of the IFA.

We agreed that the aims of some within environmental movement and foresters are in many ways alike. He suggested that competition within species can be greater than competition between species, causing tension. Though of what we can be sure, the zeitgeist is shifting.

Cheers.

[geoskid]

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.

YOU: (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)
ME: I wouln'nt say simply, but hey, I just observed that you have introduced the concept of Intrinsic value - you are aware that this is a philosophical concept and not a given?
YOU: Maybe quick assumptions or I haven't explained things well enough (both very likely.. fine too btw not a scientific journal..)
ME : Yes, quick assumptions, and I'm not sure that your explanation is the problem - it's either your (or my ) understanding.

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).
ME: Ah, perhaps, but how is your understanding of evolution. I note that until recently you had'nt heard of the term Ecosystem Services ( while that may be a new term to say old things). Can you perhaps recomend some up to date key reading on environmental management. I am looking for something that is squarely ok ( and I mean solid) with evolution, sees Homo Sapiens as just another animal that 'belongs' anywhere it can survive just like any other species of oganism, (does not shy away from referring to 'us' as a pest or invasive species), and that has practical ideas on overcoming the fact that in a democracy every one of us (rightly so?) gets to vote on policy.
If you can , you will save me a small sum on alcohol.(joking - sort of )

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.
ME: But you do, wilderness does not have intrinsic value. Every person that values wilderness values it for something.
Bear in mind, a lot of the early philosophers (apart from being humans) had no F'king idea about how the universe worked, what life is and how itdoes it.
YOU:Perhaps this is from where the problems arise.
ME: Damn right.
YOU: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.
ME: I'm not sure what you are intending to mean here. Yes, people behave like people and that behaviour needs to be considered in policy that people will vote on.
YOU: 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
ME: You have already said elsewhere, and I agree, that presenting facts will not (or rarely) change minds. This is well understood by those that want to understand. Increasingly, I'm hearing that 'the science' needs to be woven into a narrative that means something to people. It must still be based on the facts, but take into account that we are simply an animal shaped by evolution to be primarily concerned with immediate survival.
YOU: 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 )

ME: It is horrifying that we have to understand ourselves to save ourselves.

[Nuts]

That is an interesting essay maddog. As I understand our colonial and recent history, corruption has been rife. Coupled with a bizzare advantage of secrecy forest resources were primed for the pitfalls of a large corporation seeking profit.

Geoskid, surely you are the exception, having capacity for such thoughtfulness through a physical day. I just sat on a seat for 6 hours and my thoughts indeed drifted back to this forum ...and the many uses of Anusol

It's interesting that some 15yrs earlier (and probably proposed long before then) we did have conversations around a quantitative value on habitat.. 'ecosystem services'? To my new-found understanding I struggle with the practical relevance as I did with the concept of implementing practices based on deep ecology. I'm sure understanding ourselves is a step to effecting change in others. Personally i'm ok with live-and-let-live. Far from 'stupid', just as likely that people are engrossed in or divide their passions to other ends. It's acceptable that they, perhaps a large portion of the voting public, may not give wild areas a second thought. I look back at the (positive) change in my short span, some affected by extreme views, most probably just the inevitable direction of science based thoughtful toil.

[maddog]

[Nuts]

I guess it didn't occur to them to leave seed trees so forests 'look good for future generations', some measure of sustainability in their operations focused on amenity. Would have leaving an old tree here and there made it easier to accept early foresters as conservationists? Or acceptable relative to other 'conservationists' of the day?

In the effect not so easily seen it is clear that following such disturbance, forest takes time to return to a viable habitat/ balance. Obviously looks crap when freshly logged but how much time?, what time frame is acceptable? Probably none to many people. Given that we use timber products, should 'amenity' be kept in perspective, doesn't seem rational basis for accounting for our impact 'not in my life time, not that I want to see'?

