Chris

I wouldn't disagree with you about the absurdity of one Govt agency sueing another. This is perhaps a symptom of what can arise when you seperate commercial activities from broader land management as the Labor Govt did in 2004.

As I understand it the point of difference was over the definition of rainforest and VicForests were simply operating according to boundaries that had previously been mapped, when DSE officers then disputed whether these boundaries were appropriate. It should have been sorted out by a discussion, which it ultimately was, but unfortunately after a legal action had been launched with much adverse publicity generated (which may ultimately have been the intention).

I explained the profitability issues earlier and that they have largely been out of VicForests control, and in fact over there whole 8-years of operation they have still made a profit. This is vastly different to the misinformation of sensational headlines generated by environmental lobby groups about "massive losses"

Lets just for a moment look at the hypothetical case of VicForests being wound up which you seem to be advocating. That would mean no logs would be supplied to the hardwood industry and the industry would be forced to close with the loss of around 5,000 jobs and about $1 billion per annum in economic activity mostly in regional areas. That's a pretty high price to pay for winding up a company that is overall profitable, but has endured some recent losses due to factors beyond their control, including the actions of their critics who are causing substantial costs aimed at ultimately generating adverse publicity of the type you seem to have swallowed.

Don't disagree that protesting will continue, but society has to question whether we should be giving in to what amounts to extortion by closing legitimate industries to quieten a very vocal and small minority.

As for plantations, we simply don't have plantations capable of producing the high quality and durable hardwood that can be obtained from native forests. So, if we don't produce our own, we will be importing it from developing countries where environmental controls are weak and deforestation is more common, which is hardly a good environmental outcome.

You know how this works Jerry. They discredit you by painting you as a puppet in the employ of the enemy. No need to let the truth get in the way of a good public tar & feathering!

"How did the world's forests manage before humans evolved?"

"The only human intervention required, since old growth forests have been turned into ecological islands, is to provide corridors; to ensure that flora and flora have avenues to cross pollinate rather than stagnate."

I have studied ecology and biogeography, and whilst I used to agree with the Diana's statements, now they seem to me like a post-colonial, western attitude towards nature. Humans have been managing Australian ecosystems for 50 000 years or more. Major changes happened to Australia's ecosystems when the first humans arrived. We cannot undo that as it involved extinction of the megafauna.
This does not mean that we should clearfell everything for a short term profit and I do think I do understand where you are coming from ( what I did believe years ago) I now think it is overly idealistic. If we want to maintain biodiversity we will have to actively manage forests and fire-prone vegetation generally. Our challenge is how to do it.

one reference: Wallington et.al. 2005 Ecology and Society 10(1): 15 Implications of Current Ecological Thinking for Biodiversity
Conservation: a Review of the Salient Issues

quotes from:
“ a shift has occurred from the equilibrium paradigm to one that recognizes the dynamic, non-equilibrium nature of ecosystems”
“One view is that the balance-of-nature paradigm is simply “wrong”

I would also point out the Prof David Lindenmeyer in a recent paper showed that regrowth in the woodland country of NSW supported bird species that old-growth not. So we will have to provide regrowth to provide habitat. It also logically leads to the conclusion that regrowth has always been part of the mix. The growth habits of eucalypts also support this idea.

George,
we are getting well into interpretation based on interpretation ...

When they say Ryan etal (who Benson etal criticise) use the term 'annual burning by aborigines' what does it mean. I suggest that it means that fire was applied annually, but that is a long way from saying that every part of the bush was burnt annually. Annual burning probably resulted in a patchwork of different time-since-fire, because areas that burnt last year probably don't have enough fuel to burn again this year.

Also Benson et al make some statements such as: it seems unlikely that fire sensitive vegetation such as rainforest and alpine heaths were burnt annually. Well durh. I would not call this particularly nuanced, but burning the fire-prone vegetation in relatively cool conditions, close to fire-sensitive vegetation would actually protect the fire-sensitive vegetation from burning under extreme conditions.

John Banks did studies (google John Banks and dendrochronology) of tree rings in the Brindabellas and found that fire-scars where present on old snow-gums at least once every decade prior to European take-over. When the cattle graziers arrived the frequency went up to every two or three years. Then when the cattle graziers left and we went to the nature reserve paradigm, the fire frequency dropped to once every three or four decades. These large fires decimate the fire-sensitive vegetation - is it ironic that frequent low intensity use of fire protects fire-sensitive vegetation? this points appears to be missed by Benson etal.

