What are the issues affecting forestry, timber harvesting, the loss of habitats? Environmental Scientist, Dr Beth Schulz says logging is a crime against nature. Forester and Chair of the WA division of Foresters of Australia, John Clarke says anti-logging protestors have got it wrong and that Western Australia's regrowth forests are thriving. Read the full article as the two sides of the forestry debate are presented
DR BETH SCHULTZ - The case against logging native forests - we lose them
The madness of logging our forests. It is anyone’s guess why the State Government wants logging in native forests to continue. Against all the evidence, it claims that logging is sustainable.
So let’s turn the question round and ask: why should we stop logging native forests?
For starters, there’s climate change. Already, across the landscape, trees are dying. Without enough rain, the forests won’t grow back after being logged, especially under the intense logging practices being used today.
Given the 20 per cent decline in south-west WA’s annual rainfall over the past 40 years and further decline more than likely, if we want forests for the future, we must stop logging now.
In preparing the current forest management plan, the Department of Environment and Conservation used rainfall data only up to 1961, and the modelling it used to arrive at the allowable cut was unable to factor in the decreasing rainfall.
A mathematical ecologist examined the process and said it was little more than a logging schedule.
Next, diseases are degrading and killing trees. There is the well-known Phytophthora dieback in jarrah forests. More summer rain due to climate change will provide ideal conditions for this disease, so it’s going to get worse. And logging helps it spread.
There is the less well-known Armillaria fungus, which is rife in the karri regrowth resulting from extensive past clear-felling. This and other fungi can kill young karri and degrade the wood in the surviving trees. DEC scientists say that for disease management, the best option is to leave the regrowth alone. Almost one-third of all the karri forest has been reduced to immature even-aged stands full of fungal rot. It won’t ever produce good sawlogs — just chip logs for export woodchips — so let’s leave it to store carbon and provide homes for wildlife.
Then there are the virtually unknown Quambalaria fungi that are attacking and killing marri trees and deforming their blossom and nuts. The wonderful marri is a keystone species, the lynchpin of the forests, providing food, shelter and nest sites for countless species, from insects to cockatoos. With marri trees dying across their range, the DEC and Forest Products Commission are poisoning them because they don’t produce good sawlogs and, according to foresters and loggers, they should be replaced by jarrah. All killing of marri should stop immediately.
The economic costs of logging are another good reason to stop. Some of the logging companies have been making only about one per cent on their investment and a business can’t continue on that basis.
The Forest Products Commission has been losing money for years — $13 million last year — while hiding its losses behind creative accounting. WA taxpayers are subsidising the destruction of our forests.
We could save money — even make money — by leaving our forests to grow and regrow naturally.
Native forests store large amounts of carbon, which is released when they are logged and burnt.
As they regrow, the carbon is recaptured but that takes decades, possibly centuries. And if logged forests don’t regrow because there isn’t enough rain, the carbon will remain in the atmosphere and make climate change worse when, if left alone, forests could continue to capture and store carbon and provide a remedy for climate change.
Jarrah, karri, marri, tuart, tingle and wandoo forests are part of all West Australians’ and the world’s heritage. They grow within an internationally recognised biodiversity hotspot. They are homes to countless native species, many of which use them as their last refuge — woylies, tammars, quendas and cockatoos. We all have a moral obligation to protect our forests and their inhabitants to ensure their continued existence.
After 150 years of abusing our forests and stripping them for their wood, mostly for base products like paving blocks, railway sleepers, woodchips and firewood, we should now stop.
Yes, we need wood but that can come from plantations growing in WA and interstate. Some native timber will continue to be produced here, coming from mine sites because short-sighted State governments gave multi-national mining giants a foothold in our forests where they will continue to strip-mine 1000ha a year for the next 30 years. And other companies are lining up to strip-mine jarrah forest for bauxite.
That must not be allowed to happen.
Few readers of The West Australian would realise it, but the process to develop a new 10-year management plan for WA’s beautiful, unique, publicly-owned jarrah and karri forests has formally begun. It will determine, among other things, the amount of logging allowed in our forests for another 10 years.
