I'm not sure the values in Indonesia and Australia are so different? Much of the timber and other products (eg palm oil) of deforestation coming out of Indonesia are going to developed countries with 'evolved value systems'. Nobody is forcing importers or consumers to buy this stuff. The social and political will in the developed world to help address the problem still seems quite weak.

Let's Not Pretend - then why are you pretending? The fact you do hide goes right to heart of your personal values.

Saying Indonesia have the same values as ours is easy.
Can you demonstrate in writing or refer to examples of their level of thought or stage of development compared to Australia or New Zealand?

Pointing the finger at the other guy is easy. Recognising that we have shared responsibility is much more difficult.

Have you read the Sydney Morning Herald article in Saturday's paper about the deforestation of the Solomon Islands - it will make your blood boil. A prominent Australian bank is the money behind the Malaysian company involved. Unbelievable!

Yes. I guess that's my point. Corporate greed is a global phenomenon. So is ignorance and apathy. Governments, banks, logging companies, middle-men, land owners and consumers can all contribute to the problem - or the solution for that matter. The science is the easy part. Managing the vested interests is the hard part.

The article you have cited in today's The Age newspaper is based on an ENGO report. Given the poor track record of these groups in reporting accurately while pushing an agenda and striving to elicit donations, its assertions need to be treated with caution. You only need to read almost anything that emanates about Tasmania from our own ENGOs to see the level of misrepresentation of forestry issues here, let alone in other countries.It would be good to hear from those who know more about what is actually happening in PNG.

Mark

Your prejudice is unhelpful.

Though Greenpeace informed the author, midway through the article Hamish wrote...

"Immediately after he ousted predecessor Sir Michael Somare from the prime ministership last August, the present caretaker prime minister, Peter O'Neill, initiated a commission of inquiry into controversial forestry concessions granted over the previous decade when Sir Michael held power.

The commission's report was completed in May, just before recent elections, and will be tabled in the new parliament. It is believed to include damning criticisms of the granting of a new form of lease for more than 5 million hectares of forest owned by locals under traditional title."

Tedummmmm!

Cheers

The harvesting systems used are related to the silvicultural requirements of particular forest types. There are plenty of examples of drier forest types being managed by selective harvesting regimes for over a century in accordance with their silvicultural requirements. These include the red gum forests of southern NSW and northern Victoria, and the extensive cypress pine and ironbark woodlands of north central NSW and southern central Queensland which have now largely been declared as National Parks in response to hysterical campaigns which drove politically expedient decisions.

As I said in my main comment, the substantial majority of forests are not used for timber production, but this is simply being ignored by disaffected by logging. I wonder how many kilometres of reserved forests you drove through to get to that coupe? In addition, the judgement of timber harvesting impacts needs to be considered over decades, not just on what a coupe looks like immediately after harvesting.

Mark

As a forester you write:
"There are plenty of examples of drier forest types being managed by selective harvesting regimes for over a century in accordance with their silvicultural requirements"
What about the native fauna that once inhabited these forests? They no longer occupy these forests because habitat resources critical to their survival have been lost.

"These include the red gum forests of southern NSW and northern Victoria, and the extensive cypress pine and ironbark woodlands of north central NSW and southern central Queensland which have now largely been declared as National Parks in response to hysterical campaigns which drove politically expedient decisions"
The bioregions (e.g. Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar) that these forests and woodlands occupy have the lowest proportion of remnant native vegetation of any in Australia and the lowest percentages of conservation reserve. Protection of these valuable forests and woodlands in conservation reserves is not a politically expedient decision driven by hysterical campaigns it is supported by sound conservation planning science.

"the judgement of timber harvesting impacts needs to be considered over decades, not just on what a coupe looks like immediately after harvesting"
You are right. This is the time scale at which the loss of fauna species and shifts in the species composition of forest stands really becomes apparent.

As with many foresters you have ignored the fact that these forests and woodlands are ecosystems. A true case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Mark Graham

So, ..... what about the fauna that inhabited these forests? You again neglect to appreciate that not all of these forests are harvested anyway, and that it is a scientific fact that timber harvesting, unlike forest clearing for agriculture, has not been responsible for any fauna or flora extinctions.

