Collecting fallen timber from national parks ?

[reeves]

Hi all, I know this is a contentious issue but i would like to put it forward for discussion.

Where I live is the Ravensbourne national park. A small park of approx, 300 acres though they do have additional properties with no public access. The park was established in the 1920's and has grown a bit in recent years.

Its on top of the range with big Cedar/bluegumrainforest and Casurina-sheoak forest on the fringes.

A problem for the park is maintaining the road through it and the walkways in terms of clearing fallen trees when they fall in storms etc the trees being a danger to the public.

From a wood perspective this means large chucks of quality timbers being cut with a chainsaw and left to rot. Red Cedar, blackwood,blue gum and others.

Because the park guys dont do much work with it, ie: just a few cuts to get it off the road or just fall a huge tree and leave it, cut stump and all on the walkway, not all the wood is moved or even checked to see if its a problem. Recently an old logger fellow and i cut some blackwood(hickory) lying next to the road and removed it. the old fallen log its now 10 ft back from the road (rest of the tree) and no danger or as unsightly in terms of looking 'natural'. And we have some nice local wood for turning.

Recently they cut a few tall red cedar trees. about 70 ft, next to the walkway and left them to rot. meaning theres a fresh cut stump right next to the walk and about 15 cubes of prime redcedar, rotting. The tree cutter, a friend up here, asked them if they wanted it removed, the ranger replied
" no, that would set a bad precedent"....

I undertand the 'ethical' issue regarding any removal of flora from the park and the need for it to be as natural as possible. I also support the 'ethical' issue regarding using reclaimed or recycled timber or timber already felled orfallen. This is put forward by the Maleny wood show and other wood organisations to ensure sustainable usage.

Now my question is, as a woody, should i just leave good wod rot, or try and find a way of dealing with the national parks in a sensible manner.? and ustilise the resource, only from fallen and chainsaw cut logs not 'natural' fallen logs unless they block the path.

IT makes me weep everytime of go up there and see the good wood just cut and rotting, i am talking of trees cut with chainsaws, not just fallen trees, so people have already altered the log. The park is also poorly mantined in term s of fallen trees often take wesk for the rangers to find, barbed wire is still there after 80 years or so, the lower walk looks like a lumber yard with many cut logs lining the path, left to rot.

Loal woodies could help with cleanup in return for wood and the park could be used to collect seeds and local replanting of cleared land.
It could all be used better.
The other day I found some dry sheoak next to the caves path that has been cut and left...mmmmmmm

What kind of views and comments do you woodies have on this issue ?

Is it wrong to question the useage of the wood, is it right to want make use of good fallen timber ? should we all just back off and let the government decide or should we become more innvolved with the parks service and look at some kind of contra deal.?

thanks
john

[Andy Mac]

Hey Reeves,
I can see where you're coming from, and let me just say how tempted I am to pilfer such fallen timber when I walk past! I often bring out the pocket knife to slice away bits to identify the timber!
I was in Ravensbourne only a week or so back, and had a tribe of kids who had to contend with a fallen tree right over an intersection of paths on the Palm Ck circuit...it was right over a steep section with steps:eek:.
Must say that in places the palms themselves have suffered from storm blown trees, looks like a bomb site.
I had a mate who rolled a nice segment of red cedar for kilometeres out of the Bunya Mtns NP, but I seriously think its bad form. Yes I know the timber just rots, and the timbers are getting rarer so it could be seen as a waste, but from an ecological point of view, the act of rotting is critical. It provides habitat in the short term; in the long term nutrients are returned to the soil (far more effectively than burning, where carbon etc is removed as smoke) and in rainforests a rich and rotting floor layer is important. I'd imagine there would be further local damage involved with log extraction. Without seeming to be a prig, I think the removal of anything from a national park, be that a branch, one insect or even a leaf, is detrimental. It robs the ecosystem even on a minor scale. Multiply that by thousands of visitors a year, let alone the actions of unscrupulous dealers in palms and ferns, and the impact becomes worrying! These are isolated remnants of something that once covered the whole country... just look at the pitiful proportion of forest left as np's... I think they need all the help they can get.
Here endeth the sermon!

[Eastie]

Where I come from taking such timber, whether for fire wood or wood work would earn you an appointment with the local magistrate. The department can also (and have) seize vehicles, trailers and chainsaws on-the-spot.

