Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[photohiker↑↓]

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.

There's a thought I haven't heard expressed before, although it does explain some of the mindset.

So loggers are free to plunder native forest with little regard, transport it over public roads, chip it, sell it for an uneconomic price and then pull in government subsidies to make up the losses, and pay a nett nothing or less for the use of the public resource? What other public resources do we allow this to happen with? I think public utilities have moved en-mass to the user pays principle in the last couple of decades. That suggests that activities are 100% funded by the users of those resources.

Probably cheaper to put them on unemployment benefits and create a body genuinely founded for conservation of the forests.

+1 GPS, log the plantations.

[Nuts↑↓]

(edit, no, wrong! .. that would be the current reality, i'm not suggesting that at all.. in fact without a focus on profit a much more balanced approach may be possible.. Just a thought.. my mind is not 'set')

Pteropus, I think iv'e related the story here before.. I had an interesting discussion with a forest contractor involved in the business of labour hire and transport. It wasn't without irony that we bought his bus.. not needed for his redundant employees- for use in tourism. His workforce, much larger than ours, is now very likely receiving social welfare, not retrained. The product supply has been redirected, local alternatives have not been developed. Many, perhaps the vocal minority, would lay blame at someone elses feet. I just don't get that part. This is a mess we all participate in, even sometimes unwittingly invest in. I too would have us stop short at mature forest harvesting but don't think the realistic alternative can look a whole lot different... (as much as i'd like to live in a medieval landscape.. with modern conveniences ) to how it did several years back, never mind with agreements upheld - big investment, some remaining (if not growing) capacity for bulk produce.

[Pteropus↑↓]

...Probably cheaper to put them on unemployment benefits and create a body genuinely founded for conservation of the forests.

Exactly

... I too would have us stop short at mature forest harvesting but don't think the realistic alternative can look a whole lot different... (as much as i'd like to live in a medieval landscape.. with modern conveniences ) to how it did several years back, never mind with agreements upheld - big investment, some remaining (if not growing) capacity for bulk produce.

So at what point do we call the maintaining of unsustainable forestry social welfare? And if this is the case, why not retrain or reemploy the workers in an area that produces something that people need and can’t acquire cheaply elsewhere? I know this isn’t the current reality, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It just takes political will to redirect the money elsewhere. Just off the top of my head, and using the example of Tasmania, since that is a main region of contention in this issue, what if the $100-or-so million that is spent on subsidising the forestry industry was used for building public infrastructure like upgrading the entire Midlands Highway to a duel carriageway? Jobs could be created over several years and retraining would not be too intensive. Public infrastructure would be created and people might be please with the person who had the political will to proceed with such a project. After the project is complete, the money can be redirected elsewhere to another project (and of course the money might be withdrawn, but that is always the case where it could also be withdrawn from forestry too). And old growth forests would be left alone and other people might also be pleased with the political will that allowed this to occur. Everyone kicks a goal. I’m sure the social and political situation is not quite as simple as this example which I just made up in a minute or two for the sake of the exercise, but surely there ARE realistic alternatives to throwing money at generally unpopular logging in mature old growth forests??

[maddog↑↓]

North-North West,

You suggest technological advance allows timber to be harvested faster than ever before. This is undoubtedly true. Mechanised harvesters greatly improve efficiencies, as bulldozers and chainsaws did before them. However, overall harvest rates are not determined by the efficiency of machines, but by the principles of resource conservation. To use NSW as an example, the State has preserved around 7 million hectares within national parks. About 2.2 million ha of state forest remains available for the purposes of conservation (of which 1.9 million ha is native forest).

Only 1.64% of the total state forest area, or 36,080 ha, was harvested during 2010-2011. At this rate, to clear the entire forestry estate of timber, however an unlikely a proposition, mechanised harvesters would take almost 61 years to finish the job.

Over this time should we perhaps expect a little regrowth to replenish stocks? The NSW Forestry Corporation (a State Owned Corporation) certainly does. It provides forecasts of harvesting rates over a 100 year period:

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/_ ... 010-11.pdf

Clusterpod,

In NSW, and no doubt other states, forestry operations are inspected and audited both internally and by external bodies such as the EPA, NPWS, the Auditor General and ABARE, amongst others. They are also subject to great deal of public scrutiny. All forestry operations are covered by harvest plans and licensing arrangements. Sensitive areas may never be logged. Harvest plans are quite detailed:

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/m ... vest-plans

GPS Guided,

Native forestry operations, as stated previously, are preferable to plantations. Plantations are monocultures, native forests coexist with a wide range of flora and fauna. To replace the native forests with plantation forestry would be a massive step backwards.