Already it is clear that the Government wants to maintain unsustainable levels of logging.
Although in 2001 the Gallop Labor government protected many outstanding old-growth forests, many other high conservation value forests remain unprotected and continue to be available for logging.
The Forest Products Commission has just begun logging some of the last unprotected mature jarrah forest at Warrup, south-east of Bridgetown. It is after the high quality logs in the old-growth trees left behind when the forest was selectively logged in the 1960s. Warrup forest forms a corridor that links areas of protected forest, where endangered species have some hope of surviving climate change.
With this forest gone, more species of endangered fauna will be driven closer to extinction.
Nothing can justify this crime against nature.
Dr Beth Schultz has been a forests activist for almost 40 years with the Conservation Council of WA and now the WA Forest Alliance
JOHN CLARKE - The case for logging of native forests - regrowth thrives
Even after 35 years of working in the State's forests and plantations, I never tire of standing on the edge of Caves Road near Margaret River admiring the majesty of the Boranup karri forest, its tall tress gleaming in the dappled sunlight, the rich smell of the undergrowth, birds twittering. Many people standing at that spot might reflect on how pleasing it is that all of WA's old-growth forests are reserved from timber harvesting.
But the Boranup forest, now a national park, isn't old growth. The forest we admire is 100 per cent regrowth. It was clear-felled late in the 19th century, a testament to the regenerative power of our native forests.
Many areas of forest are similar. Consider the karri regeneration at Big Brook and Treen Brook forest blocks near Pemberton, arguably that area's most popular tourist destination. Consider the magnificent jarrah regrowth forests stretching from Dwellingup through Harvey and Collie, Kirup and Balingup, Bridgetown and Nannup. These forests have been harvested for timber on more than one occasion. They stand today as fine examples of regrowth forest yet they continue to attract protestors who are often prepared to step outside the law in their bid to disrupt sustainable harvesting.
Ironically, areas of forest which are totally dug up for mineral wealth receive no such attention.
Some people remember past protests and blockades, especially in the 1980s and 90s. Forest block names such as Graphite, Wattle, Giblett and Shannon spring to mind. In every case, despite cries to save those forests from destruction, areas harvested are now displaying health, productive regrowth which will be available for harvesting again in the future.
Our forests have evolved over millennia and readily cope with disturbance. Moreover fauna and flora are highly adaptable to change.
There is little wonder that monitoring the effects of harvesting has shown that biodiversity is under no threat from sustainable harvesting.
In fact, scientific data suggest that our forests are thriving.
The long-term project, ForestCheck, managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation, monitors 48 plots across the breadth of the forest, comparing biodiversity in harvested areas with undisturbed areas.
No species has been "lost".
Plots harvested in the 1990s have rapidly recovered, so much so that after less than 20 years in many cases biodiversity is similar to undisturbed forest. Plots examined 40 years after disturbance show that biodiversity is indistinguishable from virgin forest.
West Australians should be proud of their timber heritage, but also thankful there is a profession known as "forestry". The first settlers worked hard to clear patches of jarrah, karri and wandoo to create farmland and build houses and infrastructure. They had little concern for conservation or sustainable forest management.
Timber harvesting was not managed until Charles Lane Poole, an intelligent and dogged young English forester, drafted the first Forests Act in 1918. That resulted in some two million hectares of south-western native forests being reserved from clearing for agriculture and establishment of the Forests Department to protect and manage the forests and oversee the associated timber industry.
Those forests and that timber industry are still going strong. They play an integral role in fostering the social and economic fabric of the South West by employing over 5000 people directly and providing timber products that we all value.
We often hear the cry to save the "last" remaining patch of forest as if it were an island in the midst of desolation. These calls to stop harvesting are unfounded. We should ask why these forests and full range of animals and plants have survived after 150 years of harvesting and burning. The reality is the scale of harvesting is within the natural levels of disturbances. A tiny 0.5% of the forest is harvested each year.
