The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Mining is acceptable but forestry is not. Australia actually imports more timber than it exports. If want to save a tree stop buying imported timber.

AustralianForests regrow or can be replanted Indonesian and Brazillian forests do not. Pulp (defective trees) makes hardwood forestry for high value timber economic. Once the areas currently being harvested regrow the pulp will come from young thinnings and high value hardwood will come from the mature trees in 80 years time. Less pulp will be generated because there will be less defective trees.

Forestry is one of the most environmental primary industries.

To the best of my knowledge alpine ash and American redwoods vie for the tallest trees in the world.

0 Replies

Dadpad,

Qld has the highest rate of tree clearing in the world, only behind Brazil. They are cleared for grazing, and are not replaced.

Australia did have the highest trees in the world...we don't now - they are all cut down. I would have liked to have seen those trees.

Many areas of forest that are cleared, are replanted with single species of trees that regrow quickly. Some are replanted with 'several' varieties, but the biodiversity can never be properly replaced.

Some places may 'rejuvenate' quickly, while other places, due to soil, erosion, whether etc may not.

Some places are only fertile because of the centuries of mulch that trees have been dropping...clearfelling and replanting damages all that.

Trees are required for greater rain.

Trees are required as a balance to polution.

Old growth forests can take centuries to grow back. Cutting them down and planting a few species does not in any way 'rejuvenate' what took centuries to create.

There are species within Tasmania that are millenia in age.

Now maybe you are comfortable chopping down centuries old wood for a quick buck, but I am not.

I very much advocate states setting aside land for State plantations (As QLD has done), so that more and more, and more and more, and more and more, and more and more forest doesn't have to be destroyed....I kept repeating more and more...because it never ends...the need for a quick buck keeps them away from plantations.

The worst thing is...with a bit of planning...clearing natural forest is not necessary.

If it's not necessary, and it has so many environmental and heritage defects...how can anyone justify it?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Dadpad,

Qld has the highest rate of tree clearing in the world, only behind Brazil. They are cleared for grazing, and are not replaced.

Australia did have the highest trees in the world...we don't now - they are all cut down. I would have liked to have seen those trees.

Many areas of forest that are cleared, are replanted with single species of trees that regrow quickly. Some are replanted with 'several' varieties, but the biodiversity can never be properly replaced.

Some places may 'rejuvenate' quickly, while other places, due to soil, erosion, whether etc may not.

Some places are only fertile because of the centuries of mulch that trees have been dropping...clearfelling and replanting damages all that.

Trees are required for greater rain.

Trees are required as a balance to polution.

Old growth forests can take centuries to grow back. Cutting them down and planting a few species does not in any way 'rejuvenate' what took centuries to create.

There are species within Tasmania that are millenia in age.

Now maybe you are comfortable chopping down centuries old wood for a quick buck, but I am not.

I very much advocate states setting aside land for State plantations (As QLD has done), so that more and more, and more and more, and more and more, and more and more forest doesn't have to be destroyed....I kept repeating more and more...because it never ends...the need for a quick buck keeps them away from plantations.

The worst thing is...with a bit of planning...clearing natural forest is not necessary.

If it's not necessary, and it has so many environmental and heritage defects...how can anyone justify it?

I'm a member of the institute of foresters of Australia Vikkor (IFA) and also an Australian forest growers member.

Pretty much everything you said is wrong.

0 Replies

Please go through point by point then, and tell me which ones are wrong, because I've done enough reading to have said that most of it (perhaps not all) is correct....which makes for a very confusing conversation.

Now I've never truly considered myself a greenie, because I'm not bothered to go out there and protest over these things, and I don't write much about it. But the simple fact is, the felling of old growth forest makes me very sad.

0 Replies

By the way, so you know where I got my info from :

Quote:

Qld has the highest rate of tree clearing in the world, only behind Brazil. They are cleared for grazing, and are not replaced.

Newspaper I read

Quote:

Australia did have the highest trees in the world...we don't now - they are all cut down. I would have liked to have seen those trees.