In the Brigalow South and Nandewar bioregions, thinning for timber production over a long period actually increased the size of the overstorey trees and improved their habitat values compared to their original scrubby structure of these cypress pine woodlands which often become 'locked' and don't grow. Ironically, the improved habitat values created by active management over a century fuelled the campaigns against logging which ultimately led them to being permanently preserved. However, it is feared the future lack of management coupled with fire will see them revert back to their former scrubby nature with much lower habitat values.

As an ecologist, you seem to be far too focussed on a 'preservationist' model of conservation which is out of step with the huge changes that have taken place since pre-European times. Simply, abandoning all management to leave nature to take its course is hardly appropriate given the extent of feral animal and weed invasion and inappropriate fire regimes. Using a proportiuon of forests for timber or other uses creates an imperative and financially underwrites management needed to at least hold back the tide of problems facing our forests. Simply placing them in parks and walking away won't do anything good.

Mark P - said " ........financially underwrites management needed to at least hold back the tide of problems facing our forests. Simply placing them in parks and walking away won't do anything good."

Yes, everyone reading here is aware cutting trees financially underwrites the forestry industry. As for holding back the tide of problems, that is another issue that could contradict easily, but why bother?
For as long as you hold the current level of thinking or stage of personal development there is little point discussing the principles. This is in no way putting your level of thought down, because it is valid and justified given your value system.
Most who disagree with your perspective, understand and are aware of why this position is taken. For as long as 'we' as a culture are at this stage of development, positions like this will be taken, justified with logic and will be still be flawed when measured against a latter stages of human values.

Mark P

You write:
"As an ecologist, you seem to be far too focussed on a 'preservationist' model of conservation which is out of step with the huge changes that have taken place since pre-European times. Simply, abandoning all management to leave nature to take its course is hardly appropriate given the extent of feral animal and weed invasion and inappropriate fire regimes."

Please do not misrepresent me.

At no stage have I suggested that active management of ecosystems is not required. Active management of threatening processes IS required, particularly for weeds, vertebrate pests and fire. Without management of these threats declines in biodiversity will continue to occur.

I suggest that you read what I have written, gain an understanding of it and stop misrepresenting me.

Mark Graham

You are indeed a sensitive soul when someone challenges your self-righteous assertions about forestry. I have merely made an observation based on your previous postings rather than set out to 'misrepresent you". I presume you are only doing the same when you imply that foresters such as me are responsible for trashing forests, and ignoring the fact that forests and woodlands are ecosystems.

Paul

Have you perhaps heard of the concept of timber companies paying royalties to State Governments for being allowed to harvest logs from State Forests... it appears not.

My level of thought and my values on forestry issues is informed by 5-years of tertiary education and over 30-years of working experience. Yours are informed by......?

Mark P - said "... Yours are informed by......?" A stage of development that you do not hold. But that's ok we are all in development.

A simplistic overview of stages of human development, enabling a view of others perspective.
http://goo.gl/aJy6f

No sensitivities at this end cobber. Just ensuring that there is a straight record, not one warped by your spurious contributions.

Peace.

So, Paul Richards, because "Discussion on this level is futile.", we should all accept your view of the world without argument? Putting aside the arrogance of such a statement, I'd really like to know how you believe change should occur in a society like Australia's. Do we make you dictator for life, appoint your political party as the government without holding elections or more generally do we accept that whoever shouts loudest is right? Please don't be so condescending to people like Mark Poynter who has a legitimate right to hold a particular point of view, even if you don't agree with it and aren't prepared to argue against it.