Pteropus,

Information on the size of the forestry estate is publicly available (see above). In regards to returns, from operating revenues of $310.3 million, the NSW Forestry Corporation returned a modest profit of $19 million dollars. The great majority of harvested timber is sawlogs with a relatively small volume destined for pulp or firewood. This is the situation now and is projected to remain so for the next 100 years.

While you may think it a bright idea to replace an industry such as forestry, that provides us with useful timber products and land for recreation and conservation, with one that produces little of value (such as a welfare scheme), you have not considered the costs involved in doing so. The management of the natural estate becomes an unfunded liability (on top of your welfare liability). No revenues with which to cover costs. Under your proposal the importation of vast quantities of timber to meet domestic consumption needs would also be required. From where do you suggest we source this. Borneo? Papua New Guinea? Brazil?

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/_ ... 012-13.pdf

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/_ ... 012-13.pdf

Cheers.

[Pteropus↑↓]

...While you may think it a bright idea to replace an industry such as forestry, that provides us with useful timber products and land for recreation and conservation, with one that produces little of value (such as a welfare scheme), you have not considered the costs involved in doing so. The management of the natural estate becomes an unfunded liability (on top of your welfare liability). No revenues with which to cover costs. Under your proposal the importation of vast quantities of timber to meet domestic consumption needs would also be required. From where do you suggest we source this. Borneo? Papua New Guinea? Brazil?

Except that where it is currently heavily subsidised forestry IS a welfare scheme. Also see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-16/f ... ey/5160110. We have also established in this topic that we already have vast amounts of mature timber plantations. I don't think we need to raid Borneo or New Guinea for our domestic timber needs.....

[Nuts↑↓]

These products are already competitive, transported too and around our domestic market, go to the local hardware store, ask about the origin of hardwoods available.

Forestry (as discussed here) makes use of a public resource. The costs are paid collectively (by users as well as the wider public) and recovered at appropriate scale for the use of the resource (through general revenue, royalties, fees in one form or other). All commercial concession for public land is, in a sense, 'subsidised' to some extent.

Much better, more forward-thinking economic management and accountability- yes!, though I don't see a need to turn a huge profit. The maintenance and growth of multiple use zones alone (as maddog suggests) is of benefit to the community. Other, less obvious, environmental and social benefits aren't even reflected in such figures. It's only this incursion into existing reserved land, maybe even only the implications of what I think 'growing the forestry industry' means, that tips the scales politically (for me). Not that I expect anyone in the Liberal Party to loose sleep over my (yes also idealistic, largely emotionally based) opinion, here..

[Jaala↑↓]

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.

Interesting point. I remember a decade ago there was this big push to "buy metal, buy plastic!!" I recall the ads on the television, telling everyone that to purchase wood products was an evil act. Now, they have new ones, "buy wood, do your dying planet a favour!!"

It seems whatever you choose to do these days, someone is going to get upset. Can't consume anything, must shoot oneself to save Earth. But don't ask to be buried in a coffin, or cremated. Evil! To be thrown unceremoniously into some paddock someplace is also evil, as your clothing may take too long to degrade.

I wonder what the next thing will be

It can never be won. Bit off topic but my personal thoughts are that to restore balance we must move up and out... But apparently this is too expensive and would require too much in the way of resources both human and natural.

[maddog↑↓]

Except that where it is currently heavily subsidised forestry IS a welfare scheme. Also see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-16/f ... ey/5160110. We have also established in this topic that we already have vast amounts of mature timber plantations. I don't think we need to raid Borneo or New Guinea for our domestic timber needs.....

G'day Pteropus,

I am curious as to whether you also object, in the interests of consistency, to the public subsidy given to the Parks and Wildlife services. While the NSW Forestry Corporation managed to return a modest $19 million dollars to State coffers, the NPWS managed to burn through a whopping $479.5 million over the same period. Perhaps government departments that provide opportunities for recreational interests and take responsibility for the conservation of flora and fauna should be eligible for some form of subsidy to serve the public interest?

