Timber industry the ultimate conservationists

[Pteropus↑↓]

Two opposing opinion pieces on the topic of conservation, or lack of, of Leadbeater's possum in a forestry context have been published at the ABC in recent days:
From the VicForests -> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/artic ... 963332.htm
and the rebuttal from the organisation dedicated to protecting the species -> http://www.abc.net.au/environment/artic ... 965084.htm

Note that in 2012, Leadbeater's possum expert and world renowned landscape ecologist Professor David Lindenmayer resigned from the Leadbeater's possum recovery team back in 2012 because the Victorian government was not listening to the science on protecting the possum. An interesting interview from 2012 is available here -> http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rura ... 591584.htm

[maddog↑↓]

G'day Pteropus,

Thanks for the links. You may also be interested in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judgements referred to in your first link. Professor Lindenmayer was one of the experts called to give evidence before the Court. Osborne JA found that

21 In turn, MyEnvironment has not established that the proposed variable retention harvesting of Gun Barrel will breach the zone 1A provisions of the FMP. VicForests ’ intentions with respect to Freddo and South Col have not yet crystallised in proposals which can be said to breach the zone 1A prescription.

22 I have also come to the view that the case based on the precautionary principle must fail. MyEnvironment has not established a threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment will result from the proposed variable retention harvesting of Gun Barrel or the as yet unresolved proposals to harvest timber in Freddo and South Col.

23 Further, the adaptive management measures for which MyEnvironment contend are not directly responsive to, or proportionate to, any threat which may be hypothesised to result from the variable retention harvesting of Gun Barrel.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2012/91.html

A map of the area in contention is available here (protected areas in pink):

http://www.vicforests.com.au/files/fpvo ... angi_L.pdf

The decision was upheld on appeal:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/ ... 3/356.html

Cheers.

[north-north-west↑↓]

I've bitten my tongue long enough.
I've been involved in the Leadbeater's possum business - surveying coupes, ageing and counting trees, all that sort of thing. And while the laws have been written and systems supposedly put in place to protect the habitat, in practice nothing has changed. The Forestry Industry in Victoria couldn't give a rat's about Leadbeater's; they use the Yellingbo population as a banner but allow wholesale destruction of what is - according to the laws - suitable habitat, through a whole range of tactics including illegal logging. Prosecutions are rare, convictions even rarer, and penalties amount to no more than a slap on the wrist.

This is something I've experienced first hand, over a good many years involved with the effort of protection. Whatever is written on paper and 'proven' in courts, the on=ground situation is far different.
And it's not good for either the forests or the fauna.

[Pteropus↑↓]

VicForests winning a court case allowing them to log mountain ash forest doesn’t necessarily mean an optimal outcome was secured for the Leadbeater’s possum. More like the status quo, with the law allowing "death by a thousand cuts". So a judge, in a courtroom, decides there is no ‘zone 1A’ Leadbeater’s possum primary habitat within a forest, and it comes down to definitions of terms such as ‘mature’ and ‘senescing’ in relation to habitat trees. The same judge decided that VicForests are not obligated by the Leadbeater’s Possum Action Statement (drafted by the Dept. Sust. Enviro.). This is part of the problem that Lindenmayer talks about, that the LBP is being managed to extinction. Even when much of what is being done is done within the law, but it doesn’t mean the forestry industry is managing the forests for good conservation outcomes, especially in regards to the LBP in this particular case.

More from David Lindenmayer on management of these forests

[Nuts↑↓]

Yes, so much more when you scratch the surface.

It's the same with every impact we have, especially when any action needs to account for the politics. I'm of the school thinking habitat is a better focus than species but it's not at all a popular notion when it comes to managing remaining forest (or impact, even within parks) and the implications for any particular vulnerable species. Like so many conservation issues subjected to politics there rarely is an acceptable middle ground. The answer is not that the plan is flawed, lets push for a better one. Even scientists find themselves ruled by the heart and they aren't naive to the politic. It's a national park or everyone has failed! Unfortunately, without considered compromise the hidden, very real, choices we make may be just as distasteful. Just maybe (for instance) Leadbeater's Possum or Bornean Orangutan?

(Just part of the wider discussion, not an opinion on any species .. or Vic forest management)

[Clusterpod↑↓]

Well, now we have a new government, it would be nice if they would actually tell us what their forestry policy is.

Relying on slogans to win is all well and good, expected really, but can we please see the nuts and bolts now?

It being one of the pivotal issues of the campaign, its got to be pretty comprehensive.

[Nuts↑↓]

Yes, well, i'm not seeing a lot of support for foresters being the 'ultimate' conservationists. I'd really like to see how that's going to happen as well

... was kinda wondering where Your (very quick, witty) 'slogan' came from though.. ( )

Last edited by Nuts on Wed 19 Mar, 2014 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Clusterpod↑↓]

I must have missed it. What slogan was that then?

