Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[Hallu]

The 'ultimate conservationists' may be a bit of a stretch, but a reasonable argument can be made to support foresters as the 'original conservationists'.

The forestry profession has a noble linage. Practices of forest stewardship and silviculture, the science of forest management spread from thirteenth century Prussia, through France, Great Britain, and her colonies in India and Malaya, to arrive in twentieth century Australia. In 1916 the New South Wales Forestry Management Act established the Forestry Commission to take over the management of the State's forests from the Department of Lands. Up to that point there had been little in the way of forest conservation; the clearing of forests for settlement had largely gone unchecked. The Act charged foresters with conserving and providing adequate supplies of timber, and ensuring "…the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the environment." Over the next 60 years the Commission's foresters established a system of forest reserves that they protected from clearing and settlement. They licensed sawmills and steadily reduced harvesting volumes to bring the forests towards sustained timber yields…In this way, they built a reputation as the State's forestry experts, and proudly called themselves 'the original conservationists.'

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9_l ... ts&f=false

A similar story can be told of forest conservation in the United States. Gifford Pinchot, a contemporary of John Muir, was the founder of modern forestry practice in the US. Pinchot advocated conservation (as opposed to preservation), and set to work protecting timber resources from deprivation by the influential robber-barons of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifford_Pinchot

The modern conservation movement can thank professional foresters for the survival of what are now national parks. If it were not for the 'original conservationists', much of that estate would not exist.

Cheers.

As I can speak for France, no they're not conservationists in this country. Basically what they did in France is cut and burn everything (and I mean EVERYTHING, there's about 1000 ha left of prestine forest, which is 0.0067 % of French forests...). Even the famous forêt des Landes in the South-West where I live right now, which is one of the biggest forests in Europe (1 000 000 ha), is a planted forest used by the timber industry. One type of tree, no dead wood left for wildlife, no ground plants except one type of fern. Those forests are dead, only boars and deers survive here (hopefully wolves soon). And that example can be applied to almost every forest in France. There's no biodiversity in them. Yes in the world you can find some foresters who advocate conservation, but they're the exception, not the norm. There's no ecological planted forest exploitation on a grand scale anywhere in the world right now. There are foresters who exploit old growth forest with care, such as in Scandinavia, giving the forests time to recover, but no one is planting and exploiting a forest with biodiversity in mind, it's too complicated. Easier to cut down everything and then plant one type of tree afterwards.

[Jaala]

So much hostility. Though not surprising for such a sensitive topic. I don't think people are correct one way or another, I can only speak of my own opinion. And I think perhaps what people should realise is that their opinion is exactly that. Maybe there is no right answer to all of this? The argument will always escalate and continue to turn around... and around... and around. We're all on this forum for a reason. We all appreciate and understand the importance of wilderness. No one wants to see it exploited to the point of no return. Trying to understand why a person has said what they have rather than going on the warpath because their views may differ from yours isn't helping. Nothing is being achieved, at all. Such passion would be better represented in a consolidated effort to bring about changes to aspects of particular situations that are of consensus. Now that would be worthwhile.

It would be powerful, too.

[Clusterpod]

Nothing is being achieved, at all. Such passion would be better represented in a consolidated effort to bring about changes to aspects of particular situations that are of consensus. Now that would be worthwhile.

It would be powerful, too.

Thats all very well to say.

Without passion, there would be no dissent.

Without dissent we have our ruling class, businessmen, lawyers and accountants for the most part, running rough-shod over the public interest and scientific evidence.

They would love climate change to go away. Its inconvenient, threatens profits, their power-base through the control of the means of production.

They would love heritage protections to go away, it stymies further profits through exploitation, ostensibly for the public good, subsidised by the public purse, with the mess left behind for the public's future to clean up. Everywhere, everywhere across our nation there is evidence of this.

Consolidated effort is what you have. Consensus there is. We've had decades of certainty, or at least an almost total absence of doubt, and the people in power have done little. They ignore consensus, or worse, deny it, attack it, use lies and misinformation to discredit it.

The support they receive, against all available evidence, its that that obstructs change. That that stymies development of the public's best interest.

