Separate names with a comma.
We have a vibrant community here conversing about all sorts of non-snow topics such as music, sport, politics and technology. Simply register to reveal all our Après topics.
NOTE: This notice may be closed.
Discussion in 'Backcountry' started by Cam Walker, Apr 4, 2010.
not to mention the diminished habitat
Your point is?
wow, for some reason i hadn't noticed that this thread was still going on (and on)... nice work, everyone!
I am far too wasted from listening to Aboriginal people telling me about how the radioactive waste dump is going to trash Muckaty Station in the NT to try and be coherent. It is definitely time for beer. BUT i would say that while i support small scale native forest logging, as opposed to monoculture plantations, the sad fact is that most ash pulled out of native forests in places like Glen Wills will end up as pulp, not sawn timber and that does not sit right with me.
But, yes, this is just an attempt to pull a few coupes from the WUP - the volume of timber cut in the region will remain the same, so its not like we are calling for an end to the industry, etc. So if anyone feels inspired to write to mr Jennings that would be lovely ....
Just realised that BC forum is like an invisible friend that i talk with some times. I hope this doesn't make me a crazy person ....
wot cam said
As long as practical steps are taken to prevent human induced fires, then I really don't see what your point is.
If you don't like bush fires, um get out of the bush? Seriously. Your presence there increases the fire risk.
grab a bit of farm kit.. an old diesel tractor or truck engine... mounted on a traybed.. or plant an old truck in the saddle where my orange lift terminates... Omeo or Benambra should be full of em.
Run a simple poma (drag lift).
plenty of alternate access on logging tracks to the north and west...
Tallangatta Ski Club on Wills gets heaps on mentions...
the view from Wills..
Mount Wills summit hut.
Cam, this is the lamest form of anti logging, you had a chance to put your position forward when these coupes were proposed to be put on the TRP (not a WUP anymore), not when they have been approved for harvested and gazetted in parliament.
Like it or not timber that cannot be utilised as sawn timber is useful and i would rather be wiping my bum on well managed native forest fibre than imported rubbish, not to mention that the residual timber will be left in the bush and burnt if it isnt utilised.
Well they have been determined as appropriate through the Timber Release Plan process which assesses whether the coupe is commercially viable, whether there are any special values within the proposed harvest area - threatened flora/fauna significant cultural heritage sites, etc etc. Coupes in victoria salvage or green can only be located in state forest, which precludes harvesting in reserves/parks.
I dont see what the big issue is here - these coupes are what 30-40 hectares? to be logged over a couple of years, big deal, its a drop in the ovean when you compare it to the 250,000ha that were completely rooted last feb or the 1.25million ha burnt in 02/03.
oh please, give me a break: "well managed native forest fibre"? Do you honestly reckon it makes sense to make toilet paper from native forests in the 21st century?
but yes, you're right, i wasn't paying attention when the TRPs were put up for comment (WUPS = i'm living in the past!), theres a big patch of turf out there, can't catch them all. But we do what we can ... over and out
Hmm,.. I always wonder when people have that much faith in bureaucratic processes. I also always wonder when a first poster comes out with such strong opinions.
Cam what should toilet paper be made out of?
tele: some options for toilet paper: hemp (a good, robust plant, not the smoking kind), bagasse/ sugarcane waste (lots in QLD), trimmings from pine plantations, but best option is recycled paper. All the stuff we recycle - good office grade paper - just ends up as cardboard and similar low grade stuff, including TP. 'Safe' and 'treefree' brands are post consumer recycled paper, way better than native forest, in my opinion. regards, cam
Some interesting arguements here:
A more generic comment - rather than Wills specific.
One only has to visit the huge coupes on the easter fringes of the WHArea in Tasmania (like the Styx) to see what unchecked, broadscale logging does to the environment. It makes economic sense to cause as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible to as many valleys as possible before even thinking about substituting old growth for plantation timber. You can always change to plantation if need be down the track.
Once somewhat logged, why not continue as the bushie types won't want to walk there anymore and the conservation groups might just give up nominating such areas as new parks or WHA.
To me the O.G logging question is a bit like the debate about knocking down old heriage buildings with tall modern ones for a quick buck. Just because one can do (legally) and make a buck out of it doesn't necessarilly mean one should do it. (or that Govts should rubber stamp).