Forestry Policy : The Nuts and Bolts®

[Nuts↑↓]

[Clusterpod↑↓]

But thats what they told us!

Naive as it is to expect a pollie to deliver on their promises, I am looking forward to hearing how they intend to do it.

Treasury can't meet its repayments, so will be forced to cancel or at least reduce necessary infrastructure maintenance, but somehow there will be increased jobs in an industry that has required subsidies for decades.

I don't envy the treasurer.

Interesting times indeed!

[Pteropus↑↓]

...I am looking forward to hearing how they intend to do it.

I always assumed that the (extra) money was going to come direct from the federal government, since the idea of rescinding some of the WHA for more logging was theirs. Even if they’re generally not into subsidies at the moment (but they make exceptions in Tas right?)...even if there is a “budget emergency” that requires tight fiscal policy...and now there is a Lib state gov, perhaps the money will even flow too. Can’t use the excuse the Greens and Labor are holding things back now...and if anyone is out of work, quick, go get your bulldozer and chainsaw ticket and you might even get a temporary position...whether it actually helps (or hinders) the Tasmanian economy remains to be seen...

[north-north-west↑↓]

...I am looking forward to hearing how they intend to do it....

By reneging on the promises when push comes to shove. It's always worked in the past.

[maddog↑↓]

VicForests winning a court case allowing them to log mountain ash forest doesn’t necessarily mean an optimal outcome was secured for the Leadbeater’s possum. More like the status quo, with the law allowing "death by a thousand cuts". So a judge, in a courtroom, decides there is no ‘zone 1A’ Leadbeater’s possum primary habitat within a forest, and it comes down to definitions of terms such as ‘mature’ and ‘senescing’ in relation to habitat trees. The same judge decided that VicForests are not obligated by the Leadbeater’s Possum Action Statement (drafted by the Dept. Sust. Enviro.). This is part of the problem that Lindenmayer talks about, that the LBP is being managed to extinction. Even when much of what is being done is done within the law, but it doesn’t mean the forestry industry is managing the forests for good conservation outcomes, especially in regards to the LBP in this particular case.

NNW and Pteropus,

The legal system allows both sides to a dispute to put their case. The merits of respective arguments are considered by an independent umpire. Judgements then become a matter of public record. In this case MyEnvironment sought an injunction to stop logging. Their case was initially heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

It was alleged that logging was occurring within a protected zone (1A). It was determined there was no evidence to support this proposition. On appeal, amongst other things, it was submitted that his Honour got it wrong, that he was 'overly concerned with grammar'. Claims the Court of Appeal found to be without substance.

But to suggest the issue turned largely on zoning and definitional terms is to mislead. Importantly the case also dealt with the 'precautionary principle'. It was suggested that VicForests had an obligation to comply with the principle as it applied to the survival prospects of the possum. This was accepted by the Court. But the proposition VicForests were in breach, was rejected. In coming to this conclusion the Judge considered a great deal of material. His Honour noted, amongst other things; the total area of ash eucalyptus forest in the Central Highlands is 181,000 hectares of which 85,000 hectares (47%) is preserved within conservation reserves; the harvestable area is proportionally insignificant to the total area preserved as habitat; evidence the possum inhabited the coupe was lacking; and the impact of recent fires on the surrounding landscape was patchy. It was found that:

It is not possible to conclude that the variable retention harvesting of Gun Barrel is likely to cause loss of habitat which would materially affect the overall provision of areas which provide habitat and potential habitat for the LBP [possum]. The FMP [Forest Management Plan] balances objectives relating to ecologically sustainable development and provides an overall scheme of reserves and zones. It adopts a precautionary approach in principle and seeks to implement that approach through a discrete system of controls…The reserve system reflects the Central Highlands Regional Forests Agreement.

Generally the judgement of a Court is accepted by the parties and they move on. Less often we see the Courts undermined. Those attacking the Courts sometimes have an axe to grind, or are driven by missionary zeal. In either case facts are rejected.

Cheers.

[Pteropus↑↓]

maddog, I think you really need to go and hug a tree

[north-north-west↑↓]

So OJ really was innocent. It's so nice to know that.

'Lack of evidence' is not the same as 'incorrect". The Forest Industry in Victoria often go out of their way to ensure there is no evidence.

[stepbystep↑↓]

Nice trip into the Picton today, good to see the resource fully utilised

Attachments

[Clusterpod↑↓]

Nice trip into the Picton today, good to see the resource fully utilised

Ultimately!