Bernie M - "Please don't be so condescending ..... "
This is the issue with certain levels of thought, we humans tend to only see where we have been. Often saying; "if he or she says this or that it must mean such and such" If anyone reads condescension into what I said, that is interesting, inoffensive and completely understandable. But utterly wrong.
When I said I understand Mark P and his point of view my meaning is literal, accepted and seen appropriate for his level of understanding, and why not? I once held similar views and it was appropriate for then.
My point is, failing to understand those who stand against current forest practice is the issue, those who are 'for current practices' make no attempt at grasping the opposite of their line of argument.
Understanding the various levels of thought on this issue is the key, while those with vested interest in the current approach to forestry, fail to understand others levels of thought, dialogue is useless.
Unfortunately Bernie what you read into what I wrote is part of your value system not mine.

Paul, I visited http://goo.gl/aJy6f and, while I respect your right to hold whatever views of your (or my) place in the world that you wish, it remains extremely condescending of you not to explain 'the opposite of their line of argument' or 'the various levels of thought on this issue' as you see them. So that people like myself and Mark can understand, please contribute some details to the dialogue or you will be seen as the cause of the uselessness that you say dialogue cannot resolve.

Bernie M - The commercial forestry right use this set of values, please correct me if they do not;
✓ Distribution of responsibility
✓ Pragmatically test for advantages to succeed
✓ Search out the best solution to their needs
✓ Enhance living for many through science and technology
✓ Play to win and enjoy competition
✓ Many of the laws written to protect individual freedom all flow from an orange worldview
✓ Money rather than loyalty
✓ Right and wrong
✓ Obey higher authority, do what you're told
✓ Faithful to the truth
✓ Everything in it’s proper place
✓ Feel guilty when not conforming to group norms
✓ Control impulsivity & respond to guilt
✓ Enforce principles and righteous living
✓ Ethnocentrism (my people are right no matter what)

Paul, your list of values certainly includes some that are used by foresters but it also excludes other important values. In particular, the application of the scientific process - determining the existence of a problem, compiling a list of possible solutions, evaluating the most feasible solutions and then implementing those that are practical and affordable - usually leads to the best overall outcome, even if it means increased costs, reduced areas of land available for logging, constraints on logging yield per hectare, etc. Note that the scientific process is completely different to "Search out the best solution to their needs" although this sometimes happens within forestry research. If you start a process which is designed to only give you a limited range of answers, all of which meet your needs, then that process is a distortion of the scientific process and deserves to be criticised.
My experience with WA foresters and government researchers is that they are overwhelmingly honest and open in their research goals, so people who criticise them and call for an end to logging or for greatly reduced timber yields are being very unfair to these people by not making their arguments in support of less logging, etc, available for assessment.

Bernie M - said "Paul, your list of values certainly includes some that are used by foresters.."
The values left off are not clear, other were omitted by myself.[could be misread]

Most of the very vocal forestry protesters hold these values;
✓Sensitivity to feelings
✓Fairness driven
✓Sharing, caring, egalitarian
✓Empathy
✓Advanced self-reflection
✓Advanced abstract thinking
✓Use multiple perspectives
✓Consensus
✓Organisation of equals for mutual-benefits
✓Multi cultural, pluralistic

Paul, sorry to disagree with you again but I know many forest protesters and the values you've listed for them overwhelmingly are in fact not held by them. Sensitivity to feelings? The closure of the old growth forest logging industry in WA has caused unemployment in the timber towns and reportedly some suicides, with no sympathy or support from protesters. Fairness driver? Absolutely not, as the protesters see themselves as being superior in terms of their environmental, holistic understanding of the world and fairness simply isn't an important issue for them. I could go on but I think you get my drift.
Bottom line is that the latest set of values you've attributes to forestry protesters reflect an idealistic, utopian and communist view of the world which has been proven over human history to be completely wrong and the cause not only of massive environmental destruction but also of great human suffering.

Bernie M - it is clear you can not understand Spiral Dynamics that is ok, it is based on accumulated understanding of human psychology, and the life's work of Clare Graves.
As I said before with regard Mark P, there is no point discussing this if the individual has a value system that is not evolved. Let me state here an now, this does not make anyone a better person or a worse person in those with second tier value systems. We are all just an individuals with a different sets of values.
Those more evolved e.g. Dali Lama can understand the less evolved value systems, but those not on his level struggle with his.
Naturally values not attained are difficult to grasp, and need to be worked on. This is a point of divergence, because most of the population fear stepping outside 'groupthink', the group discourages discent. So we have a weighted centre of gravity on values. Of course It is difficult to evolve to higher value systems, nothing worth attaining is easy. What else are we here to do with our lives than evolve as humans?