The real threats to our species are well known. Habitat loss happens when forest is permanently cleared, not when it is sustainably harvested. Foxes and cats are the predators, not chainsaws. Similarly, black cockatoos are vulnerable to permanent clearing, competition for nest sites by feral bees and other parrots and irregular seeding cycles exacerbated by drought, not sustainable harvesting with retention of thousands of habitat trees.
The option of doing nothing in the face of climate change will be a death sentence to many of our unique species. Large areas of forest will likely collapse from reduced rainfall, with the most vulnerable areas being forest streams, wetlands and rock outcrops; all areas where species richness is high.
Water tables in the northern jarrah forest have already fallen 10m since the 1990s and projections by the Water Corporation suggest they will continue to fall in coming decades. This will see our perennial forest streams turn into pools and eventually the pools into dust. Vegetation surrounding these streams will die out as will dependent species such as the quokka, quenda and red-eared firetail flinch. It is very possible our dams will become near-empty white elephants. Perth will need to find an additional 90 gigalitres of water from expensive and greenhouse-unfriendly sources like desalination plants.
There is however an opportunity to protect some of the forests from climate change and at the same time sustain a low-cost public water supply from our forests. The northern jarrah forests should be thinned where there is sufficient rainfall to promote run-off for both environment and public benefit. This water will come at a fraction of the cost of desalinated water, it will use a fraction of the energy and it will produce a fraction of the greenhouses gases.
The sustainable management of our forests is self-evident if you stand on Caves Road. The timber that was harvested more than 100 years ago has regrown. it is a gift of nature that careful stewardship of the forest will see it grow and regrow for the benefit of today's and tomorrow's generations.
Comments
Biodiversity, ecotourism, climate change need logging stopped
It is insane to think that "sustainable" logging can occur.
As soon as you clear fell a forest you have destroyed an ecosystem, and that system can never return to its natural state.
Moreover, as the above article clearly states, these "regrowth" forests are set to be logged every 80 years ad infinitum. In fact, the forest the writer speaks of, the Boranup Karri forest, which is indeed so admired by visitors to the area, ought, according to proper forest management, be logged today! What then would visitors to the south west have to gaze at then?
And this is one of the terrible prices that is paid for logging. The attractiveness of the south west is diminished, aside from the fact that these forests can never return to their former glory. If you want to see an old growth forest, you do not go to Boranup to find it. And the mere suggestion that Boranup in any manner shape or form represents a prehistoric pristine native forest is bizarre in the extreme. It simply isn't so.
John Clarke argues that there are no old growth forests in the south west. What he is really saying is that in the past forests were selectively logged for individual trees. Many forests have been disturbed in this way, but they have retained their authenticity as old growth forests. These forests are today being clear felled in a way that was never done in the past. The ecosystem that they represent is being destroyed.
There are three very good reasons that I know of for protecting these forests. One is for biodiversity. Species loss in Australia is bordering on an epidemic. In very many places we simply do not know what we are killing. New species are always being found, but we are losing species at a faster rate than they are being found. All drugs come from plants. The cure to cancer could be found in these diminishing ecosystems. They can never regenerate under the logging operations currently in place, because as soon as the forest is 80 years old it will be relogged. It can never reclaim its status as an old growth forest. It is a lie to say that they will ever resemble an old growth forest again. For anyone in the south west of Western Australia, I ask you to visit Boranup and some of these other forests that are regrowth forests from clear felling operations. Then get a four wheel drive and go an visit some of the truly magnificent old growth forests that have remained virtually intact in national reserves etc. The difference is staggering. Certainly an 80 year old Karri is majestic. But a 400 year old Karri is simply breathtaking.
