Ian Mott, a contributor to this blog, has noted in a comment at an earlier post that:
The Queensland Cabinet is currently considering “phasing out” private native forestry on freehold land. And for all the families that have not only protected forest but actively expanded it over the past 70 or more years, when the bulldozer has reigned supreme, this is deeply, deeply offensive.
Bood Hickson from the Australian Forest Growers Association has written:
The Beattie Government is considering phasing out selective logging of native forest species on freehold land through a cabinet review. This decision comes despite the Government having spent the last year developing a Code of Practice for Native Forests, which did not even raise this ban during the public consultation process.
If Peter Beattie decides to ban selective logging on freehold land it will have the unintended consequence of stopping many would be foresters from growing mixed species native forestry in future, for fear that the government could lock them up as well.
It is not appropriate to ban selective logging in freehold native forests for the following reasons:
1. Ecological reasons.
Appropriate levels of disturbance in fact increase species diversity; help reduce the primary threat to our forests of climate change, by locking up sequestered carbon and reducing methane emissions; and decreasing the import of clear-felled rainforest timber.2. Social reasons.
It will discourage people from planting native trees; export existing and future employment opportunities, and makes a farce of the State government’s alleged support for ecological sustainable development.3. Economical reasons.
It will make many properties financially unviable; cost the tax payers an unnecessary compensation bill, and reduce the economic diversity and resilience of our economy.
So what exactly is driving the deliberations? Why would the government want to phase out private native forestry?
…………..
I now have my own website www.jennifermarohasy.com that lists many of my newspaper articles, a few of my publications, and I will also endeavour to get more speeches up there. The website also gives me a capacity to send out a monthly newsletter to everyone who subscribes, click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Aldo Leopold, the modern founder of the modern environmental ethic stated in his seminal piece ‘A Sand Country Almanac’ that on his small rural property in Wisconsin ‘We mourned the loss of the old tree, but knew that a dozen of its progeny standing straight and stalwart on the sands had already taken over its job of wood-making’.
He went on to further state that ‘the connection with the woods is not made through the pen but by the axe. It is not the process of lopping the tree which must be rethought but the thought processes which goes through ones mind as the axe chips away at the bark and the wood until the timber comes crashing to the earth’. It is the use of the wood, to build a shelter, to use in a fire to keep warm at night which must be appreciated.
Leopolds works has been the foundation of the modern mantra of an environmnetal ethic. Somehwere from the sand banks of the Wisconsin to the native forests of Queensland the message has been confused. Essentially, some advocates for the environment claim that no tree shall be logged or lopped or removed no matter what the economic, social or even environmental reality is.
We need to reconsider our place in the world. Not as ardent admirers of the landscape which befalls us but active managers of the environment and the legacy which we will both inherited and will pass on.
The banning of private foresty on freehold land would a tragedy- both in economic and environmental terms.
In Aldo’s abbreviated words: Get your heads out of the clouds, go get an axe and really get back to nature!
Methinks the so-called saving of trees has nothing to do with saving one’s planet and everything to do with greasing one’s conscience. As if one’s conscience isn’t slippery enough.
Leopold reminds me of sentiments expressed by one of the founders of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore (no relation of Michael). He helped found the organisation with genuine intentions, but couldn’t stomach the way it became self-serving.
It is curious how a private native forest is not-for-commerce, but if you flatten the bush and establish a pine plantation, that’s good resource management.
It is evolutionary; first there is a need, then a facitilty.
Nature deficit yearns for environmental intervention.
By phasing out private native forestry, political capital is extracted for the consolidation of government (particularly when 84% of the polpulation lives within 100 kms of Brisbane).
The most surprising aspect of this policy option is the fact that it is being considered without a formal brief from the forest owners in their own defence. The possibility that departmental officers could present a full and proper case, without consultation with owners, is zero. And the most conspicuous omission, as with so much of the green agenda, would be proper consideration of the risks and likely consequences of such a ban.
For every forest owner, the veneer of just cause, due process or proportionate response will be shredded. And it will be seen to have been shredded by the same entity that is their major competitor in the timber market, the government owned plantations. And every forest owner will have his nose rubbed in this injustice every time he passes a DPIF Plantation, a Joint Venture Plantation or, indeed, any National Park.
Forest owners have always formed the backbone of rural fire service volunteers. It is their local knowledge of fire patterns that forms the intellectual capital of this critical community infrastructure. But if only 1% of those grossly betrayed and regularly tormented forest owners were to turn that knowledge towards retribution, in the worst place, at the worst time, on the worst day, then the future of government owned forestry will be nasty, brutish and short.
If only 0.1% have read Sun Tzu lately, then 30-40 individuals will focus their attention on the most treasured assets of their enemy, the Daintrees, the Lamingtons etc, to demonstrate that ecology without justice is just another form of Hell.
And me, I was born and raised in a fourth generation family forest. It is much more than a personal issue, it is a destiny, an imprint from birth. I wouldn’t know which percentile I was in until the truth set in. But people repond according to their pain and I could not condemn anyone with a greater pain than mine.
Just to let readers know that I have since contacted DNRM Ministers office who have advised that no such phasing out of private native forestry is under consideration. This would appear to have been a fairly standard ‘wind-up’ that can occur in these processes to make the eventual code seem like a pretty good deal in comparison. So anyone reading my earlier post should regard the material within as the other half of two extreme scenarios. And having explored those hypothetical extremes, we can all now get back to the deliberations of reasonable men and women, hopefully in full possession of the facts.