Mark Twain said: “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has even gotten out of bed”. Rural Australians, the true conservationists, the providers of the necessities of life that live a life of integrity, are now under attack.
Environmentalism, the planned and executed bullying of rural Australians that are the epitome of our unique spirit, our character, our true wealth. Our integrity.
Media, politicians, academics participate and appear to use “the cause justifies the means” in relation to morality of their actions against Australians of integrity.
Are these groups’ actions nothing more than a parasitic burden on Australia’s integrity – Australia’s true wealth, the Australian people?
There are ten points worth considering.
1/ Available for Harvesting.
As of November 2018, two thirds of Mountain Ash in the Central Highlands are excluded from timber harvesting. More has since been reserved. Plus, there are many new 12.5 ha buffers now within the remaining harvesting area.
Victorian has 7.92 million hectares of forests. Of this only 450,000 ha is available for sustainable harvesting. Of this approximately 3000 ha is harvested and replanted per annum.
This is less than 0.04% of Victoria’s forests. Approximately four in 10,000 trees harvested and replanted. No shortage of trees, just a disrespect of what nature provides.
2/Habitat
The Leadbeater Possum’s most suitable habitat occurs between one to four decades after a major disturbance of Mountain Ash, either fire or timber harvesting.
The most likely place to find Leadbeater Possums is in regrowth forest of mixed age forest consisting of 1939 regrowth and timber harvested.
As of March 2020, there are 804 colonies of Leadbeater Possums “just within” the area allocated to timber harvesting that is either 1939 regrowth or previously harvested forest. Thriving in a managed forest.
3/ Nesting hollows – boxes. The social and monetary worth of forestry.
Nesting boxes and chainsaw carved hollows show a success rate of 52% occupancy.
Dismissed as too costly, yet trivial compared with the destruction of the sustainable timber industry. A Deloitte Access Economics (2015) study found the Central Highlands timber-harvesting industry generated more than $573 million and employed 2117 workers. This dwarfs the artificial nesting boxes cost.
4/ The fallacy of simply changing to plantations.
Woodchip, bluegum plantations take 20 years to mature. Bluegum plantations are woodchip only and not suitable for milling timber. Mountain Ash for milling, needs altitude, deep volcanic soil. Where is this land? Environmentalists forget the 80 years until harvesting. Milling timber is far too valuable to use for wood chips. But the remainder of the tree and inferior trees are chipped. The saying,”waste not”, want not, best describes this. Hardwood plantings for milling is so small that unfortunately I could not access accurate figures.
Victorian taxpayers are now financing the replanting of Bluegums on previously harvested crown land, that was considered not viable by industry.
5/ Carbon Storage.
The Wilderness Society funded-ANU Fenner School researchers say to end sustainable timber harvesting is the best management to mitigate climate change.
I’ve recently been alerted to some info from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is a UN organisation which supports sustainable harvesting. A world authority on climate change.
Similar to a growing child, a growing tree absorbs greater levels of carbon in its first 20 years. As the tree matures, it absorbs less. Harvesting trees with a constant new source of carbon absorption actually works well for climate change, according to the IPCC.
To remove our sustainable timber as a building material source has a totally negative effect on our environment.
Timber will be imported from Asian forests with questionable harvesting practices and questionable labelling. The USA Forestry Service and WWF found that 62% of imported timber was mislabelled.
Steel, concrete with a greater carbon – environmental footprint will be used.
6/ The hysteria of ecosystems collapse.
It is falsely claimed that 80% of Mountain Ash forests are designated for timber harvesting. Yet we inconveniently still have 97% of pre-European Mountain Ash forests. Critics dismiss or ignore the environmental protections of sustainable forestry by implying that “all” burnt Mountain Ash forests are subject to salvage harvesting.
7/ Claims that salvage harvesting of a precious resource damages the forest.
Claims that “all” fire affected forest is salvage harvested is incorrect and are claims that this will affect “old growth” areas. Old growth won’t be harvested and hasn’t been for at least the past 30 years.
8/ Claims that sustainable timber harvesting increases bushfire risk.
To quote Professor Kevin Tolhurst: “Some ecologists and conservationists, opposed to timber harvesting, are trying to use bushfire disasters as a lever to stop native forest harvesting, but in their case is based on opinion, beliefs and selective science.”
The “old growth ” Mountain Ash forest used as a fire resistant model resided in the wettest and most sheltered part of the landscape (example; Deep Creek Catchment).
A review by Lindenmayer et al. (2009) states “(harvesting) may make some kinds of forests more prone to increased probability of ignition and increased fire severity”.
Too involved to reply in a couple of sentences, but comprehensively rebuked in Ryan and Poynter (2017).
A layman’s explanation from this document is:
“Fire severity in the Alpine Fires 2003 and the Great Divide Fires was not consistently greater or lesser in Parks and reserves protected from timber harvesting than in State Forest where there has been some timber harvesting over the years”.
This claim of increasing fire risk with timber harvesting fails to acknowledge a report Attiwill et al. (2014) that very young regenerating forests (up to 8 years after harvesting) were found to be the least likely to burn or to burn only at the lowest severity class during Black Saturday 2009 bushfires.
9/ The value, both in dollar and carbon capture terms of a “change” to National Park.
Once again, the ANU contentious report was issued. The Institute of Foresters Association concerns of flaws in the report were too many to mention in this document, refer Ryan and Poynter (2017). Only a few examples given.
The Institute of Foresters Association critique concluded “that the estimates of many of the values are so imprecise or biased as to be unsaleable for policy decisions”.
Ignoring the IFA’s critique, a slightly revised report was heavily promoted by the ABC on news and the 7.30 Report, featuring interviews with co-author, Professor David Lindenmayer in support of the Greater National Park. This with a narrative that the sustainable timber industry was supposedly worth only $12 million per annum and employed only 150-200 workers.
In 2015 a socio-eco-nomic study of the whole of the Central Highlands timber industry had valued it at $573 million per annum in Gross Regional Product supporting 2117 full-time equivalent jobs (Deloitte Access Economics 2015).
The ABC interview six months before prior to publication exposed many flaws that the author was “alerted to”. Despite this, with minor alterations, the paper was published in a scientific journal containing many errors.
Environmental groups are still using these papers, with these inaccuracies.
10/ Peer Review.
Best covered in Ryan and Poynter (2017), Problems with peer review.
A couple of examples. The OMICS International Group based in India, in October 2014 published the paper Preventing the extinction of an iconic globally endangered species Leadbeater Possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri) by Lindenmayer et al. Just 18-days elapsed between the journal receiving their manuscript and its publication supposedly after rigorous peer review.
If half-truths are designed to create an emotive response, and thus deceive, are these nothing more than a premeditated lie?
We, as the intelligent species, have science as the closest thing to total understanding.
Has environmentalism destroyed the integrity of science?
If we don’t have uncorrupted, critical thought science, are we really the intelligent species?
Without true science, what are we?
As now are we only left with populist conformity to be manipulated by Government’s, media and the most powerful, fundamentalist ideology?
Daryl Cochrane is a Yarra Valley farmer and builder.
