Thread: Chain of custody...who cares?

Currently I'm working on a heritage listed gov job in sa and all the timber must have chain of custody and no timber is allowed from asian forests. but they made an exception with meranti so we can match the skirtings.

• 
  
  

• 
  
  

Originally Posted by rustynail

Having spent many years in the wholesale timber industry,I have heard just about every possible excuse for selling what to most, would be considered unsustainable:"We are providing jobs/cash to the locals." "There's plenty more where that came from." "Another bushfire and it will all be gone anyway.""Without us the country would go down the tube." And so the list goes on. Unfortunately, in most cases there is an element of truth in these justifications, but not to the extent where the end justifies the means.
Even Radiata plantation growth is limited by soil degradation from repeated planting. And once they move on to fresh ground, what is left behind has been well used to say the least. This is probably as close to sustainable as we can expect. In many cases the shear size of the operation is what causes the damage and the need for quick profit. Clear felling is the greatest threat to any forest. All timber is at risk of becoming unsustainable sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. The only thing we can do is be more careful and thoughtful about how we go about using what is a limited resource.

I think we can do more than just be careful and thoughtful about how much timber we use..plantations and clever forest management will deliver sustainable outcomes...plenty of cleared land in this country going to waste..there is no good reason why we can't be self sufficent of timber products..i think we need more people with vision (in the timber industry) who are willing to take long term risks and establish plantations of timber for this and future generations...if it is done right, the harvests should be perpetual,taking the pressure off native forests..we can't keep taking from the environment,we also have to give back..our mindset has to change,otherwise there will be nothing left!

Originally Posted by MAPLEMAN

I think we can do more than just be careful and thoughtful about how much timber we use..plantations and clever forest management will deliver sustainable outcomes...plenty of cleared land in this country going to waste..there is no good reason why we can' be self sufficent of timber products..i think we need more people with vision (in the timber industry) who are willing to take long term risks and establish plantations of timber for this and future generations...if it is done right, the harvests should be perpetual,taking the pressure off native forests..we can't keep taking from the environment,we also have to give back..our mindset has to change,otherwise there will be nothing left!

Totally agree Chris (without being very knowledgable on the subject myself). Whenever I drive through many rural areas I see paddocks that clearly haven't been used for yonks, and think "that land has too be useful for something". Same when I drive around Sydney (thankfully not too often these days) and see bare concrete pads from long gone factories (not for tree planting. but still useful for something).

It would serve a number of purposes, not the least of which would be carbon capture (yes, I know that the processing of the timber pumps out more carbon dioxide, but it's a net gain). Creates jobs all through the chain (from nurserymen, horticulturalists, fellers, and all the way through to cabinet makers).

Even old farms in "poor" country can grow things like Mulga, and the other tough acacias which are very popular at the high end of the market. There's a whole wood turning planet out there that would pay bloody good money to get their hands on those sort of sticks.

My comment was "being careful and thoughtful about how we use a limited resource." The quantity is not the issue here. It matters little how much cleared land there is if the land is not suitable for timber production. There are not too many species of milling timber suited to semi arid habitat. Believe me, the methods used to both establish, cultivate and market the production of so called sustainable forests has, for all intents and purposes, been a very rocky road for many. The number of Companies that have tried and failed is staggering and there are still Companies in dire straits today. I have seen operations in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales all faced with financial ruin because what seemed like a good idea at the time was soon beset by tragedy. This is the reason I stress the importance of mind set when it comes to how we manage this resource, be it native or plantation. In NSW alone we have locked up thousands of acres as national parks. They now burn almost every summer and, according to Rangers, are teaming with ferrals.
Dont think for one moment that we can grow what ever we like where ever we like and have product for this and upcoming generations. Many of our favoured timber species are limited to small geographical areas, doing quite poorly when introduced out of environment. The best place to grow Cedar is where Cedar is growing naturally (not Hawaii) and as for hardwood /eucs their growth time wont be much use to the current generation. Not to say they shouldnt be grown, just dont expect people to invest in something from which they receive no return. This is a national responsibility and should be financed on a national basis. To me, I see little difference between old growth or new growth forest. They are both made up of trees. Some with their future well in front of them. The other, living in the present with its days numbered. Funny how we show far more respect to the old guy and feel we can do as we please with the young bloke.
Nothing is sustainable if not managed properly by people who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. Carefully and thoughtfully.