Sure its generally legal to clear fell old-growth but in the long term is it the best use of the resource when new supplies are coming on board? The crazy thing is that I understand younger trees (inc plantation) are better for chipping than large awkward old growth trees.
I'd hate to see large swathes of people in the timber industry made redudant uneccesarilly - esp overnight - but I do think this industry has to look at its long-term sustainability and examine other avenues Iincluding Govt susidies to walk away similar to the Campasbe farmers). I'm clearly not in the industry but post 03 & 09' fires, it seems there's going to be a few lean decades in Victoria before the newly resewn forests reach loggable age. So some tough decisions will be required for employees, contractors and the government/VicForest.
Try far south NSW for evidence of what logging can do.
I thought my point was bleeding obvious! You implied that fires are caused by humans (presumably European humans). I was pointing out that fires occur naturally or through other means. And fires threaten biodiversity. If some of the rubbish is cleaned up from the forest floor, the risk of high intensity fires is reduced. Good for critters, good for biodiversity.
As for your silly comment about whether I like bushfires - I think the only people who do are arsonists. But, despite not liking them, I am prepared to risk living with bushfires (reducing their impact and likelihood where I can), rather than living in ugly suburbia or a concrete jungle which I detest. My presence does not increase fire risk, rather, it reduces it.
What actually happens in the Oz bush... say, Australian mid to highland bush... without humans?
No logging. Trees fall over, detritus accumulates on forest floor.
Fires will occur via lightning strikes. The conflagration scale and speed depends on humidity etc.
Lack of rain in the SE corner of Aus over now 14 years in most cases has set fuel loads very high. Despite
'03 and '09 fires in Vic and NSW/ACT.
What would happen if we had 'normal' rainfall patterns long term? say 10 to 30 years of standard, normal climate?
Things would most likely not burn as fierce. Animals would not die in the numbers they do currently, as they have
time to flee a 'normal' fire, in normal climatic conditions.
Humans could insert a few extra 'lightning strikes' [read: controlled burns/hazard reductions] each Autumn to minimise loads for the next Spring Summer period. What? we already do? What? not everywhere? Why not everywhere?
Again it truly must be a mystery to you teckel that the natural world managed to thrive prior to humans helping to protect it
Typical ignorant attitude shown by many who may live near the bush but know so little about it. I mean are people actually going to suggest that logging can be good for forest environments? Utterly ridiculous....
No. But anyone who thinks we can sustain our current standard of living without impacting on the natural environemnt has thier head in the sand.
another lateral diversion, but definitely related given we are talking native forests and the Alps.
The VNPA have just launched a campaign calling for Mt Stirling to be incorporated/ linked into the Alpine park:
just for your info ... see you, cam
Our current standard of living would probably be better off if we didn't spend tax payer dollars subsidising logging operations in old growth forests.
Homes, furniture, musical instruments, paper (even recycled paper) are all products of logging.
Maybe we should use plastics instead - oh, they are from non-renewable sources!
How about metals - whoops, from sacred sites.
Glass? - Fraser Island?
Oh, dear, best to go back to living in caves, methinks.
We do and will use timber products. There is not real argument here.
The question is the source of trees.
The need to continue to go into old growth forests and other types of non-plantation such as burnt parks has to fundamentally prove that there are not enough plantations to meet the demand. So the question has to be asked why. The simple answer is the timber industry has failed to invets it's own future and has relied on access to public land for ever. On the free market front it proves the public does not charge enough to allow the timber industry to take timber from public land otherwise they would not do so and would spend that royaly money on generating plantations.
If public trees cost more than producing plantation then demand for public land trees would decline.
All the "we'll use to it stop the resource going to waste" arguments are really con jobs to make a buck with less investment. The more obvious ones were the planned timber fueled power stations as they technically qualified as "green" sources of energy. The intention was to utilise waste timber but cleaver folks quickly figured there was more money to be made by building the power plants then generating effictively "artificial" (logging trees to be fed straight into the power station rather than logging, using the timber as say pallets then feeding them to the power station when the timber pallet was worn out) timber waste to feed them.