On the subject of supplying the nation with its timber needs just how have you established that we have vast amounts of mature timber plantations ready to replace our native forestry production? A truly remarkable conclusion seemingly detached from any reality. According to ABARE, by 2040-44 hardwood plantation log volumes will be about half that provided by today's native forest harvest. Not only will plantations provide less timber than our native forests, but it is likely to be lower in quality and destined for the pulp mills.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/property ... 1zha9.html

http://data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/wareho ... .1.0.0.pdf

Cheers.

[north-north-west↑↓]

On the subject of supplying the nation with its timber needs just how have you established that we have vast amounts of mature timber plantations ready to replace our native forestry production? A truly remarkable conclusion seemingly detached from any reality. According to ABARE, by 2040-44 hardwood plantation log volumes will be about half that provided by today's native forest harvest. Not only will plantations provide less timber than our native forests, but it is likely to be lower in quality and destined for the pulp mills.

Which rather disproves any contention that modern industrial forestry in this country is sustainable.

[maddog↑↓]

Which rather disproves any contention that modern industrial forestry in this country is sustainable.

North-North-West,

Not at all. The harvest from NSW native forests is forecast to be stable over the next 100 odd years.

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/_ ... 010-11.pdf

Cheers.

[Pteropus↑↓]

Funding National Parks is a little different in this respect. The heavy subsidies for the forestry industry are chiefly there for maintaining jobs (and in some areas, gaining votes), and so in some areas forests are being logged simply for this purpose. As I stated above, that money could potentially be spent to create jobs for the same people in projects elsewhere, and not to maintain an industry that uses arguably unenvironmental methods in its operations.

On plantation timber, the article states the timber will be lower quality if the trees are not thinned or pruned. Which in managed plantations they are on a regular basis. If plantation timber was so poor compared to many native forests, then why should old growth forests be clear felled and woodchiped instead of use for timber? Oh, and no one said we can’t use native forests as a timber resource. It just needs to be done in a way that minimises the environmental damage and for the right reasons. In some areas this is not the way things are...

[maddog↑↓]

Pteropus,

Land requires management and land management costs money. In NSW the NPWS is responsible for an estate of 7 million hectares requiring $479.5 million dollars, or $68.50 for every hectare it controls. The NSW Forestry Corporation manages 2.2 million hectares returning $19 million a year, or $8.64 per hectare. Forestry Tasmania runs 1.5 million hectares, costing $13 million a year, or $8.67 a hectare. Clearly revenue derived from forestry makes an enormous contribution to land management costs.

The New South Wales Forestry Corporation has 260,000 ha of plantation timber. Forestry Tasmania has 100,000 ha of plantation timber. These estates are very small in comparison to the native forests (see above). If we are to source necessary timber products outside the native forest estate, we will need to find alternative sources. How do you propose we do so (bearing in mind that forestry requires decent soil and rainfall)? We can import the timber. We can dramatically enlarge the forest estate by purchasing arable farmland and cover it with plantation forestry. Or we can replace existing native forests with plantations.

And how do you suggest it be paid for?

Cheers.

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/_ ... 010-11.pdf

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/_ ... 012-13.pdf

http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/F ... t_2013.pdf

[Nuts↑↓]

I may have missed the figures for the harvesting method for native reserves. They suggest (from productivity compared to plantation) that it's mostly clear-felling? No doubt selective logging, which seems 'more' ideal, just wouldn't be a viable option for these native forests? That is a shame, removing the visual impact would likely be far more comforting (politically).

There really is not an option that looks a lot different to the current model in any sensible time-frame. A move to a larger proportion of plantation timber, that doesn't look like monoculture, obviously wont ever be first choice for financial managers or pollies (given the time-frame for returns). Maybe even forcing such a change wouldn't be palitable considering the vast land area already harvested from natural looking forests.

Screen Shot 2014-03-13 at 7.39.03 AM.png (21.69 KiB) Viewed 17030 times

These figures, (import/export) are meaningful? Is this good enough? (not for me).. Unfortunately, the real 'look' of a sustainable forest industry (ie. one that looked better) would have an impact far larger than even that currently seen. I imagine this impact, timbers harvested sustainably with minimal impact on native forest ecology, would be just not practical even in a transition phase conducted over decades, to political bean crunchers..