The department has in the past couple of years held public timber auctions for timbers they've removed from parks and other crown lands such as road reserves. This allows people access to some assessed high quality timber, discouraging the activity you are talking about.

If I knew I could drive into a national park with a chainsaw and harvest timber, either legally or under agreement with the ranger I probably would - and so would heaps of other people. Fact is that these areas have been closed to such activity to preserve - not to exploit.

There are plenty of other trees in the bush, and the ones in national parks aren't necessarily greener

[Shedhand]

I share the sense of waste that fallen timber or that which is pruned/cut for safety reasons represents to woodies. I also understand that the environment can't regenerate without the life giving natural recycling of fallen timber. (Crikey, starting to sound like a damn tree hugger ). However, such timber can be harvested sustainably. For decades Tasmanian craftspeople have been harvesting such timber (minor species) from state forests under a quota system. I'd suggest an approach to the State Forestrs Minister from a small delegation of serious woodies armed with some facts and figures (including an offer to work with the Parks people to help maintain the park). The only issue I can see that would be problematic is the small size (300 acres is pretty small) of the park. As a former member of parliament and advisor to Ministers I know this is the most likely approach to achieve a positive outcome for all concerned.
Cheers

[dan_tom]

I tend to agree with Andy Mac and Eastie.

Even on our sugar cane farm, my family are not allowed to cut down some of the trees that have been on the property for years (as much as I have been willing the big white cedar up the back near the creek to fall over!). Each tree has been heritage listed and earmarked for conservation. It all forms part of the environmental protection of the area too.

Cheers
Dan

[reeves]

hey good responses thanks guys. may i make it clear that i am only talking about timbers that the rangers or their contractors have already had to cut with a chainsaw, that are on or near the paths.

I agree with maccas call on the rotting, but a few man cut bits would make little difference as the bulk that falls and rots is not near the paths.

Ethically i have no problem with utilisng a bit of cut stuff and and am interested to hear more about that auction mentioned....

cheeeeeeers

[Waldo]

G'day Reeves,

It's a stupid situation with the fallen trees in national parks. But to a point I can understand it.

A similar story is they won't let you remove native fauna from fallen trees from national parks that would otherwise die. When I was a kid we'd often go for long walks in the national parks all throughout Queensland (my home state) and we'd take a knapsack. When we came across an orchid or elkhorn or similar that had come down out of a tree or fallen with a tree in a storm we'd put in in the knapsack.

Most of these plants would have died if left, some of the orchids which we found, I now have in a rainforest garden down here in Melbourne - some 20+ years later.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

A decade or three ago we used to have a stook in the Ballaraat State Forest.

For a not insubstantial annual fee we were allowed to clear dead-falls and the like from our allotted area for use as firewood. Anybody pinching wood from that stook was stealing from us... we paid for it, it was ours, we just hadn't collected it yet. :mad:

Sadly such theft wasn't uncommon, even to the extent of amateurs felling dead trees in the small, wee hours of the night or cutting burls off living trees, with no consideration whatsoever for the damage done.

[Greg Ward]

In NSW, you used to be able to get a licence to collect specific fallen trees from forestry areas, not sure about national parks. Timbers are a renewable resource, so I have not problems with their removel, Sure in Amazon rainforests, the humus from decaying trees supports those growing, however in rich red volcanic or even wet gully areas, trees are constantly breaking down the soils/rocks into nutirents, and carbon dioxide is readily available, so the taking of a tree or two won't make any difference.

Speaking of regrowth, all along coastal NSW, where red cedars etc. grow, farms in the early 1900's incuding dairies were mainly subsistence in nature, but of course they have mostly all disappeared now, and many areas cleared are gradually being taken over by regrowth, including mainly areas on hillsides and in gullies that shouldn't have been cleared in the first place. Very positive, I see it all the time when visiting properties looking for red gold, and rarely mentioned.
Greg

[keith53]

G'day Reeves,

I don't see any problem with removing timber fallen naturally or cut down for safety reasons. Or managed logging for that matter. There doesn't seem to be any reason to me why trees can't be treated the same as any other crop - provided the process is managed properly.

This would be more appropriate in your neck of the woods because of the high rainfall.

One classic example of properly managed logging is Fraser Island. The Qld Forrestry Dept provided excellent management from the early 1900's. They also made some groundbreaking discoveries in relation to propagation of some pine species. Some areas have been logged four and five times with no environmental detriment. In fact, in some areas you'd never know logging had taken place.