Originally Posted by rustynail

My comment was "being careful and thoughtful about how we use a limited resource." The quantity is not the issue here. It matters little how much cleared land there is if the land is not suitable for timber production. There are not too many species of milling timber suited to semi arid habitat. Believe me, the methods used to both establish, cultivate and market the production of so called sustainable forests has, for all intents and purposes, been a very rocky road for many. The number of Companies that have tried and failed is staggering and there are still Companies in dire straits today. I have seen operations in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales all faced with financial ruin because what seemed like a good idea at the time was soon beset by tragedy. This is the reason I stress the importance of mind set when it comes to how we manage this resource, be it native or plantation. In NSW alone we have locked up thousands of acres as national parks. They now burn almost every summer and, according to Rangers, are teaming with ferrals.
Dont think for one moment that we can grow what ever we like where ever we like and have product for this and upcoming generations. Many of our favoured timber species are limited to small geographical areas, doing quite poorly when introduced out of environment. The best place to grow Cedar is where Cedar is growing naturally (not Hawaii) and as for hardwood /eucs their growth time wont be much use to the current generation. Not to say they shouldnt be grown, just dont expect people to invest in something from which they receive no return. This is a national responsibility and should be financed on a national basis. To me, I see little difference between old growth or new growth forest. They are both made up of trees. Some with their future well in front of them. The other, living in the present with its days numbered. Funny how we show far more respect to the old guy and feel we can do as we please with the young bloke.
Nothing is sustainable if not managed properly by people who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. Carefully and thoughtfully.

I think you are being negative every which way Rusty nail...we have oodles of productive farm land sitting around growing nothing...it's not all semi arid as you suggest...to say that we are not capable of producing quality timber for this and future generations is absolute nonsense...sure euc's take a long time to mature,but the thinnings can be used progressively(wood chip,pulp etc),and the fact that they are taking in carbon is a good thing...there is a huge differance between old growth and new growth forests..new growth forests take up more carbon than old growth forests for a start,and i could go on and on...not sure what your motivation is Rusty,but you bring little light to this discussion...nothing but negativity...have you anything constuctive to add?.

Getting back on track..glad to see that there are like minded folk that are concerned where their timber comes from,and choosing to purchase wood that does come from sustainable forests..for those producing timber items that support their livelihood,sustainability can be a great marketing tool as well..again,hats off to all the folk here that support sustainable forest practices...

"Not sure what my motivation is"
"Nothing but negativity"
"Absolute nonsense"
"Do you have anything constructive to add"
My motivation is to try and show another side to the arguement. A side which many in the timber industry feel is being overlooked.
Nothing but negativity seems a little harsh, but I must admit, there certainly are a lot of negatives in there. Question here is are they justified?
The fact that so many enterprises have gone to the wall is not nonsense, its a fact. Expecting investment to make timely returns for the current generation is wishful thinking. Sounds good, but history says otherwise. And "absolute" is extremely dismissive.
As for constructive addition, I shall try. Firstly, one of the best agricultural practices to come to this country is fallowing. Many farmers are now leaving paddocks for up to four years. The rate of population growth will require every suitable available acre to feed the masses by the time your sustainable forest has reached maturity.
As for arid country, I grew up in Wilcannia and am quite familiar with the difference between productive and non productive areas and realise the importance of the former for sustainable production.
Funny thing is, when I was younger I used to have the same opinion as you.