The second reason not to log our native, old growth forests is because we can certainly provide for the needs of people who require wood through plantation timber, and visitors to our region do not want to visit plantation or regrowth forest, they want to visit our truly old growth and pristine forests. This demand for ecotourism is only increasing with time. As the planet shrinks, when the economy is more robust, more and more overseas tourists will visit Western Australia to see these magnificent, pristine ecosystems. Walking through these forests is an experience unparallelled in Western Australia. To suggest that the regrowth forest of Boranup that you can view whilst driving along Caves Road is in any manner shape or form the same as breathing the air of these historic and pristine old growth forests is simply a furphy of the logging industry. We don't need to log our old growth forests. We have already destroyed enough of our forests. Disease and diminishing species are proof that we need to reclaim our forests, and to preserve what we have left.
The final reason that we should preserve our old growth forests is because they are carbon sinks. An old growth forests takes carbon out of the atmosphere. They ameliorate climate change. The biggest cause of climate change over time has been the loss of our forests, because when our forests are logged they release carbon into the atmosphere, all of that carbon they have stored over time is returned to the atmosphere. Old growth forests continue to take carbon out of the atmosphere and return oxygen to the atmosphere. For a forest that is clearfelled and replanted, it takes 80 years for that plantation timber to become carbon neutral, that is, to take out of the atmosphere the same amount of carbon that has been used to create it. And it is at this point, at this critical point, when that regrowth forest could perhaps begin to ameliorate climate change once again, that it will be LOGGED AGAIN. All of that carbon it can potentially take out of the atmosphere is instead returned to the atmosphere. Plantation timber harvested over an 80 year period is carbon neutral. Destroying our native forests is not. The destruction of the Amazon rainforest is one of the truly tragic events of our time. Not only because it is a wonder of the modern world, but because it is so important to the balance of the world. But every society ought to be protecting what is left of their native forests, for we are all responsible for what happens to the planet.
Logging of our old growth forests, forests that have either never been logged or have only been selectively logged in the past, is a travesty that has to stop. We need to stop it. It is essential for biodiversity, for ecotourism, and for the amelioration of climate change.
Noel hits a speed bump
Noel's fizzog reasons come from the philosophy that nature must remain untouched as a precept to everything.
REason 1 : Biodiversity. Extensive monitoring of the forest after timber harvesting has demonstrated that biodiversity recovers. DEC scientists cannot distinguish between the biodiversity of old growth and 40 year old regrowth.
Reason 2: There are alternatives. Yes there are - there are steel and concrete and aluminium. None of which are sustainable, all of which use much more energy and produce carbon dioxide in spades. There are no plantations to replace native timber. Even the pine plantations are in decline WA has lost 20% of its plantations in recent years.
Reasons 3> all old growth forests are protected. Old growth is a carbon sink but is actually in a steady state. The trees are growing at the same rate as the are os the are emitting carbon, so they do not improve the situation. Harvesting forests and storing carbon as timber, using waste to reslce fossil fuel, replacing high energy steel and concrete and rapidly growing regrowth is a cocktail of a dynamic carbon sink which increases over time.
Only lies can support the madness of logging old growth forests
Sorry to be disingenuous, but can you send us some links to those reports that say deforestation does not result in a loss of biodiversity? The south west of Western Australia is a biodiversity hotspot, and we know that species loss does and has occurred because of deforestation, to claim otherwise is a nonsense.
I said the ready alternative is not steel and concrete and aluminium but TREES. Plantation timber is an enormous resource that exists already. Plantation timber is not regrowth forest, it is farmed wood, not free wood taken from ancient ecosystems. No-one claims that wood ought not to be used, lets just grow what we need, rather than raping our remaining forests.
On the climate science of old growth forests, let me know if you want me to drag out some research to back up my claim, or else perhaps you could provide some research to substantiate your own claims that old growth forests do not take carbon out of the atmosphere.
The eco tourism issue has not been addressed by you. Nor has my point that under your model the Boranup forest ought to be logged TODAY. But it will not be logged. Why? Because it is considered a treasure of the south west. Our ancient forests are also treasures.
It is a madness that we continue to log our old growth forests, and it can only be supported by disinformation and lies.
A forestry lesson for Noel
Dear Noel, it's Nifty Numbat from Warrup block here.