Correct, I don't understand Spiral Dynamics but I can't shake this feeling that you're having me on with your insensitivity and air of superiority. Your latest comment states that my 'value system ...is not evolved'; I'm not a worse person even though I have 'second tier value systems'; etc.
If you honestly believe the sentiments you've expressed in your comments, can't you see the put downs and condescending statements that are contained in your words? No, I guess you can't, which is sad as it explains why human beings as a species are so murderous, selfish, war-mongering and so uncaring of our environment - some people just refuse to engage with others who they believe have achieved a lower level of intellectual evolution. Not a good sign for the future of the human race nor of our planet.

Bernie M - said " insensitivity and air of superiority" Bernie one thing is certain, your take on my motive and whether I wish anyone here well, is yours. Just by way of reminder this discussion is;
"Can forest conservation and logging be reconciled?"
My line of argument is simple, without understanding the level of values conservationist have, there can be no reconciliation. The foresters need to move thought the stages of development first, soften their dogmatic stance otherwise dialogue is pointless. They are sitting at best on SDi Orange and in the case of some countries these value systems are even far less evolved.
Please do not ask for the countless examples of mismatched value systems at conflict in the world today. It is obvious, 'without the same value systems, conflict happens.'
So in answer to the question posed by Jerry and Douglas - "Can forest conservation and logging be reconciled?"The short answer from me is, NO.
"Human beings are born soft and flexible;
When they die they are hard and stiff...
Plants arise soft and delicate;
When they die they are withered and dry.
Thus, the hard and stiff are disciples of death;
The soft and flexible are disciples of life."
Lao Tzu, 6th Century BCE

Did you here the one about:

The Leader of a Branch Davidian sect in Waco Texas, David Koresh, having studied Spiral dynamics and based on his accumaulated understanding of human psychology, believed himself to be the 'final prophet'.

JOKE!

Paul

You're dialogue with Bernie M and myself has certainly demonstrated that you are on a very different plane ..... whether it is higher or lower than us is highly debatable.

However, returning to what I said earlier, the values I have in relation to forestry have been shaped by education and a long career in this field. You are making some fairly gross presumptions about the motives of foresters such as myself without any actual knowledge of what we know or don't know and why we would undertake a career in this field in the first place.

I (and other foresters) certainly didn't embark on a forestry career to destroy forests, and my training even 35 years ago included reasonably detailed study of conservation disciplines such as botany, zoology, catchment management and fire. I also spent several years as the Habitat Management Officer for a State Govt forest agency. So... I certainly have a pretty reasonable appreciation of forest biodiversity and associated habitat requirements.

Commercially managing State forests certainly involves a degree of pragmatism to balance conservation needs with societal demand for wood and other opportunities presented by forests such as recreational. Finding such a balance includes recognising that most of Australia's forests are already contained in national parks, other reserves, or land tenures that preclude commercial use.

A refusal to acknowledge this is inherent to forestry protestors who are basically uninformed or don't care about the pre-existing balance between conservation and use and see the issue in very simplistic terms that no tree should be cut down regardless of the implications that such an outcome will have on timber supplies, those who earn a livelihood in this field, and the environmental consequences of having to source wood from elsewhere or use alternative materials.

The real question that arises out of this is should forests be managed based on knowledge and pragmatism about the need to meet opposing societal demands, or should it be determined by the uninformed 'all care but no responsibility approach' of protesters with a highly simplistic focus which totally ignores consequences?