[Nuts]

That's all fine, not what affected the occasionally heated discussion here that I can see? Nobody calling for more 'ripping'... What seems to have happened again is that some forum members passion doesn't allow them to accept that any part of any alternative contention could possibly be correct. With simple 'attitude', without 'credit where its due' sometimes it falls to being just passion-driven opinion clashing with fact. With forestry for profit and a corporate model, it stands to reason/ is more likely economists driving incursions into 'old growth' bush, not foresters. In this case maybe not even economists, with elections looming and even industry not supporting the intent of comments, it's reasonable to expect it's perhaps Only politicians..?

[maddog]

Strider,

Northern NSW.

Hallu,

The situation in Australian native forestry is very different to that you describe in France (our plantations are also biological deserts). Forestry and conservation co-exist within the comparatively small estate that remains forestry reserve. Though each forest requires consideration according to its own particular characteristics, regrowth forest can recover from the relatively minor disturbance caused by logging. According to a CSIRO review, The Conservation Value of Regrowth (1998), land use impact on conservation is (from greatest to least):

cultivation -> clearing -> grazing -> mining -> burning -> logging -> 'unaltered'

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resou ... Plants.pdf

Jaala,

This forum by any fair measure must be regarded as exceptionally tame. What you describe as 'hostility' is nothing more than a friendly exchange of views. Consensus, as an alternative, is boring to all but those most comfortable in a environment of group-thinkers. Consensus does not improve perspective or encourage understanding. Group-thinkers are intellectual weaklings, seeking sanctuary in buzzwords and wisdom through brainstorming.

Cheers.

[Jaala]

Maddog,

I do understand what you're saying but the point I was intending to get across is that, surely we have consensus when dealing specifically with the aspect of preservation? We all love the bush or we wouldn't be on this forum. Perhaps I took a simplistic approach with what I said or maybe I'm too idealistic... Without some measure of consensus, no matter where it lies or by whom it is reached is what creates a situation, for better or worse. Change, for the most part, requires a group effort where people who's views may differ in detail but ultimately have the same goal.

[maddog]

G'day Jaala,

Conservation and preservation are two very different ideas. Gifford Pinchot, the father of the modern forestry movement introduced earlier, was a conservationist. Pinchot believed, amongst other things, in extracting timber in a manner that ensured the conservation of resources for future generations. His contemporary, John Muir, was a preservationist who believed the environment should be preserved in a natural state, free from interference. The two had many disagreements, but often worked together:

Once they travelled together - along with several other people interested in the future - on an overnight government expedition to the Grand Canyon. As the two men walked together along a rocky canyon trail, they spotted a tarantula. Gifford raised his boot to step on the creature. John stopped Gifford by telling him that the tarantula had just as much right to be on the trail as they did. That evening, the two stayed up until midnight telling each other stories about their adventures in the wilderness.

http://www.teachengineering.org/collect ... rticle.pdf

Both made a substantial contribution to wilderness. But conservation is utilitarian, preservation is romanticism:

Because of Muir's age, Pinchot found him to be a father figure. The two environmental leaders went on hikes together and shared their knowledge. The two held each other in high esteem until one disagreement caused them to sever their friendship.

The disagreement was about sheep. Pinchot believed that they should be allowed to graze on public land. It would keep the native grasses from overtaking the landscape, and it would allow shepherds free grazing areas. Muir became incensed when he heard that Pinchot favoured such a policy. He believed sheep were locusts, and that they were destroying the mountains. The two had a shouting match in the lobby of a hotel in 1897, and their friendship was severed. The two men never spoke again, the scope of their respective movements were too different.

http://www.ithaca.edu/history/journal/p ... etchy.html

http://spartans.sstx.org/~ssallee/Histo ... inchot.pdf

The grazing of sheep broke the friendship of the two founders of modern environmentalism because they approached nature in a fundamentally different way. Science, reason and pragmatism dominate conservation. Romanticism, mysticism and fundamentalism guide the preservationists. The ideological difference is apparent in many debates, not just those over forestry. An example appears in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16320

Ideology ensures debate will continue into the future. At times this debate is bitter, preservation is fundamentalism and fundamentalists do not compromise. Those informed by reason know negotiating with fundamentalists is futile. Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the suppository of wisdom, has taken the side of foresters. But that is no reason in itself to reject conservation. The culture wars have arrived. Enjoy them.