You are obviously confused and don't fully understand forestry terminology. I've had a chat to some foresters and I feel very comfortable here at Warrup. Let me pass on some of their knowledge to you:
1. Timber harvesting on State forest with regeneration is not "deforestation". Deforestation happens when forest is cleared permanently for farmland or plantations. Much of the State's forests have been harvested a number of times and they're going fine, except that in some places there's too much regeneration. A bit of thinning would be good for the forest.
2. Biodiversity is not harmed by sustainable harvesting.
ForestCheck, the biodiversity monitoring programme run by DEC scientists is proving conclusively that harvesting, and prescribed burning, do not adversely affect the long term welfare of any species of mammal, bird, reptile, insect, fungi, moss or liverwort in our forests. Nearly 3000 species have been monitored. And in fact, disturbance by harvesting and burning actually enhances biodiversity. This has been published in "Australian Forestry", a refereed journal registered by the Department of Science, Education and Training. The threats to me and my family here in the forest are foxes and feral cats, and the occasional carpet snake, not the odd bit of timber harvesting.
3. Plantations capable of providing the timber products harvested from our native forests just don't exist. If you and your friends want to buy a cleared farm and grow some trees which can substitute our native timbers, then go for it. I'm not going to hold my breath though. Additional plantations in WA have to be grown by private enterprise, and that's not about to happen any time soon, given the cost of land and labour in this part of the world. And I'm sure you wouldn't want Australia to add to the $2billion per year deficit already in timber products, with a lot of that wood most likely harvested unsustainably in some poor part of the world.
4. It's illegal to harvest old growth forests in the south-west. I can't understand why you keep going on about old growth forests. They are in a "carbon balance", except of course when a wildfire causes thousands of tonnes of CO2 to be emitted. The best way to sequester carbon is to use wood from a sustainably managed harvesting operation for things like houses, furniture, flooring, joinery, etc.
5. Ecotourism has no issue with sustainable harvesting. I'm not sure what your beef is regarding ecotourism. You mention Boranup, one of the most popular forest scenes in the south west. That forest was harvested and regenerated, and it is magnificent. The less than 0.5% of forest subject to harvesting in any one year - in the 35% of the total forest available for harvesting - doesn't bother any of the "ecotourists" I've bumped into. Instead, they love to visit the south-west knowing that there is still a thriving industry based on one of the few renewable resources in this State. I'm sure that when our mining industry runs out of steam, the good old timber industry will still be chugging along and the forests will still be there, growing and regrowing for all of us.
Cheers, and don't forget to run over the next fox you see down my way.
Logging industry has a bias to free timber of the south west
Nifty Numbat you are simply misinformed. And for science you refer to the industry's own research, rather than independent, peer referred research. We know the logging industry has a bias in wanting the free timber of the south west. They don't want to grow their own. There are vast forests of plantation timber already available, but why pay for that when you can harvest it free from our native forests?
Again you refer to Boranup as an example of a regrowth forest. And again I say to you, shouldn't you already have logged that forest again?
But your arguments are tedious. Please provide links to evidence of your claims and I will consider them. Without links I can only presume they are the stuff of dreams.
Dont let the facts stand in the way of your opinion
The simple facts are Noel that
* the area of plantations is reducing not increasing, nobody wants to invest in them, I bet you dont, I bet you invest in non-renewable mining companies, like everyone else. There are no substitute plantations, and even if we started today it would take 25to 40 years before there would be a resource for a plantation sawlog industry to take over from the native forests. Have you seen Gnangara, the area of plantation is being lost and not replanted. In 10 years the pine plantations will be gone forever unless they are replaced, but no-one wants to do it.