[walkon↑↓]

Nice trip into the Picton today, good to see the resource fully utilised

Yep looks like ultimate conservation at work. I thought it was a photograph of tsunami devastation at first look

[geoskid↑↓]

maddog, I think you really need to go and hug a tree

C'mon Pteropus.

Why should an individual of our species care about a species of possum.
Why should an individual of our species even care.
Even if we ( as in collectively as a species took full advantage of what we collectively know ) could fully understand the mechanics of cause and effect pertaining to the ecology of the earth - we would still be faced with denial (you, know the psychological phenomena peculiar to our species)by individuals if said understandig conflicts with prior beliefs.
There is no win to be had by telling people they should care - we are not able to care. (beyond saying we do).
Really, people don't give at toss.
The question at root , is how do you get enough individuals of a species to give a toss about the future of their species beyond their own individual life spans. Then we get into the politics.
Whatever way you look at it, it's akin to convincing wombats not to dig holes.

Anyway - I've got fishing overnighter on the m/bike this weekend. Tight lines. ( See what I mean)

[stepbystep↑↓]

The question at root , is how do you get enough individuals of a species to give a toss about the future of their species beyond their own individual life spans.(?)

Because it's common sense ? Am I missing something? Who are you people(he screams into the ether)?????????

[Nuts↑↓]

haha.. 'we are the world'. I wanted to ask for more details but I don't wanna upset anyone.
Hey, tight lines Geoskid : http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycl ... 0060589469
Clusterpod, I was asking where the banner came from, not why you posted it (that's none of my business either) .. but it's ok.

[geoskid↑↓]

The question at root , is how do you get enough individuals of a species to give a toss about the future of their species beyond their own individual life spans.(?)

Because it's common sense ? Am I missing something? Who are you people(he screams into the ether)?????????

But it's not common sense SBS. Yes, I think you are missing something, and therefore getting frustrated. If you try and look at human behaviour from an evolutionary standpoint ( there is huge amounts of reading to do) it begins to fall into place. The most important thing that happens is the frustration falls away, not everyone with a different opinion is deemed stupid, and then , grasshopper( ), you will be at the starting line.

I hear you SBS. Just keep reading - and there is no time for fiction if you want to be part of change.

[stepbystep↑↓]

The question at root , is how do you get enough individuals of a species to give a toss about the future of their species beyond their own individual life spans.(?)

Because it's common sense ? Am I missing something? Who are you people(he screams into the ether)?????????

But it's not common sense SBS. Yes, I think you are missing something, and therefore getting frustrated. If you try and look at human behaviour from an evolutionary standpoint ( there is huge amounts of reading to do) it begins to fall into place. The most important thing that happens is the frustration falls away, not everyone with a different opinion is deemed stupid, and then , grasshopper( ), you will be at the starting line.

I hear you SBS. Just keep reading - and there is no time for fiction if you want to be part of change.

Hehe, no I wasn't disagreeing with you at all Geo, on the contrary. Sense is far from common!

So no I'm not missing something, just incredulous that 'the common folk' don't get it. Ignorance isn't stupidity, it's just ignorance.

Unfortunately there's nothing fictional about the stuff i see

[doogs↑↓]

1962844_10152331654379602_577483200_n.jpg (24.25 KiB) Viewed 15041 times

[Pteropus↑↓]

...C'mon Pteropus.
Why should an individual of our species care about a species of possum.
Why should an individual of our species even care.
Even if we ( as in collectively as a species took full advantage of what we collectively know ) could fully understand the mechanics of cause and effect pertaining to the ecology of the earth - we would still be faced with denial (you, know the psychological phenomena peculiar to our species)by individuals if said understandig conflicts with prior beliefs.

Geos, generally I agree. It’s all about survival, and number one comes first. And if a species goes extinct it’s not unusual. Most species go extinct and just lost that battle with evolution. And if it goes extinct through human activity, well, we just out competed them. There's no right or wrong here, that's such an arbitrary concept. So why should individuals of our species care? "I'm" surviving and that’s all that matters, right? However, we have increased our knowledge of what is going on in the natural world, and we know we are using resources unsustainably. We know that resource availability is the limiting factor for growth (whether population or economic). Anyone with access to a computer has access to the scientific knowledge that shows we are on a trajectory to hard times, that ecosystems, our life support system if you will, are collapsing through excessive resource extraction and landscape change, and in many cases this could be unavoidable. And so, as you said in an earlier post, “...the biggest challenge facing humanity is learning to get a command of our thinking and use it to full capacity, otherwise we will ultimately be no different from any other species.”