Cheers.

[yogibarnes]

I'm with you Maddog.
Although Tony Abbott was addressing the "timber industry", we should be reminded that the timber industry is regulated, among many, by foresters.
Professional foresters are the original, and best positioned, conservationists when it comes to providing the products (timber, water, wildlife etc) needed by the owners of the forest (public and private) BUT, the task is easier if the owners are clear on what they want and what they are prepared to accept in both product and consequence.
Unfortunately, the concept of conservation has been warped in the last forty years. Most modern "conservation" argument in Australia is centred around what used to be known as "preservation", something which I dare say is unattainable in our dynamic ecosystems.
I think Tony Abbott is reminding us that true conservation has been lost somewhere along the way.

[maddog]

"preservation", something which I dare say is unattainable in our dynamic ecosystems.

G'day Yogibarnes,

Good point.

Cheers.

[north-north-west]

I'm going to regret getting into this 'discussion'. Still, could someone please clear this up for me - exactly what do you mean by the term 'conservationist'?

[GPSGuided]

Please also define "ultimate" at the same time. Thanks.

[yogibarnes]

North-north-west asked a good question. I'll give it a go.
In this context, conservation is the active management of a resource to provide the services/products required by forest owners, at a sustainable rate, whilst safeguarding intergenerational equity in the resource.
GPSguided asked for a definition of "ultimate". Sorry, can't do. Perhaps our PM could explain his use of the term.
However, I will say that of all the resources we all use, wood has been used by humans for ... well, since forever. We've still got it in most countries on the planet, thanks largely to foresters since the Magna Carta days, despite the rants of politicians who don't take the time to understand the long term nature of forestry (the planning horizons of politicians and foresters are quite different and consequently have historically clashed).
With good forest management, sadly lacking in many countries, we will always have the products we need while ever the sun shines and rain falls. In fact, whileever geological decomposition and release of mineral elements can keep up with our extraction of same elements within the timber (or whatever product we are "growing"), forestry truly is one of the planet's sustainable systems. Perhaps there is some "ultimate" in there somewhere.
As you said, north-north-west, I'll probably regret getting into this discussion!

[maddog]

G'day north-north-west,

For what reason should you regret discussing different ideas?

A conservationist adopts the philosophical position that natural resources may be both used and conserved. Conservation allows the use of resources, so long as they are managed in such a manner as to remain available into the future. As a philosophical outlook, conservation is anthropogenic in nature, but remains compatible with protecting both flora and fauna.

Pinchot realised that resource use must be sustainable:

As part of his dynamic vision for the National Forests and as a model for the nation, Pinchot introduced sustained-yield forestry—cutting no more in a year than the forests could produce in new growth annually. His goal was to show private landowners that they too could harvest trees without stripping the forest and graze livestock without denuding the range. Pinchot set out to establish forestry as a practical alternative between no development and land abuse.


In 1907, expanding on the principles of forestry, Pinchot and his team coined the phrase, “the conservation of natural resources” to recognize the interrelationships of forests, water, and minerals and the need for a unified approach to management. They defined the conservation policy as “the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time,” adapted from British philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s Greatest Good principle, which Bentham, in turn, had credited to British scientist-theologian Joseph Priestley.

http://encyclopediaofforestry.org/index ... nservation

Gifford Pinchot provided the philosophical basis of modern forestry.

Cheers.

[north-north-west]

A conservationist adopts the philosophical position that natural resources may be both used and conserved. Conservation allows the use of resources, so long as they are managed in such a manner as to remain available into the future. As a philosophical outlook, conservation is anthropogenic in nature, but remains compatible with protecting both flora and fauna.

In this context, conservation is the active management of a resource to provide the services/products required by forest owners, at a sustainable rate, whilst safeguarding intergenerational equity in the resource.

Well, by those definitions Forestry - as it has been practised in the modern era within Australia - is not conservation-minded. Because with the advent of modern industrial Forestry processes, timber has been 'harvested' faster than it can regenerate and with little - sometimes no - regard for the effect of that harvesting upon the local fauna and flora.