National Park informational sign

Quote:

Many areas of forest that are cleared, are replanted with single species of trees that regrow quickly. Some are replanted with 'several' varieties, but the biodiversity can never be properly replaced.

TV article..

Quote:

Some places may 'rejuvenate' quickly, while other places, due to soil, erosion, whether etc may not.

as an example, rainforest felling - the rainforest doesn't spring back, not even in a century...this was something I was taught in school...it obviously doesn't go on with rainforests anymore (at least...I would hope not)

Quote:

Some places are only fertile because of the centuries of mulch that trees have been dropping...clearfelling and replanting damages all that.

Seems common sense to me...rainforests fit into this category, but as I understand it, they go through the old growth forest stage before they get to the rainforest stage

Quote:

Trees are required for greater rain.

Don't recall this exactly...either TV, Bureau of Meteorology, or some map.

Quote:

Trees are required as a balance to polution.

Shouldn't they be, seeing as they suck in CO2?

Quote:

Old growth forests can take centuries to grow back. Cutting them down and planting a few species does not in any way 'rejuvenate' what took centuries to create.

Sorry, on this one it's plain common sense. You cannot grow back in 80 years what took hundreds of years to create.

Quote:

There are species within Tasmania that are millenia in age.

Huon Pine is one if I remember right, with some of the dead part of the tree being aged at around 10,000 years. News/TV Articles (plural)

Quote:

Now maybe you are comfortable chopping down centuries old wood for a quick buck, but I am not.

Opinion

Quote:

I very much advocate states setting aside land for State plantations (As QLD has done), so that more and more, and more and more, and more and more, and more and more forest doesn't have to be destroyed....I kept repeating more and more...because it never ends...the need for a quick buck keeps them away from plantations

.
Qld does have plantations (prorbably should have more if the need is there).

Quote:

The worst thing is...with a bit of planning...clearing natural forest is not necessary.

Opinion...but please explain, from your point of view, just How cutting down forests, instead of planting plantations, is necessary?

Quote:

If it's not necessary, and it has so many environmental and heritage defects...how can anyone justify it?

question to tack onto the one above

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

vikorr wrote:
Dadpad,

Qld has the highest rate of tree clearing in the world, only behind Brazil. They are cleared for grazing, and are not replaced.

Australia did have the highest trees in the world...we don't now - they are all cut down. I would have liked to have seen those trees.

Many areas of forest that are cleared, are replanted with single species of trees that regrow quickly. Some are replanted with 'several' varieties, but the biodiversity can never be properly replaced.

Some places may 'rejuvenate' quickly, while other places, due to soil, erosion, whether etc may not.

Some places are only fertile because of the centuries of mulch that trees have been dropping...clearfelling and replanting damages all that.

Trees are required for greater rain.

Trees are required as a balance to polution.

Old growth forests can take centuries to grow back. Cutting them down and planting a few species does not in any way 'rejuvenate' what took centuries to create.

There are species within Tasmania that are millenia in age.

Now maybe you are comfortable chopping down centuries old wood for a quick buck, but I am not.

I very much advocate states setting aside land for State plantations (As QLD has done), so that more and more, and more and more, and more and more, and more and more forest doesn't have to be destroyed....I kept repeating more and more...because it never ends...the need for a quick buck keeps them away from plantations.

The worst thing is...with a bit of planning...clearing natural forest is not necessary.

If it's not necessary, and it has so many environmental and heritage defects...how can anyone justify it?

I'm a member of the institute of foresters of Australia Vikkor (IFA) and also an Australian forest growers member.

Pretty much everything you said is wrong.

I am very interested to see you cite the independent scientific sources which support your view.

I do not see the affiliations you cite as providing any evidence at all of the views you state.....but I am very open to analysing your evidence for them.

Awaiting with anticipation.

0 Replies

dlowan, are you talking to Dadpad, or myself?

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

dlowan, are you talking to Dadpad, or myself?

To dadpad, Vikorr.