While a strong argument could be made that we 'could' have a sustainable forest industry, the reaction to visual impact alone (from 'green' voters) would surely not allow this to happen. The economics of doing so would likely polarise the rest.. involve a retraction of trade agreements (so vastly increasing forest product prices are not just swapped for cheap imports.. as happens now).

Someone could decipher a realistic alternative policy to meet current demands.. to be at least started in the short term, for the situation as it is, i'd like to be seeing that. Alternative products and value adding are fine but its the bulk use that proposals don't seem to want to account for?? (that I have seen, perhaps someone else can see a way forward through the alternative proposals and discuss it here..)

Why some even think leaving forests to the free market (ie in reality leading to a situation where we are even less accountable for our current use..) is a better option.. astounding..

Last edited by Nuts on Thu 13 Mar, 2014 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

[stepbystep↑↓]

...the reaction to visual impact alone (from 'green' voters) would surely not allow this to happen...

Insulting nuts, green voters are far more interested in broader issues pertaining to biodiversity and climate change. Pictures of big old trees and burning forests are aimed at swinging voters.

maddog, continually providing liks to the various state timber industry sites hardly balanced, I'm concerned you would have such faith in their assessments.

http://theconversation.com/the-ultimate ... ment-24243

[photohiker↑↓]

Ripping out our forests and chipping it for $20 a tonne is the reason our export dollars are less than our import dollars. It's not about tonnage, it's about the quality of the product. We're not importing woodchips...

[Nuts↑↓]

No, paper products, not seeing much policy to alleviate the pulp/paper/end user dilemma.
Their internal assessments look pretty dismal to me sbs, without deciding whether that is a good or bad thing.

[stepbystep↑↓]

Ripping out our forests and chipping it for $20 a tonne is the reason our export dollars are less than our import dollars. It's not about tonnage, it's about the quality of the product. We're not importing woodchips...

Correct. We are importing cheap furniture and building products.

What do the Greens want to do?
http://greens.org.au/policies/tas/tasma ... al-profits

= JOBS in the NW, long term...

What does 'greenie' Graham Wood want to do?
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 6846896583

= JOBS up the East Coast, long term...

What does Will Hodgman want to do?
http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasma ... 6853182239

= Reignite forest wars, a tiny spike in short term jobs, but ultimately a loss as the industry as it was is unsustainable and it will make a mockery of us, tarnishing our 'clean green' image. The only thing we should be exploiting.

Rant over.

*edit - for the benefit of nuts. The Greens want a commercial hemp industry and more modern recycling to deal with paper issues. The hemp industry has been hamstrung by successive governments here for decades. Do I really need to say why???

[maddog↑↓]

maddog, continually providing liks to the various state timber industry sites hardly balanced, I'm concerned you would have such faith in their assessments.

G'day SBS,

The figures provided are derived from the NSW Budget papers, ABARE, the NSW Forestry Corporation and Forestry Tasmania annual reports. All are subject to similar reporting requirements as apply to other government entities (e.g. the Department of Health, Education, Australian Bureau of Statisitics, etc), or the financial reporting of large listed companies (such as BHP Billiton or Coca Cola Amatil). Important controls include adherence to generally accepted accounting principles, and audit by external bodies such as the Auditor General (or one of the respected accounting firms - the 'Big 4'). They are generally considered authoritative and relied upon by both policymakers and commentators.

The claims made, and figures produced, by lobby groups such as the Wilderness society, green political advertising, or opinion pieces more generally, are generally not subject to the same level of control. For this reason they are not considered either authoritative or reliable. Few rely on such sources.

Cheers.

[stepbystep↑↓]

maddog, continually providing liks to the various state timber industry sites hardly balanced, I'm concerned you would have such faith in their assessments.