* yes regrowth forest can be harvested in perpetuity - that's the point it is sustainable - or like in Boranup you can choose to keep it for other values, but no matter what well managed forest regrows. Yes Boranup would be harvested again if it were available for timber, but that's the beauty of our system, some parts of the forest are retained to grow to an old age and others are harvested
* old growth forest, by definition, does not accumulate carbon because it dies as fast as it grows (which is very slowly). While it is an excellent store of carbon it does not accumulate any more carbon. There is some research done in tasmanian wet sclerophyll forests and some east coast forests, but as yet none in WA
* Nifty's forest check research is done by the department of environment. In that research it shows that biodiversity recovers very rapidly following harvesting. After 40 years scientists can't tell the difference between regrowth forests and old growth. This is peer reviewed science and published. These forests and their animals have evolved with disturbance and can live with it. (go to the DEC website and check it out)
* ecotourism doesn't create significant economic activity. In any case there is more than enough forests for ecotourism and timber production. There is the massive Walpole wilderness, I bet there isn't more than 1 tourist for every 10000 hectares of forest. Since 2004 the number of tourists in the southwest has reduced. Tourism is dying in the southwest. All the wineries that started up with promise have now closed their restaurant doors south of Donnybrook. This is just a furphy, it has no economic reality. In truth nobody goes bush walking in the karri forest because its too thick to walk through except on trails and roads. Ecotourism is a small industry but it doesn't need every hectare of forest
The facts are Noel some people want the forest to remain undisturbed and they think up all the reasons they can to justify their personal value. People will claim that cockatoos need to be protected and that numbats will become extinct because of timber harvesting. Now we are hearing about ecotourism and carbon stores. Any argument is good enough even if it is hot air.
Ecotourism is a delusion
Ask in Manjimup and the southwest about the tourist industry - it's dying.
As for ecotourism, it's a cottage industry - I don't think that backpackers actually spend more than a few dollars in a community, grey nomads try to avoid even sleeping in caravan parks.
Noel these forests have been cut and regrown for 150 years and they are still supporting all the animals they did when it started. They regrow to such an extent that they are icons.
Forests with timer harvesting is sustainable.
Cutting down trees doesn't release the carbon Noel. It is stored in wood products or remains on the forest floor. Go to the forest 50 years later and the tops of the fallen trees are still there. Carbon stores are increased when the forest regrows.
No clearfelled forest can be returned to its original condition
For anyone who is actually interested in the science I urge them to google south west biodiversity and also old growth forests and carbon. There is a plethora of information available and I don't intend to list it here. However I found the following "One of the key threats to Australian vertebrate species remains habitat destruction and fragmentation," at http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/report/biodiversity..... This is just one example of a report that details how the loss of habitat kills species. Furthermore, "1. Australia’s only threatened Biodiversity Hotspot
Any rational discussion of fire policy and its impact on biodiversity must take into consideration the very special circumstances that exist in the southwest of Western Australia. There are 34 acknowledged “biodiversity hotspots” currently under threat in the world. Only one of these is in Australia and this is in the southwest corner of WA[1, 2] (see Fig 1) Threatened biodiversity hotspots are defined as: “areas where “exceptional concentrations of endemic species are undergoing exceptional loss of habitat” This can be found at http://www.amrshire.wa.gov.au/library/file/Attachment%20to%207_2_2%20-%2.... This is only two of very many papers that refer to the south west of western Australia being a biodiversity hotspot where loss of habitat is largely responsible for species loss. Deforestation is the reason for this loss of habitat. You can never return a forest that has been clear felled to its original condition. It is simply wrong to suggest otherwise.
My feared predators known as fox and cat are seriously a threat
NC rightly refers to the threatened biodiversity hotspots as those that have 'exceptional loss of habitat'. Well the broad southwest WA hotspot as Possum Balance understands it, includes wetlands environments with fragmented (due to clearing for agriculture and roads, high impact dieback and salinity) vegetation surrounds; and degraded woodlands. Tall, managed karri, jarrah and marri forests, retained as state forest and still legally available for integrated timber harvest and conservation management, are not in themselves at risk in a biodiversity context. For my species, and other mammals like me, my feared predators known as fox and cat are seriously a threat.