0 Replies

knock yourselves out.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/COMMITTEE/ecita_ctte/nationalparks/submissions/sublist.htm

Forest facts

Disturbance is a dominant force in forest development and if forests were not capable of recovering their full diversity from virtual total destruction by, for example, fire, climatic change, insect outbreaks and cyclones there would be few forests today. After completing an extensive review of the scientific literature on responses following disturbance of forest composition, diversity and structure,

"Natural disturbance and change are fundamental to ecosystem diversity and sustainability; by our understanding of the processes of disturbance and recovery after disturbance, we should be able to accommodate planned [forest] management within the framework of natural disturbance."
Peter Attiwill (1994, p. 4)
Despite the claim that clearfelling and other logging operations alter forests in ways that are quite different from natural changes (Traill 1995) many areas that have been logged are now in national parks and other reserves. According to the Resource Assessment Commission (1992, p.85), only 49 per cent of eucalypt forest in conservation reserves is unlogged, 51 per cent being regrowth from logging undertaken prior to the reserves being established.

My son is chucking me off the computer.

so I'll have to do an Arnold.

0 Replies

(Excuse the interrruption to this discussion.)
Will just post a few post-interest rate rise cartoons (while they're still current) before heading off to bed.:

Howard sorry about rate rise
Posted 10 hours 27 minutes ago
Updated 7 hours 55 minutes ago

Prime Minister John Howard says he is sorry about the interest rate rise.

Official interest rates rose to their highest level in 10 years yesterday to 6.5 per cent.

Mr Howard has told Macquarie Radio he has taken a hammering about the Reserve Bank decision this morning.

"Sure, we've had an interest rate rise and I'm sorry about that - I regret it," he said.

"I didn't want an interest rate rise. But one has come about because the Reserve Bank, in its independent judgement, has made the call that the economy is so strong the best thing in the long-term interest of the economy is to adjust interest rates." ..... <cont>

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/08/09/2000621.htm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5602350,00.jpg

0 Replies

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/08/moir9807_gallery__470x285,0.jpg

0 Replies

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/08/wbTOONtandberg0908_gallery__470x355.jpg

0 Replies

Please continue now ..... Very Happy

...& as I head off, I'd like to state my complete opposition to the destruction of old growth forests for the woodchipping industry. How can we allow such precious natural resources to be squandered in this way? So much lost for so little gain!

0 Replies

Quote:

There are species within Tasmania that are millenia in age.
Huon Pine is one if I remember right, with some of the dead part of the tree being aged at around 10,000 years. News/TV Articles (plural)

International headlines were made with the discovery of a stand of Huon pines on the west coast (of tassie) that is more than 10,000-years-old. All the trees are male and are genetically identical. No individual tree in the stand is 10,000-years-old, rather the stand itself has been in existence for that long. Today, the tree is wholly protected and cannot be felled. (Same applies to Myrtle beech)
Huon pine lasts on the forest floor for centuries It doesn't rot. I suspect this is what your recollection relates to.

Quote:

The worst thing is...with a bit of planning...clearing natural forest is not necessary.
Opinion...but please explain, from your point of view, just How cutting down forests, instead of planting plantations, is necessary?

Removing Native forest harvesting at this time will cause the industry to collapse and a plantation industry will never develop fully and we will be stuck with illegally harvested Indonesian rain forest trees.

I find it difficult to understand why it has taken Australia so long to come to the conclusion that plantation forestry is necessary. However much of the decision making in regard to this relates to research conducted in the 1980's where poor results were achieved from ash type trials. I believe we are slowly addressing this. The economics of plantion forestry are the subject of much current debate.

Quote:

Now maybe you are comfortable chopping down centuries old wood for a quick buck, but I am not.

There is no such thing as a "quick" buck in forestry. I wish I could take you to see the harvest coups in this area to show just how well they do recover. Yes harvesting finishes and sites look like a nuclear explosion. but with the correct treatment and site management they do recover and begin the cycle all over again.

Quote:

Some places are only fertile because of the centuries of mulch that trees have been dropping...clearfelling and replanting damages all that.

Soil fertility is defendant on way more than the over story but thats a whole other science. If good techniques are used very little erosion occurs and pioneer species quickly re establish.