If the timber industry wants trees they must invest in land and plant them. And Gunns has done just that. But clealy no where near enough to meet demand.
As a crop trees may present issues to be resolved according to folks who are now neigbours of new plantations. But that really should be a matter of applied science to resolve just as previous new crops had to resolve their issues.
But is a monoculture tree plantation better than disturbing native forests once in every 50 years?
If that is a probelm do not plant monoculture plantations, plant mixed forests.
Trees are like any other crop, there is no one planting answer. Some trees and locations will be monoculture, some will be mixed and a whole variety of trees need to be planted for different uses. Just like there are 50 different cereal crops grown.
Itâ€™s not rocket science, or though you could be forgiven for thinking so.
The only reason it does not happen is it is cheaper (that is profits are greater and generated in a shorter time frame) to buy timber off public land than invest in alternatives. Or it is cheaper to buy from off shore because other countries have the same cheap or not even charged for public trees available. Juts because this is the case it does not mean we should continue with and support the same lousy practices.
1)select the more fertile areas of native forest
2) cut down native forest. In a minority of actual cases this has been doen some distance in the past. There is a limited amount of degraded farmland that is suitable for tree plantations, that does not impinge on food growing.
5) plant monoculture or oligoculture. does anyone really believe that a plantation can mimic the diversity of a native forest, even a logged native forest?
6)more weedspray, and physical removal of competing plants
7)thin for woodchips
8) harvest saw logs
9)back to 3)
Having said all that, there is one significant advantage of plantation over native forest logging, which is that being more intensive, a smaller area of plantation is needed to produce a given amount of wood products. This is what makes plantations possibly environmentally sound overall compared with a wider area of sustainable native forest logging. The right choice is not so clear cut as many think..
Monoculture on land that's already been massively disturbed is certainly better than disturbing old growth forests.
Let's remember that at least 70% of orignal forests, prior to white settlement in Victoria for instance, have already been removed. A fair percentage of the remaining 30% has seen some disturbance either from logging or other industries over the years and much is found in mountainous areas because they were not suitable for agriculture. What's left is therefore precious and further disturbance should be minimised as much as possible.
There is plenty of non native forest land to use for plantations. It is a really crappy argumanent to say you need to cut down native forest to establish plantations. In fact it is a really stupid position to take. Whoops I forgot, this topic is deep rocket science.
This is the key point and reason not to continue to cut native forests. The timber industry and argiculture have already had a good old go and clearing all the land. In fact the only reason there is any un-cleared land at all is because it is either poor soil, steep, rocky or some other problem for normal agriculture. Now timber might say they are doing a good thing by making a good use and profit out of this otherise useless land. But I dispute the uselessness of the land and say it is a good thing to have a good big portion of the land left as is.
Park is not salvage logged - in victoria only state forest may be logged.
It is not so simple as planting trees on purchased land. What species do you plant, what provenance, location, rainfall, soil type, rotation age? If it was as easy as you imply it would already be done. Hancocks sells small amounts of sawlog from plantations in the strezleckis, but the wood is useless for structural applications and in no way matches native forest logs for appearance grade.
Its easy to point out the problems what about real solutions.
Where is this rubbish sourced from?
I dont see anyone beating up agriculture for land clearing and historic carbon debts. Opposition to forestry is an easy feel good for try hard hippies.
Of course fires can be started by other means. But if they don't occur due to human means then I'm not that worried about biodiversity loss - it's gonna happen anyway. I guess I'm a fan of "just leaving stuff alone" which a lot of people really battle with. I think actually having spent a fair bit of time working in conservation helps too.
Situations like when a concerned tourist asks me why I don't do anything about a New Zealand Sea Lion eating a Yellow Eyed Penguin have always been entertaining.
We seem to be managing pretty well in NZ. Abundant pinus radiata, no logging of native forests, and with appropriate management, monoculture forests can be sustainable. Maybe some people are just ignorant of what actually goes on in a sophisticated forestry industry.
[auto-censor] ockers can sound ignorant at times.
There is some absolute tripe amongst the last few pages.
There's very little freehold land available that would sustain mountain or alpine ash.