G'day SBS,

The figures provided are derived from the NSW Budget papers, ABARE, the NSW Forestry Corporation and Forestry Tasmania annual reports. All are subject to similar reporting requirements as apply to other government entities (e.g. the Department of Health, Education, Australian Bureau of Statisitics, etc), or the financial reporting of large listed companies (such as BHP Billiton or Coca Cola Amatil). Important controls include adherence to generally accepted accounting principles, and audit by external bodies such as the Auditor General (or one of the respected accounting firms - the 'Big 4'). They are generally considered authoritative and relied upon by both policymakers and commentators.

The claims made, and figures produced, by lobby groups such as the Wilderness society, green political advertising, or opinion pieces more generally, are generally not subject to the same level of control. For this reason they are not considered either authoritative or reliable. Few rely on such sources.

Cheers.

Fair play to you, admittedly I didn't read them, and won't, no time for such things. Doesn't change the fact the forestry industry here has received subsides to the tune of $1 billion over 20 years all the while the government has been run by Gunns Ltd. Wholesale corruption to line the pockets of the few. Care to deny that?

[Nuts↑↓]

As an aside..

SBS, please understand I have read through green policy and know something of the background of your(?) movers and shakers. I have been personally involved in alternative primary production and seen first hand the constraints by successive governments (at the bidding of large industry). I know something about hemp..

I don't agree with leaving forest production (of any sort)... as practiced, from a public resource.. to the will of a free market. At it's ideal, don't see this (even with subsidy) in the same light as stifling alternative industry growth. I see the wasted resources and poor practices as mismanagement of an otherwise potentially wholesome industry.

maddog, we have no reason to doubt the reporting (aside from a possible fudge factor along the way). However, that doesn't change the fact that the figures can be used or ignored at will. For use in a political statement or to drive policy directions. 'Numbers' don't actually support or refute the notion of 'too much' or 'to little' ... 'locked up forest'.. do they.. While they are useful for pinning down factual fallacy, in all fairness, such numbers (if they are ever used) don't necessarily have to have much to do with political statements or positions, green or otherwise.. at all..

[stepbystep↑↓]

As an aside..

SBS, please understand I have read through green policy and know something of the background of your(?) movers and shakers. I have been personally involved in alternative primary production and seen first hand the constraints by successive governments (at the bidding of large industry). I know something about hemp..

I don't agree with leaving forest production (of any sort)... as practiced, from a public resource.. to the will of a free market. At it's ideal, don't see this (even with subsidy) in the same light as stifling alternative industry growth. I see the wasted resources and poor practices as mismanagement of an otherwise potentially wholesome industry.

So do I nuts! So does the conservation movement as a whole. Has there not been a truce in place for some time now? Was it not Mr Hodgman who described Mr Wood's initiative at Triabunna as a "tragedy for Tasmania"? It is the poor, unsustainable management of the resource that drives me nuts There is a better way and it comes down to political will. I know you know that. Taking a swipe at The Greens with a broad brushstroke as you do does not help at all, they, and independents like Wilkie are the only forward thinking options we have. Judging people on their past is one thing, but looking at where they are going is far more important for our future.

Who do you think history will be kindest to? Bob Brown or John Gay?

Cannot wait for this to be made http://www.pozible.com/project/179006 pitch in a few pennies, I will, when I have some....

[maddog↑↓]

G'day SBS,

I have addressed the subsidy issue, but to repeat:

Land requires management and land management costs money. In NSW the NPWS is responsible for an estate of 7 million hectares requiring $479.5 million dollars, or $68.50 for every hectare it controls. The NSW Forestry Corporation manages 2.2 million hectares returning $19 million a year, or $8.64 per hectare. Forestry Tasmania runs 1.5 million hectares, costing $13 million a year, or $8.67 a hectare. Clearly revenue derived from forestry makes an enormous contribution to land management costs.

If we are to apply the principles of free market capitalism to the management of the native forest estate, why stop there? If timber must be extracted from native forests at a profit to be considered legitimate, rather than at a small loss (while conserving a resource), perhaps the same fiscal rigour should be applied to national parks. We could stem our (massive) losses, perhaps even turn a buck, and lease popular or undeveloped areas to the private sector. The Guardian reports that Nepal is considering just that. The president of the Nepal Mountaineering Association thinks a it sterling idea. He claims "the private sectors can sell tourism products better in comparison to the government sector"

You do realise that native forests could be run at a profit. Don't you?

