The Wilderness Society is no doubt celebrating the recent decision by Japanese paper mill Mitsubishi to only source woodchip from plantation forests. The end result, however, is likely to be fewer tall trees in Tasmania’s native forests.
The tall wet sclerophyll forests that make Tasmania so special are not able to regenerate without some form of severe disturbance and fire.
The annual three month window for burning has just ended in Tassie.
Where there is no logging and no wildfires, the mature eucalypt overstorey will stagnate and continue to decline, eventually to be replaced by (shorter) rainforest.
Clear felling to quote an old foresters, “bares the mineral soil to produce an adequate seedbed, and provides a brief respite for the new (Eucalyptus) forest to assert itself over its shrub competitors. The seed drop on the bared seedbed may be a serendipitous natural event, or else a man-made contrived additive. All our current “Old Growth Forests” were the result of major fire occurrences from lightning or indigenous firing.”
I was in Tassie in May.
And here are some pictures from that visit:
View image of stream in forest (about 50kb).
View image of swamp gum (about 50kbs).
View image of old tall Eucalyptus trees (about 130 kbs).
COMMENT from reader inserted at 3.20pm on 4th July:
Jennifer,
Your “View image of old tall Eucalyptus trees” requires explanation:
1.The background slope (R.H.S.& centre)is an area of very old forest burnt, without doubt by wildfire maybe 50 years ago with regrowth(same species)to 50-60 metres & many dead remnant “stags” of the original dominant Euc. species still standing –most have fallen over. To the left is remnant old growth, damaged but only some killed. Regrowth here will be patchy.
2. The mid-slope almost certainly is regrowth(same Euc. species) to ca. 40 metres following logging & regeneration burning & aerial seeding (same species).Note very few stags, they have long since been converted to furniture & high quality papers etc.etc.
3. The foreground could be another species but has apparently not been logged or catastrophically burnt c.f.1&2.
Regards, Bill.
View image of clear felled patch (about 130 kbs).
and
View closeup of recently burnt patch (about 50 kbs).
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Victoria’s Central Highlands started off the 20th century with a rich collection of super-large and tall Mountain Ash trees, comparable with those exhibited in Forestry Tasmania’s Gallery of Tall Trees.
But time has taken its toll (Not Logging or Wood Chips, only TIME, plus a few cases where the 1926 or 1939 fires overtook them.)
A startling example of the fact that these old veterans are only with us for a very limited time is to visit the Cumberland Valley, just past Marysville, and compare the vistas with the photographs of 60-70 years ago. Maybe Jennifer can do a blog on this case history, some time.
Unfortunately Victoria’s Department of Ever-changing Names has never seen fit to put the effort into building up a record similar to that available to us from Forestry Tasmania, despite the fact that in 1983 it inherited a thick file of information from its predecessor, Forests Commission of Victoria. I happen to know the FCV File number which can be retrieved from archives in Melbourne. Should anybody wish to have this magic number, please ask me.
The archival information goes back to the beginning of the 20th century.
There is profound ignorance of forest ecology among those who seek to lock up and “preserve” old growth wet sclerophyl eucalypt forest. The successional path of such forests is to eucalypt-free rainforest unless major disturbance from fire or logging intervenes. To campaign against fuel reduction burning and logging is to campaign for the ultimate elimination of old growth Tasmanian eucalypt forest.
Jennifer, I just want to clarify an issue. I am not sure but is the technique of ‘clear felling’ old growth forest a practise actually undertaken to generate new forest or simply the most economically expedient?
Also, what actually constitutes what we hear in the press as ‘old growth’. Is it a term used to describe the age of the forest or simply the structure of the forest from old to new growth?
If the Wilderness Society are serious about protecting the ‘old growth’ forests and, as you say, that old growth forests will be lost by changing the management techniques- what are they trying to protect? I may have just answered my own question on that one but would appreciate some clarification on the others.
Tom,
My personal opinion is that the term ‘old growth forest’ is not science, but political and media rhetoric. It has been dressed up as science in some quarters (Regional Forest Agreement?), presumably to make it look ‘respectable’. A bit like wearing a white lab coat, and spouting nonsense.
For example, 100 years old may be the cutoff. Such an abrupt deadline is rather silly – what about 99 year old forest? Is that ‘Young Growth’?
Also, why include the word ‘growth’ at all? Surely all forests grow, but young forests grow faster than old ones. For accuracy, how about ‘Old Senescent Forest’?
If we extend the rhetoric, should the local primary school be a ‘Centre for Young Growth Children’? Or the old folks live in an ‘Old Shrinking People’s Home’?
Rhetoric is an important part of society, but we need to watch out for misuse of slogans in encouraging ‘group think’. I visualize George Orwell’s sheep, bleating ‘Old growth good, young growth bad’. I had better stop, before I get on to that other master stroke of group think, ‘biodiversity’!
Tom and David,
There was a scholarly piece written about the science and politics of ‘old growth forest’history of definitions etcetera in 1998 in the Journal ‘Environment and History’. I sat and read the piece on the floor in an aisle of the University of Queensland (Sociology)library some weeks ago. I can’t remember title or author but it is in volume no. 4 and it preceeds or follows the following paper by Robin, L (1998) Radical ecology and conservation science: An Australian perspective. Environment and History (4): 191-208. If either of you/someone else gets a hard or soft copy I would appreciate you copying and sending the same for me. Best,