When the Vic govt leases land for forestry, it's generally for softwood (ie: pine)
Perhaps, altho you guys sell your logs for absolute peanuts!! Probably why all your good foresters end up in Aus, murdering and decimating our last remaining forests if you would listen to the hippies.
And they sure arent the answer - the burnt pine mill in narby isnt being rebuilt, teckel - that plantation timber simply costs too much for it to continue as a going concern.
Plantation hardwood is generally of poor quality - best suited to woodchip. For milling, you need the better quality.
What do you mean? I clearly state in the bit you quoted that much of the remaining forests are found in mountainous areas because they were not suitable for agriculture. The implication is that much of the previous clearing is from agriculture. We can't turn back the clock though can we?
The 70% I quoted was from memory and may have been for a specific type of forest (maybe grey Box?). Looking it up it appears more like we've cleared around 60% in total here in Vic.
From a DSE publication
Opposition to forestry is not just an easy feel good for try hard hippies. Many of us just believe that the few remaining areas of old growth forests should be protected. This is not about stopping all forestry operations. The continuance of logging in old growth forests is only possible because of government subsidies. As others have pointed out how long would these commercial operators continue logging old growth if it wasn't for the subsidies? Alternatives would very quickly become viable.
Is it so radical, leftist-pinko-greenie, weirdo, whatever to want to protect the few remaining old growth forest areas?
Actually, it's operating partially. It need a huge injection of funds though, to get back to where it was.
RS you should be the first to recognise just how different the Australian system is to the NZ system and how difficult it is to draw comparisons between the two.
Tecs sclerophyll species are nutrient horders and are very stingy, by removing dead wood you are activley disturbing the system in a way it has not evolved to deal with (removing nutrients which would otherwise be returned to the system). You are reducing biodiversity. The system has evolved to deal with burning, beyond that to welcome it (dependent on the appropriate frequency). Fractionalisation of habitat is a greater threat to the leadbeaters possum than any particular fire.
In what way? In environmental terms many of our plantation forests are in our driest, most degraded regions.
that is the biggest load of tripe written in this thread so far.
Timber harvesting could actually be used as a management tool to manage leadbeaters possum, which actually thrives where there is disturbance within in its home range. This releases wattle seeds stored in the soil and provides the possum within one of its chief food sources. Just mature forest is no good for the leadbeaters possum, rather a mosaic of age classes surrounding hollow bearing trees and old stags provides optimum habitat.
However this is way off the point - there are no leadbeaters possums in the coupes being discussed.
I thought we didnt trust bureaucracies around here, oooh thats right if it supports your argument then fine, however if someone of an opposing view choses to quote government info then no we dont trust that crap.
I will now call you hyppies (hypocrites) apologies for my mistake
I guess your sh*t doesnt stink either when u use non wood based TP?
back to the subject, Mt Wills. Take time to absorb this. Informative.
I did not say it would be easy and acknowledged there is a bunch of things to work out. But there has been research on the subject for more than 100 years in Australia.
The only reason it is hard is because it is cheaper to buy public timber. That is the key key point. And the only hard bit about conducting business in this way is the negotiations with the government to gain access. But that is clearly not that hard given the relative success to maintain access.
And it is true there are some species that will only grow in land types that are currently public. No big deal, just part of the total mix.
I am unsure why having an interest in the way we utilise our resources means I am a hippy in the derogatory sense. Not that I really care about the label. But starting to attack an advocate rather than their arguments suggests a weakness in the counter argument and a certain desperateness. If in doubt call people hippies (preferably smelly) because that makes them wrong and irrelevant.
I know Vermillion, it is hard in this day of 128 character tweeting to absorb more than 2.1 secs worth of visual input.
But it shows how logging continues in the Wills area.. and how a buffer zone has been agreed for the eastern edge of the Alpine NP (to the west of Wills towards FCreek and Bogong). There are conservation areas in abundance.
And no indication of plans to log close to Glen Wills, or Mt Wills. However, this DSE tool
may be retrospective, not prospective.
This might help. Vermy and others. Heaps forest activity, and protection.
Yes, somehow there is an extra Mt Bogong label, north of Wills. Ignore it.
The amount harvested over the past 40 years or so is minute! Anyone reading this thread would be assuming it was 50% or greater! It would be lucky to be 1%.