A deal is a deal but the audits are interesting. Selective logging (for other non- park/WHA native forests...!) may not be perfect but maybe a better balance can be found between harvesting, ecosystem services and looking good ('intrinsic value' for voting purposes ) Not everything needs change, 'multi-use' and allowing use by a wider range of the public has great potential and value for forests (the bush) with some level of 'habitat maintenance' long term (i reckon anyhow.. )

BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS and SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS of CLEARFELL LOGGING in the WELD VALLEY, TASMANIA

weld.pdf

(773.21 KiB) Downloaded 501 times

[maddog]

G'day Nuts,

The study you provide was conducted in late 2003 of a forest that was clear fell at some time in the 1980's. It is unsurprising that old growth forest supported higher levels of biodiversity than a regrowth forest perhaps 20 years old. Given that a clear felling operation may be conducted at a typical site once every 80-120 years, it would be more interesting (and instructive) to see a review of the biodiversity value of a 50-80 year old regrowth native forest (though biodiversity is only one measure of a productive multiple use forest). One can assume that the values are quite high, given that many former state forest have recently been incorporated within national parks. Have any such studies been done in Tasmania?

Cheers.

[gayet]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/liberals-to-detail-plan-to-dismantle-foresty-peace-deal/5374746

They aren't wasting any time!

[Pteropus]

This is a fascinating conversation with Professor David Lindenmayer, leading (Victorian) mountain ash forest expert -> http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/201 ... date=(none)
The relevant parts of the conversation on Leadbeater's possum, and mountain ash ecosystems, forestry and fire are at ~18 mins and 33.15 mins respectively.

[Clusterpod]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/liberals-to-detail-plan-to-dismantle-foresty-peace-deal/5374746

They aren't wasting any time!

16 years in opposition and this is the best they can come up with.

Pretty p@ss poor.

[Nuts]

This was their plan. 'Strong Commitment' box ticked the six year lag for action could be a positive sign
maddog that is right, (20yrs) a very short time-frame from which to draw useful conclusions..

[north-north-west]

So, they hold all that forest 'in reserve' until they get FSC accreditation, and then cut it all down. Do they really think the FSC will fall for that, given that they're publically announcing that those are their intentions?

[Nuts]

it would be more interesting (and instructive) to see a review of the biodiversity value of a 50-80 year old regrowth native forest (though biodiversity is only one measure of a productive multiple use forest). One can assume that the values are quite high, given that many former state forest have recently been incorporated within national parks. Have any such studies been done in Tasmania?

Cheers.

Agreed it would be more instructive to see how viable habitat is. Closely aligned with how it looks but not necessarily so. On a case by case basis if a site doesn't contain rare flora and fauna that relies on complex mutual benefit from other species is 3/4/500 yr old growth necessary? It seems in temperate rainforest this generally is the case, species rich and many needing all the elements of old growth, old trees, old logs laying around.

Iv'e spent some time (as available) searching for longer term studies. Survey work has been prolific from FT Warra site (http://www.forestrytas.com.au/science/w ... l-research) and they seem to have numerous research papers on various aspects of harvesting and production techniques. Nothing 'long-term' from there however..

I didn't realise that the harvest process (here) isn't actually called 'clear-felling' but aggregated retention (ARN). ARN retains the forest in at least 1 ha aggregates inside (as islands) or on the edge of a coupe during logging. An opinion piece here:

http://biodiversityconservationblog.wor ... diversity/

This doesn't really explain the need for a remote coupe.. but probably a more sound building block for preserving biodiversity? .. so long as all the ARN cleared plots don't just end up joined together.. I'd be as lost as any other average concerned citizen as to what the implications of this technique will be for future forest practices or policy... or so far the extent to which this has been implemented in recent years. This is, however, clearly a process acknowledging a higher commitment to conservation rather than profit (whatever the motivation)?

Anyhow, no, as you say biodiversity is only one measure of forest worth. By the same token, while a centre-point for the category and there are some key threatened species mentioned, the inclusion in WHA didn't solely rely on biodiversity either. The dossier for the extension is an interesting read (for anyone that hasn't), file too large to link here.