So what about our denial then? Can we deal with it? There is some interesting psychology work by Dan Kahan in the US about how motivated thinking effects our beliefs that lead to decision making, not necessarily to our own personal or collective benefit. There is work being done there on how people can be led to change their way of thinking by posing specific questions...but yes, it’s complicated, and doesn't necessarily work because people’s thought processes are complicated. Which leads into:

...The question at root , is how do you get enough individuals of a species to give a toss about the future of their species beyond their own individual life spans. Then we get into the politics.

A good question, and I don’t think getting into politics is the answer. Currently it seems the best way for people to “give a toss” is to put monetary value on everything. It’s not optimal but people seem to listen when money is involved. But that might not make people care beyond their own lifetimes, and they might not see any immediate benefit either. I don’t have an answer. Do you?

[Clusterpod↑↓]

Clusterpod, I was asking where the banner came from, not why you posted it (that's none of my business either) .. but it's ok.

Oh I misunderstood!

I made it.

[Nuts↑↓]

Haha, so that's where they come from..


I doubt it's denial driving voters away. Issues are far more involved, even here locally. Old trees will be far from many peoples mind, but that is the world we all live in.

addendum:

People are unbelievably stupid.

Well, stupid back there, ignorant here. Rose coloured glasses or devils advocates. You seem to take maddogs first post as an assault on yours and flew blind from there. You then decided my comment was just a swipe at the greens.. (who btw were just as likely capable of loosing their own constituents without the help of Labour). Really, I am wondering if you actually try to understand what motivates people posting, or even bother to read or try to understand different points of view on the related topic. I'm not sure who maddogs huckleberry really is but nobody has actually disagreed with you about old trees.. have they.

So what is it? I doubt, being involved in media you could be naive, are you trying to string us along.. stir the pot? Is it ignorant to not accept a broader discussion? The only comments I try to ignore are the vague insults, i'll go on doing so but it does get tedious.. occasionally annoying. If you expect people to just be outraged fair enough, it's a free country. Even intelligent people can choose outrage.. But this isn't the loggers & libs forum.. bush-walkers (of all colours and abilities). Perhaps even all green voters..

anyhow.. nobody seems to want to moderate the insults for you.. and you'll get a wide approval for your images=conservation approach, so carry on..

[Clusterpod↑↓]

I don't know about "they" but I made that one.

Parody and satire are very important forms of political communication.

[ILUVSWTAS↑↓]

and you'll get a wide approval for your images=conservation approach, so carry on..

And rightly so!

SBS has a strong opinion of what he believes is right, and it is a cause worth being passionate about. At least he doesn't just make nonsensical fence sitting comments that seem to favor no side to the discussion.

[stepbystep↑↓]

Haha, so that's where they come from..


I doubt it's denial driving voters away. Issues are far more involved, even here locally. Old trees will be far from many peoples mind, but that is the world we all live in.

addendum:

People are unbelievably stupid.

Well, stupid back there, ignorant here. Rose coloured glasses or devils advocates. You seem to take maddogs first post as an assault on yours and flew blind from there. You then decided my comment was just a swipe at the greens.. (who btw were just as likely capable of loosing their own constituents without the help of Labour). Really, I am wondering if you actually try to understand what motivates people posting, or even bother to read or try to understand different points of view on the related topic. I'm not sure who maddogs huckleberry really is but nobody has actually disagreed with you about old trees.. have they.

So what is it? I doubt, being involved in media you could be naive, are you trying to string us along.. stir the pot? Is it ignorant to not accept a broader discussion? The only comments I try to ignore are the vague insults, i'll go on doing so but it does get tedious.. occasionally annoying. If you expect people to just be outraged fair enough, it's a free country. Even intelligent people can choose outrage.. But this isn't the loggers & libs forum.. bush-walkers (of all colours and abilities). Perhaps even all green voters..

anyhow.. nobody seems to want to moderate the insults for you.. and you'll get a wide approval for your images=conservation approach, so carry on..

Well now that is actually a personal attack!

My comment in regards to the intelligence of voters(in general) stands. It's my opinion, deal with it. Other than that I've made one reference in this thread to you 'taking a swipe' at The Greens(and their voters), I said I felt insulted. Oh well, I'm over that now, hopefully all the Liberal voters aren't so affected by my judgement on them they'll lose sleep...

As for maddog, I've acknowledged several of his points, engaged him on some and ignored many. He and I will never see eye to eye. He's certainly failed to address many points I've bought up, as have you. So it's really a pretty poor discussion, non? I'll take your judgement of me with a grain of salt and continue doing the work I believe in.

I'd suggest you go back to bed, and exit it on the other side. perhaps you'll be less grumpy!

PS Here's another little image from a coupe no-one's meant to see. I found 6 of these grease tubes within 20 or 30 square metres, not to mention all the other rubbish left behind by these ultimate conservationists of our PM.

Attachments