Mark P ".... this is should forests be managed based on knowledge and pragmatism ......." as you say "...on a very different plane ..... whether it is higher or lower than us is highly debatable." Debatable certainly, this is the line of argument I am taking. Getting back to the actual question posed by Jerry V Douglas S is;
"Can forest conservation and logging be reconciled?"
My belief is NO.
Simply because of the very value system you espouse here, says those with opposing values hold - "highly simplistic focus which totally ignores consequences"
While anyone hangs onto the Blue to Orange SDi stage of development and they will fail to understand those opposing this set of values. So talking about you version of life and applying science, to prove the 'why' and how you are right and every one else is wrong is utterly pointless.
This slide show starting particularly from 28-42 is where most of the foresters in the developed world sit. [you will need a www.slideshare.net/ - account] but just go to slide-share via the link below and sign in and read if you wish to understand a different perspective;
http://goo.gl/6IG9r
The reason I do not believe dialogue is possible is because the 'protesters' as you call them, have values from slide 43 upward.
As I say repeatedly this does not make anyone better or worse, just makes dialogue imposible if one group fails to understand the other.

Mark Graham

No sensitivities eh? You protesth too much when you abuse me with terms such as 'industry stooge status'. I am not actually employed by the timber industry, but write about these issues in a voluntary capacity for the Institute of Foresters of Australia on the back of a 30+ year career in this field to inform my supposedly 'spurious contributions'.

From what I've seen from you, your knowledge is based on looking at a few coupes immediately after harvest while ignoring the fact that they subsequently regrow and that most forests are not used for timber production anyway.

My final word on this refers to the NE NSW forests which seemingly inform your views. The Regional Forest Agreement for that area, signed in 1998, delivered three-quarters of the forests demanded by the North East Forest Alliance into new national parks and reserves. For you to simply refuse to factor this into your views about forest management I think illustrates just who is making spurious contributions to articles such as this.

Paul,
Obviously you see any attempts to resolve forestry issues as being negatively impacted by the supposed closed minds and intransigence of those in the forest industries. The greens you seee as honest, honourable, reasonable, informed and ethical. However, in the Australian context, the last three decades have seen compromise going in only one direction, and thats heading toward a total lock up of the entire forest estate.
What anti-forestry greens (and you) have in common with jihadist members of the Free Syrian Army, the Dalai Lama, David Koresh and followers of the Japanese cult Aum Supreme Truth (re Sarin gas attacks) is that they and you know with absolute quasi-religious certainty that you are following a righteous path.

The spuriousness continues Mark Poynter.

Your suggestion that the 1998 North East RFA "delivered three quarters of the forests demanded by NEFA into new national parks and reserves" is a complete lie.

The website link for the Northeast RFA "JANIS and Natural National Estate Conservation Requirements report" (March 1999) at http://www.daff.gov.au/rfa/regions/nsw-northeast/cultural-heritage
is broken and links to the Eden RFA JANIS report.

If my memory of the NE RFA JANIS report serves me correctly 1-1.2 million hectares of reserve was required in order to establish a Comprehensive Adequate and Representative (CAR) Reserve system for both the Upper and Lower North East and to meet nationally agreed criteria.

NEFA and others wanted JANIS criteria to be met in the outcome of the North East RFA, If my memory serves me correctly approximately 400 000 ha of forest was reserved in 1999 as a result of the North East RFA. This is obviously only a third of what was needed to establish a CAR reserve system.

Please stop lying Mr Poynter.

Mark,

Statements such as "we have strong legislative and regulatory regimes" and "the excellent management of Australian forests" are completely wrong. The evidence of this is:
1. the degraded condition and declining biodiversity of the industrially logged publicly owned native forests in northeast NSW, and
2. the lack of regulatory action taken against the numerous legal breaches of the IFOA in the logging operations of Forests NSW in publicly owned native forests in northeast NSW .

I live in a timber house and enjoy the experience, I have timber furniture and enjoy using it. Timber is technically a renewable resource, but when native forests are industrially logged as they are currently are in northeast NSW, there is nothing whatsoever renewable or sustainable about the industry.

This has nothing to do with individual values or being personally offended. It is a scientific reality.

Please take a trip to most State Forests (and many privately owned native forests) in northeast NSW as see the evidence before contributing such patently wrong material again.