We need afforestation and reforestation, not destruction
"Although accounting for only 5% of global forest cover,
forest plantations were estimated in 2000 to supply about 35%
of global roundwood harvest and this percentage is expected
to increase (FAO, 2006a). Thus, there is a trend towards
concentrating the harvest on a smaller forest area. Meeting
society’s needs for timber through intensive management of
a smaller forest area creates opportunities for enhanced forest
protection and conservation in other areas, thus contributing
to climate change mitigation." http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf 9.2.2 This research paper is a pro forest management paper that recognises logging as necessary for economic purposes. it agrees with you that forest products, that is, timber, is a source of carbon capture, but it goes on to say that only approximately 23% of the forest ends up as timber, the rest is used in products that become sources of CO2. If we are to accept the economic rationale for harvesting timber, then let us cost properly our native forests. Let us cost them at the rate we can grow timber on farmland. That is the true cost of our forests. They are not just there, they are not just free. Trashing our forests using broadacre clear felling techniques and burning off waste is the worst possible technique for acquiring timber, although it might be the most economic. But if you cost our forests at an economic cost, just as we are starting to cost our minerals through royalties and the resources rent tax, then it will become an imperative that we invest in plantation timber. That is the future of the forest industry. There is no tree hugging greenie telling you not to log grown timber. But the trashing of our old growth forests in the name of economic rationalism is a madness, and cannot be understood either environmentally or economically. "Forest management activities to increase stand-level forest carbon stocks include harvest systems that maintain partial forest cover, minimize losses of dead organic matter (including
slash) or soil carbon by reducing soil erosion, and by avoiding slash burning and other high-emission activities." Sec 9.4.2.3 I wonder where Australia was when this important document was being drafted? Busy slashing and burning I take it. What is the excuse for the destruction of the Daintree? We need afforestation and reforestation, not destruction and deforestation!
Biologically diverse blocks transformed into plantations
Boranup was "regenerated" when "harvesting" and "regeneration" meant that you went in took the best trees and left. Then the area was ignored and left to its own devices. The regeneration was therefore done by good old mother nature not foresters. Modern "harvesting" and "regeneration" are very different. One difference is that the prime "timber" was the first to go years ago. This was in an era where selective logging was used. For a block to be defined by foresters as karri now they only need to find 6 (I think) karri trees per hectare. So a block containing a mixture of jarrah, blackbutt, marri and karri plus numerous other shrubs, mosses, fungi etc could be defined as karri, clearfelled, dozed, burned and then "regenerated". "Regeneration" in this era involves the handplanting karri (only) seedlings spaced one metre apart. Thus a block that contained initially a multitude of species (Flora and fauna) is transformed into a plantation. Whether blocks regenerated under this regime will produce anything of interest to the "sustainable timber industry" remains to be seen but in view of all of the other species which may have been present when the original trees grew and in view of the symbiosis between living things present in an ecosystem I think it is highly unlikely that karri regenerated under this regime will even benefit the timber industry.
I've never met a forester who doesn't love the forest
Sigh....Foresters work with nature to regenerate the forest. From over 100 years experience in looking after forest they employ the same methods of regeneration that nature does. Native forest management in Australia in not deforestation and does not reduce the amount of or fragment habitat. Are you aware that most foresters have university degrees? Forestry is a science. Foresters do not blunder through the forest weaving a path of destruction. They manage the forest. In WA foresters were responsible for preventing much of the wonderful forest we have today from being cleared for agriculture. They saw the value in retaining the forest when no-one else did. They learned from the forest and worked with it to produce timber while maintaining other forest values. They did such a good job that a hundred years later when other people in society realised what wonderful things forests were they wanted to protect them. In what can only be described as incredible arrogance they portrayed the people who had truly saved the forest and managed it for a hundred years as a destructive force. and I've never met a forester who would want to or sit back and allow a forest to be desstroyed. Those that want to convince you otherwise will always show you a picture of a freshly harvested forest. Never will they show a picture of that forest, 10, 20, 30 or more year later because then you would say, "well that doesn't look half bad, I don't know what all the fuss is about." If you don't believe me have a look on google earth. See if you can tell the difference between state forest and reserve. The only visible scars are the mining leases and clearing for agriculture.