[yogibarnes]

And, being your opinion, you are entitled to express that view.
Cheers

[photohiker]

And, being your opinion, you are entitled to express that view.
Cheers

And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I agree with nnw.

First piece of evidence for the prosecution: Clear-felling of ancient, mixed species forest, burning of remnants, killing and poisoning of indigenous (and introduced) fauna and replanting with mono specie forest trees.

[Clusterpod]

Assurances are made, and not kept. As soon as the public's back is turned, it seems, liberties are taken. For pennies.

400 year old trees is not conservation, no matter how you want to redefine the term.



CARBON dating has revealed jarrah trees up to 400 years old are being cut down in WA’s South-West, despite a ban on old-growth logging.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 6848998371

[stepbystep]

I'm going to regret getting into this 'discussion'.

Yes I regret it every time.
I simply cannot understand the lack of compassion for the natural world or willingness to embrace new thinking, and new industries. I don't have the time or energy to engage here at length.

@Clusterpod I appreciate your input greatly, those West Oz forests are just as important as ours in Tassie.

[photohiker]

Clusterpod, thanks for showing that this is a national issue, not just Tasmania.

Seems they do the same thing in WA: Clearfell forests with no regard. Sure sign that the definition of 'conservation' is not something understood or carried out by the forestry industry.

[GPSGuided]

To me, the logging industry would be sustainable and doing their best for the environment IF they stay strictly within plantation forests and not touch virgin natural forests. To this end, there's more than enough cleared land for them to work on already but they seemed to have trouble adhering to.

[Nuts]

I think your right. Even thought there are vested interests far less green than your average forester, that would generally be my tickbox too GPS.

As to this discussion, as a conservationist, I don't see any lack of compassion, sorry. Iv'e seen some insightful discussion of the concept of conservation. I think ultimately it is far more likely a redefined concept, some compromise, smarter workings of land (even land nobody has thought to reserve yet) that will help bulk wilderness survive the age of 'being green'..

Iv'e seen a reaction by those who simply don't accept anything more (or bigger) than saving their scenery. Or is it a need to have others know they are 'green'?? I am now seeing a lack of focus in a drift towards towards illegal activity also being part of the contention that Foresters may be conservationists. What will happen if someone did actually say- rip, rip woodchip!? Hysterical is a word that comes to mind. It seems each time a small core group here just look for the angles in which you can redefine your own position. So discussions turn to debates, everyone goes home 'butt hurt'.

[GPSGuided]

Ultimately I think the demand drives the market. Look at those consumers who crave for those hard and exotic wood furniture. Look at those building/housing decorators who progress the use of exotic timbers and how the consumers are willing to pay big dollars for them. Eliminate those and there'd be conservation to speak of.

[Clusterpod]

Nuts: "Core group" sure comes close to branding opinion as "group think".

I'm not sure why you continually have to "play the man" so to speak. Its a classic tactic of marginalisation. Anecdotally question the character or motivation of a vaguely indicated individual or group allowing the subsequent branding of any associated supportive fact, commentary or opinion.

Your comment questions the motivation of one side of the argument with an accusation against some that its about their scenery, then associates with them the label "green". Subsequently, terms like "hysterical", "looking for angles" and "butt-hurt" neatly bags everyone on that side.

Passion can be dismissed as hysteria, considered argument as looking for angles and disagreement as butt-hurt.

[Nuts]

It's not an attempt to play the man Cluster, it's just that the arguments themselves become fanciful. Images are designed to evoke emotion- I'd be as supportive as anyone for vigilance when it comes to illegal activity, if that was the issue at hand. I don't see it is unless the argument is for no timber harvesting of any form.. anywhere..

GPS, A family member runs a business that involves the use of timber products (in her case paper). I'm always pushing for greener alternatives. The reality is that consumers demand prices that can only be met if sourcing from OS.. they are lucky to even be viable for their creative component. Even the recycled product.. of little consumer demand.. comes from OS.

[north-north-west]

G'day north-north-west,

For what reason should you regret discussing different ideas?....

Because I have seldom - if ever - seen a real exchange of ideas in these sorts of discussions. People generally speak from entrenched positions, refusing to see the validity of opposing views or to accept any sort of compromise or make concessions. It's the verbal equivalent of repeatedly bashing your head against a concrete wall.