I did find one of the earliest 'surveys' in the Weld. It's not of much practical addition to current events but I did stop to ponder this photo, presumably regrowth following selective logging and from seed trees rather than aerial seeding ... from the early 20's, probably harvested 8/10yrs earlier:

Screen Shot 2014-04-08 at 9.44.21 PM.png (277.06 KiB) Viewed 18831 times

[Pteropus]

Now the elections are over, the government(s) and industry are faced with the reality -> https://theconversation.com/tasmania-de ... -all-25396
Note from the article:

...An increasingly smaller portion of Australia’s logs are coming from native forests (19% in 2011/12 down from 44% in 2000/2001).
The trends driving these changes are likely to continue into the future. It can reasonably be assumed this transition of wood production, from native forest extraction to tree cultivation, will continue.

How does this affect forest policy in Australia
Given this context, current forest policy discussion in Australia, focused on increasing access to native forest wood, makes little sense. It fails to respond to the main drivers of change in the wood industry. It is out of alignment with the major structural changes occurring in wood production. It looks like an attempt to reinstate a past that is fading, and shows no sign of coming back...

...If the trends in international and Australian wood production continue (and they are reflected in Tasmania), it is likely that the native forest sector will progressively change to a boutique niche sector. The main game in meeting the bulk of our wood needs will be in the growing and processing of plantation wood...

...These were the changes confronted by environmental groups and the forestry industry in settling the Tasmanian Forests Agreement. Now it seems the new Tasmanian Government has given itself some wriggle room, between its election promise to “tear up the forest agreement”, and the need to work with these same challenges.

[Nuts]

Stands to reason that demand is down. How much is a factor of supply being met by plantations and less native forest left to log?
The first, obvious, reaction with an applied ecology focus must surely be that monoculture plantations would most certainly deliver less ecosystem services?

To me most of the 'argument' around these topics are from those looking for somewhere to vent, a hint of disagreement or exposed 'position'. I'm drawn to maddogs point of view (regardless of position) and collection of links simply as I believe there is a good case for maintaining a small, efficient, native (looking) forest zoned for a higher level of management- multiple uses and some 'high end' product return. Additional to parks a WHA.

[north-north-west]

...I believe there is a good case for maintaining a small, efficient, native (looking) forest zoned for a higher level of management- multiple uses and some 'high end' product return. Additional to parks & WHA.

I doubt if there are many reasonable people who would disagree with that. Although we do need to reach a consensus on the precise meaning of 'small'.
Part of the problem, however, is that the reasonable people aren't in charge.

[maddog]

Thanks for looking Nuts,

I am a bit busy at the moment, but intend to spend a little time in the next few weeks to see what I can find.

Pteropus,

On the market for timber products - there is no medium or long term issue. The antics of green activists are unlikely to have the same success in sabotaging markets in the future as they did in the past. As with the global protein trade (e.g. cattle), the increasing wealth of our northern neighbours will ensure the market demand grows rapidly. Australia with approximately 147.4 million hectares of forest (or about 6.57 hectares per person compared to a global average of 0.6 hectares per person), and about 3.75% of the worlds total forest area, is ideally placed to meet growing demand in the future.

NNW,

Forestry Tasmania's entire forestry estate (including reserves) was approximately 1,490,000 hectares (as at 2013), representing approximately 1% of the total forest area in Australia (see above). Across the nation, multiple use native forest comprises less than 7% of the total area of Australian forest (2003), not all of which is suitable for logging. Of this, approximately 1% is logged and regenerated each year. The forestry estate is not only well managed but also, when compared to the preserved estate, already quite small.

Cheers.

http://www.daff.gov.au/forestry/australias-forests

[north-north-west]

Forestry Tasmania's entire forestry estate (including reserves) was approximately 1,490,000 hectares (as at 2013), representing approximately 1% of the total forest area in Australia (see above). Across the nation, multiple use native forest comprises less than 7% of the total area of Australian forest (2003), not all of which is suitable for logging. Of this, approximately 1% is logged and regenerated each year. The forestry estate is not only well managed but also, when compared to the preserved estate, already quite small.