Thanks Mark.

My understanding of Elemental Chlorine Free is that Chlorine is not present as dichlorine, Cl2. It is nevertheless used as ClO2, chlorine dioxide.

This means that chlorinated dioxins would still be present in the waste stream, albeit at much lower concentrations than if dichlorine is used. Although it is the most common chemical bleaching technology, it hasn't been world's best practice since the 1990's, when totally chlorine-free technologies (TCF) were introduced.

Perhaps TCF technologies are only used where the plant is too far from the coast to dilute organochlorines in the ocean, or where limited exploitable fresh water resources demands that process water be recycled?

David

With all due respect, that is the sort of response which exemplifies the shallowness of ENGO campaigns against Gunns and forestry in general. When there is no valid arguments against what they are doing, simply launch a personal attack.

With regard to your earlier comment about Dr Raverty and Gunns allegedly using chlorine bleaching in their planned pulp mill. I have had a response from my Tasmanian colleague who is far closer to this issue than I am, and he makes the following points:

The Tasmanian Guidelines for a pulp mill demanded that only Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) or Total chlorine free (TCF) bleaching be used and that chlorine bleaching as proposed for Wesley Vale in the 1980’s was banned. Clause 6.3.1.2 of Gunns Draft Integrated Impact Statement lodged with the RPDC stated “The Bell Bay pulp mill will use ECF bleaching”.

ECF is now the industry standard with the vast majority of modern pulp mills throughout the world using it. It is well documented that ECF has virtually eliminated dioxins from the treated effluent.

The incident at Chile was another myth used against Gunns, despite the fact that their proposed treatment of effluent required an ocean outfall whereas in Chile the discharge was into an already stressed river system.

The RPDC commissioned an independent report on the Chilean mill; as well the State Government sent a team to investigate. The Beca Amec report to the RPDC on the mill and its investigation of ECF and TCF is now quoted by authorities around the world.

Dr Raverty was a member of the RPDC assessment panel until the Greens challenged his position due to an apprehension of bias as an employee of a CSIRO joint venture; he was not the Chief Scientist.

In fact the Chief Scientist who conducted the Commonwealth part of the ‘fast track’ assessment said:

“The Panel believes that, based on current international experience, an Elemental Chorine Free (ECF) mill incorporating best available technology should enable an effluent composition to be achieved that meets best practice Australian and international water quality standards outside the initial mixing zone.”

Tristan

Yes, 5% is of the total of all of Australia's public and private forests and woodlands which total 147 million hectares.

Of the public forests as of 2008, 9.4 million ha out of 109 million ha is multiple use forest, and less than half of this is designated as available and suitable for timber production. So that equates to about 4%.

As to timber production in the tall denser forest types - you are right that these are most suitable, but even so the majority is reserved. In Tasmania, which has a high proportion of these forest types, only about 25% of the public forest is used for wood production. In Victoria's mountain ash forests which are arguably the nation's most productive, about 30% are used for wood production.

I might add that wood production was formerly more widespread in drier forests and woodlands such as the red gum in Vic and NSW, and the cypress pine in NSW and Qld, but most has been inexplicably stopped due to park reservations even though these areas were not controversial because of low impact selective harvesting.

As for the economics, the economics of selling logs to the industry is what is usually referred to by its critics as though it measures the total worth of timber production. It doesn't though, as the overall value of the industry involves the subsequent use of those logs and the total sum of economic activity and employment associated with harvesting, log haulage, log processing, secondary timber manufacture, retailing, and forest management.

So, for example, just because VicForests makes a loss in some years doesn't mean that the whole industry is worthless, which is essentially the proposition frequently being put forward by its critics.

Disclaimer: I have worked as a professional forester for 35-years, including the past 18 as a forestry consultant.

David

Overall a great comment. However, you perhaps unwittingly seem to be giving some undeserved credit to the Judith Ajani view of forestry in southern Australia as being 'a woodchip driven bonanza'

In fact as I have pointed out in another comment, most of the forests in East Gippsland and Tasmania are reserved and not even used for timber production. Ajani never acknowledges this.

In addition, some of the most productive southern forests are wet forest types that must be clearfelled (or nearly so) to be able to secure regeneration, and this leads to high volumes of woodchips. In the drier forests of EG, the best areas have now been reserved, and the industry (or what's left of it) has been forced into low quality areas where the woodchip: sawlog ratio is very high.

However, southern Australia is like everywhere else, in that the sustainable harvest yield is based on sawlog not woodchip volume.