I can recall at least one other thread on Mining/Forestry (or, if you prefer, preservation versus exploitation) and it took something like 20 pages for the two main combatants to get to a point where it was obvious they had at least one major basic attitude on the subject in common. No-one's mind was changed, nothing was done, no lasting consensus reached. Been there, done that. Don't have enough time or energy left to do it again.

Clusterpod, thanks for showing that this is a national issue, not just Tasmania.

Seems they do the same thing in WA: Clearfell forests with no regard. Sure sign that the definition of 'conservation' is not something understood or carried out by the forestry industry.

They do the same thing in Victoria and the SE NSW forests. There is legislation supposedly protecting Leadbetter's Possum habitat in Victoria, but it is ignored or side-stepped - trees are 'accidentally' felled, or coupes redrawn or just cleared anyway and hardly any of the perpetrators charged much less convicted. And even if convicted the fines are minimal.

[Pteropus]

...Iv'e seen a reaction by those who simply don't accept anything more (or bigger) than saving their scenery.

I'd argue that saving old forests is more about maintaining ecosystem functionality, since old trees play such important habitat roles. Pretty scenery is just a function of that. Though I guess some people might perhaps only consider the aesthetics of the old trees in their rationale for protecting them.

Ultimately I think the demand drives the market. Look at those consumers who crave for those hard and exotic wood furniture. Look at those building/housing decorators who progress the use of exotic timbers and how the consumers are willing to pay big dollars for them. Eliminate those and there'd be conservation to speak of.

I think that most consumers are not so much craving hard and exotic wood furniture, but simply do not consider where the timber is sourced from in the products they buy. Countries such as China are producing lots of cheap timber products, often using illegally harvested timber from places such as Africa or SE Asia, and as per usual it is tough for Australia to compete. I suspect that this is a key reason why forestry operations in Australia have generally not been turning a profit for sometime. Many buyers of timber products are becoming educated though and there is increasing demand is for plantation timber rather than exotics. Not only is it seen as more sustainable, but the quality of timber is generally more uniform since stands in coups are in the same age class and are generally managed to achieve single stem and less branching etc in the trees. It would be interesting to compare the area of land in Australia under managed forest plantations with that of state forests and also compare profits, cost/benefit etc.

[Nuts]

Yes. And (to me) considering the reality of consumer demand, these facts make some sense of the concept that perhaps the use of a public resource does not necessarily need to turn a profit. I don't see that as an anti-conservation position at all.

[Pteropus]

Yes. And (to me) considering the reality of consumer demand, these facts make some sense of the concept that perhaps the use of a public resource does not necessarily need to turn a profit. I don't see that as an anti-conservation position at all.

But there should be at least some demand for the product to make it worth while, and going for old growth should really be only considered if there is no alternative. I think it is anti-conservation when old growth forests are targeted simply because they are there and the quota has to be filled. Harvesting a forest is not like essential services and utilities that do not necessarily need to turn a profit, such as public transport, water infrastructure and power generation. And if it is purely about maintaining jobs, how about sink the subsidy money into retraining or new industry? Just a thought...

[GPSGuided]

Because I have seldom - if ever - seen a real exchange of ideas in these sorts of discussions. People generally speak from entrenched positions, refusing to see the validity of opposing views or to accept any sort of compromise or make concessions. It's the verbal equivalent of repeatedly bashing your head against a concrete wall.

I am not so pessimistic. Whilst I can and do get into firm debates on subjects, I do also register any opposing views. Does it mean I'll change my position on the spot? Yes, if the argument is convincing and well founded, otherwise I do register it and recognise the extent by which people vary their opinions on that subject. It broadens my understanding as the subject is further considered. Solid debate is good at getting the facts out, even if it drives people insane. Of course, as long as it stays civilised.

[GPSGuided]

Maybe there should be a campaign to alter the public's perception of on use of old forest products, a bit like those that anti-fur campaign that worked very well against the poaching of exotic animals. If the public perception is such that the use of old forest timber is something to be ashamed of, then the market will collapse. Logging companies and loggers are but responding to these demands. Just hard to draw blood out of a 400 years old tree...