Cheers.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... -himalayas

[stepbystep↑↓]

maddog, you don't seem to realise I don't care about profit I simply want wilderness areas left untouched. Management is not needed. It's fine to just leave it there being wilderness.
I just spent 9 days walking within untracked WHA. Lots of forest, zero dollars spent managing it. The untracked portions of the Weld Valley the libs want to log also have zero management because they are wilderness, and on it goes. I will grant you however sometimes a fire will start from a lightening strike and resources are spent controlling it, but that's a whole other issue.
The 'management' dollars come in when infrastructure is built, roads and bridges. Why is that infrastructure built? Logging. Who benefits from that? Gunns did here for 20 years. Who pays for it? The taxpayer. Where did at least 75% of that resource go? O/S markets as woodchips.

You seem to refuse to acknowledge any form of corrupt process. Business benifits, taxpayers don't. If you can't see that, at least in the Tasmanian context, well cue the

I'm prepared to see tourism and PWS infrastructure managed at a loss as it serves many needs, in an ongoing and growing sector. The vast tracts of land currently growing plantation timber is more than enough to satisfy the needs of modern construction timber manufacturing processes, coupled with selective logging of specialty timbers there are options, but to revoke 74000 ha of WHA in order to log it is insanity for so many reasons.

Anyway, enough of this today my head is sore from the brick wall banging.

[Pteropus↑↓]

...Management is not needed. It's fine to just leave it there being wilderness.

And this is a key point that has been over looked in this claim that the timber industry are the ultimate conservationists. Once a forest is harvested, further management is required but in many instances it is sub-optimal. And there is one prominent example of a species, Leadbeater’s possum, being “managed to extinction” simply through the practice of clear felling old growth forests. Hardly conservation. And there are other examples where the industry has less than shining conservation credentials from both state forests and the private plantation forestry industry. And these are just prominent examples that get media attention. I too don't think we need to run the industry at a profit either, but then again I don't think we should keep throwing money at it without holding it to greater account. Things can be done better...but the industry is hardly encouraged to do so when regulations are relaxed and/or tax payer’s money keeps propping up sections of the industry, and when rules are broken there are only paltry slaps on the wrist.

[maddog↑↓]

Management is not needed. It's fine to just leave it there being wilderness.

SBS and Pteropus,

If only what you say was true. But the 'lock it up and she'll be right' approach of the preservationists has been called into question, increasingly looking like the cause of its very own ecological disaster. Bill Gammage provided valuable insight into what is going wrong in his seminal work The Greatest Estate On Earth, while Tim Flannery's essay After the Future: Australia's New Extinction Crisis, squarely lays the blame for the extinction of the Chrismas Island Pipistrelle on the orthodoxy that ecosystems rather than species should be the focus of the national conservation effort. Flannery observes:

Such is the depth of public ignorance about Australia's extinction crisis that most people are unaware it is occurring, while those who do know of it commonly believe that our national parks and reserves are safe places for threatened species. In fact, the second extinction wave is in full swing and it's emptying our national parks and wildlife reserves as ruthlessly as other landscapes. This is disturbing: national parks exist explicitly to conserve biodiversity, and their failure to do so is a failure both of government policy and our collective will to protect our natural heritage.

Like the foolish man who built his house on sand, the preservationists are discovering cracks in their structure. It will be interesting to see if they come to realise the cause is the weakness of the assumptions on which they rely.

Cheers.

[ILUVSWTAS↑↓]

Hi Maddog, just a guess but do you work in the timber industry somewhere?

What do you think this part of the planet did before mankind invaded it? What makes you think the wild places need human interference?

In our WHA here in Tasmania, most weeds are introduced when the Forestry crews build a road through it. Then it spreads.

[photohiker↑↓]

+1

maddog's thesis seems to be that there is no alternative to forestry jumping into the act.

News re WHA excision:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-13/h ... ee/5318182

A Senate inquiry is investigating the issue and in a submission, the Australian arm of the International Council on Monuments and Sites said it believed allowing the reduction in the area would likely reduce the credibility of the World Heritage listing.

The council is one of three advisory bodies for the World Heritage Committee and provides evaluations of cultural and mixed properties proposed for inscription on the World Heritage List.