I think its a crying shame to allow good wood to just lay on the ground and rot.

Cheers,
Keith

[Rocker]

It seems to me that, when discussing green issues, common sense is often abandoned; I can't see why a licensing system allowing people for a reasonable fee, which should not be too small or too large, to harvest cut logs near or on paths should not work without causing any significant detriment. Obviously there would need to be punitive fines for people who rorted the system by cutting down trees that were not already cut by rangers. Such a system might help to fund National Parks, which seem to be perennially short of funding.

Rocker

[reeves]

It seems to me that, when discussing green issues, common sense is often abandoned;

Rocker

hey great responses all, thanks.. and Rocker, yr quote above is too true mate...

It would seem that the issue of the cutting of a mid life cedar tree, if it were outside the park would be illegal and raise fines..the tree was in perfect health and not rotting or dropping limbs...

the issues of the Park using the resorce a little to help raise funds to maintain the park is a good suggestion and if monitored by the rangers could be done well.

Using a little of the fallen/cut wood top help raise park related issues would also seeem a good idea, works madewith timbers would be promoted tourist wise and will add to the heritage values.

On the safety issue, it would seem the local landcare group with any other rate payers..may assist in both keeping the tracks safe and keeping it natural if the Parks service were willing...to set a new precedant..

I see no need for a 'free for all' or people illicitly removing timber...
just a need for a better way of ensuring saftey and resource use/awareness
and innvolve more people is using the park

On the issue of the natural purity being mainatined by non human intervention, then its already blown by the paths, road and alrerady cut timbers...maybe all hand cut timbers should be cut back further or as much as possible...i think some xtra maintainance with benefit all causes...

I think saftey is very important as Andy pointed out with kids...

and thanks for the semron Andy, whats a prig anyways, mate ?

regardless of views i hope we can discuss the issue openly and maybe broaden our views...which may benefit the park as well as the people who visit...

yes thanks Eastie, there is plenty of good wood on surrounding properties...plus council park land, in fact its everywhere....big stringbarks cut by the council on the side of the highway...

here some pics of the 'natural' look on the upper walk...
the trees are Red Cedar and Blackwood(hickory), both cut in full health and growth...possibly to stop any falling branches...

cheeeeeeers
john

[Clinton1]

Common sense says that the Parks mob could sell the stuff they cut for safety reasons, or that which falls over on paths. A yearly auction or just a local tender system to shire based residents, maybe with a proviso that a portion of the timber is sold back, at cost, to Shire/council/Parks to be used for promotional or fundraising purposes. Would help the national parks to bseen as more of a part of the community in which they are located.

Common sense would fly out the window as soon as the issue was raised though. The words Sacrosanct (did I spell that right) and Vandal would be thrown about though.

[Tonyz]

Reeves heres an idea get someone to fall over one of the trees and the road/path edge and break a leg or arm then sue the national park for damages with a previso(?) that the case be dropped if all fallen trees are removed :eek: Tonto

[Andy Mac]

I'm following what's being said and again with some sympathy, but I think there is a degree of difference between 'forestry', which relates to commercial interest (at crudest, the mining of a resource), and 'national park' which to me, means preservation. Check out a map and see the proportion of forestry to national park in this country (forget that this post started in a rainforest area), its not a pleasing sight.:mad:
Yes, the govt. dept. in charge of np's is drastically underfunded, the people that work at the coal face will readily admit that, but its a bit like saying that individual chapels should sell off their bricks to support their church! How long would that last!?
A publicly funded system utilizing fallen trees is fine for a forestry area, but not appropriate for a national park, esp. one of 300 or so acres, with margins being nibbled at by feral critters and invaded by weeds (privet, lantana). There is, I'd imagine, a threshold of self-supported survival for remnants like this. They need all they produce to try and maintain a status quo. Going back to something I said in my first response, about habitat, taking away suitable hollow trees, be they standing (ie 'widowmakers') or fallen (rotting & therefore 'wasted') is completely missing the point. Bats, possums, quolls, birds... whatever choses these hollows are just as essential to the long term survival of the trees as the soil itself. They all help recycle the nutrients of the forest. Take the recycling away, and the forest will not continue, and even more so in a remnant isolated by farming.
BTW Reeves, prig means prim or didactic, I don't mind!

Like most of you I am a committed woodie: I will scavenge remorselessly, and occasionally steal, but I draw the line at sourcing from national parks. They aren't mine, they belong to my kids,