Thread: the ethics milling of old growth timbers

Hi Lewis,

Yes what you say appears in the first instance to make sense but on closer inspection there are some big gaps there.

First old growth forest didn't start as old growth forest. It started as some form of day old regrowth forest. This is a process that in most, but certainly not all, Australian forests starts with landscape sized fires usually started by lightning.

Second it is impossible to PRESERVE old growth. A forest is a dynamic living and dying ecosystem constantly on the move and in most cases changing its structure and species mix over time. In the absence of logging it may be possible to CONSERVE that dynamic status quo in a living forest until some natural process brings about change. We need to be careful not to read 'change ' or disturbance by natural processes as bad as is generally portrayed by the news media when we have large fires.

It is certainly the case that logging in Australian forests has substantially reduced the presence of old age old growth forest with very large trees and the Regional Forest Agreements of recent times has put a framework in place to reserve or conserve much of the remaining old large tree old growth forest to internationally accepted standards set down by the IUCN. Notwithstanding this one could argue the ethics and merits of felling some of the remaining tallest flowering plants on the earth that are outside the reserved areas.

In theory it should be possible to maintain a scenario of forest management whereby the interval between logging operations was sufficiently long to permit old age old growth forest to return. In the Tasmanian eucalypt forests this would equate closely to twice the time since white men arrived to colonise the continent.

I don't like your idea of partial or perimeter logging residual old growth. This immediately creates a huge source of additional available fuel to foster more frequent and more intense fires. Partial logging was practiced in southern tasmania from perhaps the year 1810 to the year 1964. There is practically no known area in southern tassie where partial logging was practiced during that period that was not burnt in subsequent wild fires in the process incidently giving rise to magnificent forests of regrowth up to 150 years old. The story is much the same in the ash forests of Victoria.

I'm empathetic to your sentiments but the approach has to be sound ecologically and practically also. The closure of the Tassie old growth forests to logging would see the demise of our special timbers craft industry with the loss of close to 3000 positions and $75M per annum. The mainstream saw milling industry would collapse with the loss of perhaps another 3000 positions. It would make Tassie a basket case.

What about plantations you say and its a good point. Well sorry to impart bad news. The emergent Tassie plantation estate of shining gum and blue gum is very large and capable of providing in simple volume conversion terms at least the equivalent of the current hardwood cut. Sadlly its not a good product.... it looks like s--t and its got all manner of drying defect and then stability issues in service. This resource will never substitute the native forest resource for appearance timber . Why did we plant the species that historically were close to the least desirable saw milling feedstock in both Vic and Tas. Well that's simple and its because they are also close to the best hardwood pulping species in Australia and because they are relatively immune to insect attack when planted in pure stands.

I wish I had an answer for you but I don't. If I did I,d be a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Regards Old Pete

G'Day Pete, I have just arrived home after 4 days in Melbourne and your post was the first one I read, correct me if I am wrong as I was close to falling off my chair laughing are you saying that if they closed down old growth logging 6,000 forestry workers will lose there jobs, what a load of bu.ls.it who do you work for forestry tasmania or Gunns.?
It is possible to selective log forests for minor species you just have to know what you are doing they did it in the old days, am I against logging the answer is no.
But I do not like the way I have watched Tasmanian forests been logged for the past 40 odd years and I am hoping with a new change of goverment things might change.
Because if they keep logging old growth forests like they are, there will not be any minor species left to log.
Cheers Bob

bob, lmho denigrationg someone elses point of view and questioning their affilliations or loyalties is not advancing the discussion.

if you have the facts that refute any or all of the statements made by "old pete" i would be very interested in hearing them

Ray, I am very tired after a very busy trip.
And I am not running old Pete down we can all have our own views but after over 40 years on and off spent going in the tasmanian forests I reckon I know the truth and if you have hours to spare to chat some time let me know or better still travel down to Tasmania and I will show you how old growth forests are logged.

Originally Posted by old_picker

bob, lmho denigrationg someone elses point of view and questioning their affilliations or loyalties is not advancing the discussion.

if you have the facts that refute any or all of the statements made by "old pete" i would be very interested in hearing them

Originally Posted by woodturner777

Ray, I am very tired after a very busy trip.
And I am not running old Pete down we can all have our own views but after over 40 years on and off spent going in the tasmanian forests I reckon I know the truth and if you have hours to spare to chat some time let me know or better still travel down to Tasmania and I will show you how old growth forests are logged.

unfortunately i dont have time for either of those things
if you could spare a little time to put forward even a glimmer of the truth as you see it would be very much appreciated -

you see the policies in action every day - we on the mainland can only reference the "manufactured" truth generated by either politicians, the big corporates, or the environmental groups. there must be a mean between the extremes