(My emphasis)
Well-managed is what way? Economically? Environmentally?
Whatever anyone says here, you are always backing everything FT and the Tasmanian Forestry industry does - and has done - as being not only defensible, but at an unsurpassable level of excellence.
You don't live down here, you don't see what they do, you are unacquainted with the on-the-ground realities of the political situation here in Tasmania, but you back the industry on the basis of its own PR and self-assessment. You do much the same with the industry in Victoria - and again without displaying any understanding of the actual practical reality of how things are done.

Either you are playing Devil's Advocate for your own amusement, or you're an industry stooge. One way or the other, I've had enough of the concrete wall thing. Keep talking. Maybe you'll persuade some people who don't know how things really work. But I can't be bothered with this any more.

[maddog]

G'day NNW,

Not an industry stooge. But quite happy to discuss the facts (very few of which are derived from Forestry Tasmania btw). If we focus on the the facts, rather than allow passion and speculation to dominate over perspective and the science of forestry, there is little dispute - the forests are in safe hands.

Cheers.

[highercountry]

... there is little dispute - the forests are in safe hands.

... and I believe in fairies.

[Pteropus]

Stands to reason that demand is down. How much is a factor of supply being met by plantations and less native forest left to log?
The first, obvious, reaction with an applied ecology focus must surely be that monoculture plantations would most certainly deliver less ecosystem services?

If demand is down, why should we (tax payers) maintain the industry at the cost of logging forests with high conservation value, and potentially causing belligerent conflict with people who want to protect those forests? And sure, monocultures are generally hostile to biodiversity, particularly pine plantations, but the damage has already been done in many cases, and so isn't it much preferable to utilise plantations where possible rather than pushing into unlogged forests? Furthermore, there is opportunity in some regions where the agricultural output of land has declined and is not profitable to switch production to forestry plantations in green-field sites that have already been previously cleared. I believe this is the case in much of the so-called “green-triangle” of South Australia/Victoria.

On the market for timber products - there is no medium or long term issue. The antics of green activists are unlikely to have the same success in sabotaging markets in the future as they did in the past. As with the global protein trade (e.g. cattle), the increasing wealth of our northern neighbours will ensure the market demand grows rapidly. Australia with approximately 147.4 million hectares of forest (or about 6.57 hectares per person compared to a global average of 0.6 hectares per person), and about 3.75% of the worlds total forest area, is ideally placed to meet growing demand in the future.

Your use of the word “antics” and “sabotaging” is interesting. The word “activities” and perhaps “influencing” may have been more neutral. Don’t you think these people actually have something to say? After all, they are simply the alternative to the status quo. Or do you think they should just be shut out of the conversation? Without people challenging the status quo, civilisation/culture stagnates, and resilience to change that is out of their control is reduced. Who knows, as our northern neighbours increase their wealth, they might become choosy where they obtain their products and how those products were produced. Like the car industry, if forestry doesn’t adapt, then they fail, and can hardly whinge that it was due to antics of activists sabotaging their interests. And furthermore, despite all our forests, to paraphrase our mate Orwell, in a forestry context some forests are more equal than others ...

Anyway, the point is, the industry could perhaps start moving forward (as I think they were in Tassie with the Tasmanian Forest Agreement before the federal and state government kinda gave them an offer they couldn’t refuse) and looking for alternatives to some of their practices rather than bemoaning the activities of “green activists” “sabotaging” their markets.

There is always a better way.

If we focus on the the facts, rather than allow passion and speculation to dominate over perspective and the science of forestry, there is little dispute - the forests are in safe hands.

Yet you prefer to get much of your information from the forestry industry and opinion pieces that agree with your view, and not from scientists who have conducted long-term studies in forest such as Lindenmayer, who says we need do things better if we value other resources such as biodiversity or water. So much for facts triumphing over passion and speculation...and believe what you will, its your choice, but if there was "little dispute" that the forests are in safe hands then there wouldn't be a discussion here...