"We are alarmed that this proposal ... fails to respect that due process was followed by the World Heritage Committee and that Outstanding Universal Value has been established as a prerequisite for the decision to support the 2013 Boundary Modification," the submission said.

"We hence query how the Australian Government states it believes the excision of identified areas from the property will enhance the credibility of the World Heritage Listing.

"The opposite seems more likely."

The council's submission said it was too early to suggest any changes to the boundaries.

"As the Australian Government is to submit a progress report on this assessment of cultural values ... in 2015, it is premature to be proposing any modification before that time," it said.

"The evaluation of cultural values is a priority and no boundary modifications should be considered until that report is provided."

[stepbystep↑↓]

Gammage's book is VERY interesting but you are ignoring the fact that vast tracts of land weren't 'managed' by the aboriginal people. I see the templates described by Gammage all over the place and marvel at them along with the remnant vegetation, tree forms and absolutely acknowledge some areas that were managed by them that are now in a state of regrowth provide for interesting debate.

But I can tell you for certain, the Weld and Picton valleys were never managed by the aborigines, they were and in some parts are(the WHA) wilderness in their pure state. ILUV's point re weed introduction is a good one. He and I have driven on thousands of km of forestry road around Tas and witness the same thing over and over and over. Once it's logged, they're outta there and the weeds proliferate, not to mention the spilled diesel and other oily substances we see oozing out of the coupes. You seem have no idea of what really happens on the ground. Rose coloured glasses?

[Pteropus↑↓]

...Bill Gammage

I wondered how long it would take you to invoke Gamage...we have discussed the pros and cons of his work elsewhere...and using the the Christmas Island Pipistrelle example is a poor choice, because the reasons behind its extinction are still unknown and can only be hypothesised but not tested. And that is a major deficiency with protecting or even managing our environment, that we still do not understand all the ecological processes, and that includes impacts of change from logging. And much less research is conducted by state forestry than it used to be. And the whole “lock it up” argument is just a strawman. National Parks are not locked up, since anyone can enter one. Furthermore, NPs are generally managed to the best of their budget (burning that money as you say), and still the reserve system is not adequate or representative of our native flora and fauna communities, because most biodiversity actually occurs on private land. Which incidentally, is generally locked up (unless you are mining or CSG) and where most of the management problems of biodiversity occur. Anyhow, maddog, we can once again agree to disagree. We are not going to convince each other here...

[maddog↑↓]

ILUVSWTAS and SBS,

I have no financial interest in the timber industry, and have refrained from expressing a view on the 'de-listing' of World Heritage in Tasmania. It is an issue largely unrelated to the forester's role in conservation, and is one for the people of that State to determine through normal democratic processes. However, it is fair to say the coming election will serve as something of a referendum on the issue, and the result will be interesting. The public, preoccupied by economic issues, are failing to respond with titillation to the shrill cries of the environmental movement as they once did. Wilderness ideology has not provided solutions and the Greens are widely held responsible for uncontrollable wildfires. The mob hold advocates of wilderness in contempt.

On the need for human interference, it depend on the circumstances, but in many situations it is obviously desirable. Despite the dramatic enlargement of national park reserves over the last few of decades, the 'extinction crisis' continues. Lacking sufficient disturbance, thickening woody vegetation comes at the cost of variation within the reserve system and a reduction in habitat types. Programs of engineered disturbance, on a similar scale to that within logging compartments, are no doubt beneficial in many respects.

In regards to weeds. They are a problem on all forms of land tenure. They need to be dealt with.

Pteropus,

It is surprising, given the extensive network of protection zones and the relatively modest area earmarked for logging, that speculation linking the possible future demise of the Leadbeater's possum with planned logging activities occurs. The possum, once considered by experts extinct, actually happily co-existed within the forestry estate (of all places) for years, and in patches is the most commonly observed arboreal marsupial. Some of these patches are protected within the forestry estate, and the recently created Yarra Ranges National Park was strategically placed at the core of its habitat. Perhaps the installation of nesting boxes would be helpful as a medium term solution to the lack of suitable hollows, a problem for which fire and the senescence of older trees appears primarily responsible.

Cheers.

http://www.vicforests.com.au/files/arrl ... ille_L.pdf
http://www.myenvironment.net.au/index.p ... Plan-CHFMP
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets ... m_1995.pdf