Pollution: CO2 is absorbed but only in an actively growing forest (which old growth is not). so... want to absorb Co2? cutting down and regrowing the trees is the way to go. Absorbed co2 is stored in timber products.

Rain: Well maybe, if every tree was cut down and nothing regrew we might end up with less rain. All vegetation recycles water, grasses cycle water faster than trees so if you want rain grow grass.

To provide substantive and accredited research would take ages so I'm not gonna do it. But you are welcome to do your own research.

Heres some more links.
http://www.mtg.unimelb.edu.au/info/supporters.htm

Agroforestry news

0 Replies

While the ordinanary worker is being screwed by bonzai's AWAs, the captains of industry are doing very nicely thank you.

Telstra boss rings up $11.8m pay

Jesse Hogan, Sydney
August 10, 2007

HIS company's share price is languishing and its earnings have climbed by a modest 2.9 per cent, but this has not stopped the annual pay of Telstra chief executive Sol Trujillo from soaring to $11.8 million.

Mr Trujillo's package hit the astonishing figure after his remuneration jumped 35 per cent in 2006-07, thanks largely to performance bonuses.

While investors in last year's T3 share issue have so far done well under Mr Trujillo's watch, the company's overall share price is 54 cents lower than it was when the 55-year-old began the job in July 2005.
Mr Trujillo has a base salary of $3 million a year. Anything more depends on his achieving short-term and long-term objectives set by the board.

Australia's highest paid chief executive officer, Macquarie Bank's Allan Moss, receives $33.5 million a year, although a large portion of his pay is tied to performance.

Newly appointed ANZ chief executive Michael Smith's annual package of up to $12 million will beat the remuneration of his counterparts at Commonwealth Bank and National Australia Bank.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/telstra-boss-rings-up-118m-pay/2007/08/09/1186530533408.html

0 Replies

www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

0 Replies

www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

0 Replies

Hi Dadpad

It seems you hardly disagreed with me then...which makes your original statement a little confusing.

Yes, I know the Huon Pine stand is a collective organism, and that no living part of it is 10,000 years old...I said 10,000 years, because I have no idea how old the oldest tree actually is...still an amazing thing is it not?

When I said "a quick buck' I was referring to the difference in time between logging forests, and planting a plantation then logging it

Nor was I advocating the immediate elimination of forestry... hence why I mentioned something along the lines of 'with proper planning, logging old growth forests would not be necessary'...proper planning meaning planting plantations.

For me, I would have liked to have seen a govt say "We will implement immediate reforms, to have plantations enabled...so we can start cutting back on forestry. Seeing most land is controlled by the States...this is a state responsibility. I'm not sure how the Fed Govt became involved in Tasmania?

0 Replies

Quote:

For me, I would have liked to have seen a govt say "We will implement immediate reforms, to have plantations enabled...so we can start cutting back on forestry.

The gov already has. Although their commitment to High value sawlog production from plantations seems to me a little less than the full bannana.

http://www.plantations2020.com.au/

This PDF explains what is happening with plantation resources. Be carefull however to differentiate between pine, dedicated pulp crops, and sawlog regiems.

http://www.plantations2020.com.au/assets/acrobat/aust_forest_plantations.PDF

There really is very little "old growth" forest and never really has been. At least here in victoria. The fire cycle sees to that most areas harvested here are '39 regen. Trees grown after the '39 fires.

This is a difficult document to download but gives a good overview of the current situation.
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/forestry_wildlife/forest_policy_ctr/CABI/Book/0851995993Ch6.pdf

0 Replies

You know, dadpad, I couldn't care less about the "scientific" arguments. This is not what any of this is about to me.
I am not going to use so-called scientific or economic arguments to to support the notion that old growth forests are valuable in their own right to Australians. This is about conservation. These forests are beautiful. They are unique. Endangered flora & fauna depend on them to live & to survive. How many lifetimes would it take to replace what we are destroying now? Are these concerns irrelevant in your scheme of things?

A few questions: What exactly bs "the institute of forests"? (I think I got the title right) which you belong to? What is the platform of this organization? What is your connection to this organization?

0 Replies

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know