Originally Posted by rustynail

"Not sure what my motivation is"
"Nothing but negativity"
"Absolute nonsense"
"Do you have anything constructive to add"
My motivation is to try and show another side to the arguement. A side which many in the timber industry feel is being overlooked.
Nothing but negativity seems a little harsh, but I must admit, there certainly are a lot of negatives in there. Question here is are they justified?
The fact that so many enterprises have gone to the wall is not nonsense, its a fact. Expecting investment to make timely returns for the current generation is wishful thinking. Sounds good, but history says otherwise. And "absolute" is extremely dismissive.
As for constructive addition, I shall try. Firstly, one of the best agricultural practices to come to this country is fallowing. Many farmers are now leaving paddocks for up to four years. The rate of population growth will require every suitable available acre to feed the masses by the time your sustainable forest has reached maturity.
As for arid country, I grew up in Wilcannia and am quite familiar with the difference between productive and non productive areas and realise the importance of the former for sustainable production.
Funny thing is, when I was younger I used to have the same opinion as you.

Oh well, I tried.

Nearly all the timber i use is scrounged and/or recycled.
Whatever I buy I know the provenance of because it is bought from
reputable, licensed suppliers. I refuse to use Merbau, and while I like NGR
I refuse to buy it because of questionable forestry practices.

As for forestry plantations and the state of so many schemes referred to by Rustynail,
most of that can be put down to greed and poor management.Agro forestry is a long term
investment and we live in a world where waiting for returns is not the custom. For that
reason alone sustainable production of quality furniture timbers and good hardwoods
for building is probably best left to governments.

I hear you cry!! But just think about it.

Lets take a serious look at who and where these so called endangered, rare, unsustainable timbers go who uses them etc.

This is around the world.
I have seen Government offices and buildings, designers and engineers, those with the $$$$$$ to fit out their boats, planes, cars and houses. While we as small consumers are handed the task of saving the same.

I shop at Trend Timbers who sell some of these timbers I can't afford them .

Its not a case of its not my problem it is as I like many others have to uses throw away timbers such as MDF, Melamine all from trees which have been chipped.

Whats the worst crime?

Originally Posted by artme

As for forestry plantations and the state of so many schemes referred to by Rustynail,
most of that can be put down to greed and poor management.Agro forestry is a long term
investment and we live in a world where waiting for returns is not the custom. For that
reason alone sustainable production of quality furniture timbers and good hardwoods
for building is probably best left to governments.

I hear you cry!! But just think about it.

Poor management has definitely been a contributing factor.
Greed? May be, but in most cases it was the none realisation of dreamt returns particularly short term. This can be greed but also could be looked upon as an expected return which never eventuated due to many factors - undeveloped markets, the value of the dollar, customer saturation etc. Forestry is not a cheap undertaking, nor is it short term. Hence my original remark suggesting careful, thoughtful management. IMHO mass planting will create more problems than it solves.

Originally Posted by artme

Nearly all the timber i use is scrounged and/or recycled.
Whatever I buy I know the provenance of because it is bought from
reputable, licensed suppliers. I refuse to use Merbau, and while I like NGR
I refuse to buy it because of questionable forestry practices.

As for forestry plantations and the state of so many schemes referred to by Rustynail,
most of that can be put down to greed and poor management.Agro forestry is a long term
investment and we live in a world where waiting for returns is not the custom. For that
reason alone sustainable production of quality furniture timbers and good hardwoods
for building is probably best left to governments.

I hear you cry!! But just think about it.

I dissagree with you Artme...i believe it should be left to the private sector,not governments,as they are the ones with a poor track record when it comes to establishing and maintaining plantations.Anyway,i feel we are straying from what i had originally stated in this thread,which was,whether or not we cared where our timber comes from...are we willing to say no to timber that we suspect is from unsustainable sources,and find alternatives.I am deeply passioniate about the environment,this is why EVERYTHING that we mill and harvest is either salvaged or plantation grown..don't want to enter into further negative discussions as i did with Rusty nail yesterday,he can start his own thread'regarding the viabilities of growing plantations.I simply am asking folk,when given the choice,would they purchase timber that came from forests that were being unsustainably logged!

The root cause of deforestation fashion and the way stuff is made so that it only lasts two years and then ends up in rubbish dumps.