Ray, I happen to be one of the old School a spade is a spade if you know what I mean.
I do not believe anything I read untill I have read or studied the subject over and over many times, if I want to do something I will learn it well, and work at it to be the best.
And I do know a lot about how forestry has been done here in Tasmania for the past 40 years or so.
Now old Pete please show me the facts where 6,000 forestry workers will be out of work if they stopped old growth logging, Fact there is no where near that figure working in the logging industry. logging of old growth forests can be done on a selective policy.And Ray I will talk more about this subject lets wait for old Petes reply and see if he knows what he is talking about.
As I for one am sick and tired of all the bul.s.it spin out there.
Cheers Bob

Originally Posted by old_picker

just wondering if any who read this board have opinions on this subject?
for eg does it matter if timber is ethically harvested in a sustainable manner?

given the quantities required for furniture it doesn't matter -- in this context stuff made from veneered chip board or ply e.g. like the majority of stuff Ikea sells, are not furniture
and in terms of musical instruments, a couple of decent sized trees would probably survice for Australia's total annual instrument production so it's irrelevant

Of course it's a different story where the timber is used for construction or temporary works

do you know which [if any] timbers available in australia are plantation grown?

what little I know about this suggests that most plantation timber is grown so fast, it's really only suitable for scantlings or chipping

but I might be wrong

If there are 6000 loggers of old growth forest, I can't see them being destitute if the industry slackened greatly. Surely they're all hardworking individuals capable of adapting into related industries or even *gasp* the wider workforce. Industries wane and die over the years, they can't last forever. Forestry won't last another 50 years at this rate.

Radiata is very extensively as plantation timber, and supplies a large demand of structural timber, not all mind you. What I don't understand is the insistant use of introduced species, for which is not that good a timber in the first place. There are lots of our native species being used in plantations overseas, but we use almost exclusively radiata. I know in recent times alot of native timber plantations have gone in the ground here is Australia, but not yet mature enough. Hopefully the forestry commissions will keep it up and put trees in the ground that makes ecological sense as well as pleasing us woodworkers.

PS. I know tasmanians think the world stops at Bass Strait, but there are more forests in the world... Tassies forests are pea nuts in the big picture.

Cheers,

Peter

I am Scottish Peter, but I can understand why Tasmanians think the world ends at Bass strait its because they live in Heaven.
And yes I agree Tasmanian forests are pea nuts in the big picture and even thou I do not totaly agree with some of the logging practices here, compared to most of the countrys in the world there not as bad,and I hope they will get even better.
And I will try my best to see if this can happen as we do have some beautiful Timbers that make excellent tonewoods.
Cheers,Bob


PS. I know tasmanians think the world stops at Bass Strait, but there are more forests in the world... Tassies forests are pea nuts in the big picture.

Cheers,

Peter[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by peterbrown

Radiata is very extensively as plantation timber, and supplies a large demand of structural timber, not all mind you. What I don't understand is the insistant use of introduced species, for which is not that good a timber in the first place. There are lots of our native species being used in plantations overseas, but we use almost exclusively radiata.

Peter
my understanding is that before the advent of air nailers, the fastest way for a chippie to go broke was to try and build a house frame using seasoned Aussie hardwood
I'm told that with the seasoned hardwwod available in sydney in the 40s and 50s, every nail had to be pre-drilled.
Consequently, Douglas Fir (known locally as Oregon) was the framer's timber of choice
Radiata plantations were established to provide a domestic supply of "softwood" fro house frames and otehr temporary construction

G'Day Ian, I have used hardwood a lot in building with no problems, the roof can all be built with green hardwood timber, as for the frame you just need muscles and a good heavy hammer.
I forgot you guys on the mainland are not as strong.
Cheers,Bob

Bob
I'm sure there's a scientific answer, maybe tassie harwood is soft?
maybe because tassie is so wet, it was typically used green whereas the stuff off the isle was used dry
victorian H/W is quite pleasant to work, while seasoned NSW north coast hardwood is bloody hard,

Originally Posted by ian

Peter
my understanding is that before the advent of air nailers, the fastest way for a chippie to go broke was to try and build a house frame using seasoned Aussie hardwood
I'm told that with the seasoned hardwwod available in sydney in the 40s and 50s, every nail had to be pre-drilled.
Consequently, Douglas Fir (known locally as Oregon) was the framer's timber of choice
Radiata plantations were established to provide a domestic supply of "softwood" fro house frames and otehr temporary construction

they never built from frames from seasoned hardwood - they used what was
called ob hardwood - it was freshly cut and milled green -a lot of it was average quality with large gum veins etc - the best stuff was kiln dried and machined for cabinetry etc - the ob made a structure that shrank around the nails and joints - it made a very tight building -