Almost half of the mammals and birds in our forest require tree
hollows to breed and they're fussy about size and shape. Reasonable
hollows caused by rotting back after limb breakage or by termite
damage do not occur in eucalypts until maturity - beyond 120 years.
'Sustainable' logging here is in coups on an 80 year cycle - hence my
skepticism. These are not softwood forests, the whole profile is
different and the history of the companies involved and the
governments that 'control' them is highly questionable.
Nothing against loggers - had several in the family - but modern
practices are highly mechanised, high capital/low labour and are
broadly destructive. Aus. is a major exporter of woodchips for
papermaking. This was touted as an excellent way of utilising the
'wastes' (rather than merely burning them and returning the nutrients
to the ground - burning the trash is an essential stage of the
regeneration process for Mountain Ash and others). Of course, the
contracts are massive and what is 'waste' is now a very variable
concept. Millable logs are chipped to keep up the quota. Tasmania is
the main culprit at present although Queensland is the worst offender
for forest clearance, for other reasons - agricultural conversion.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 26/04/2006, at 3:03 AM, James N. McBride wrote:
> All loggers should not be painted with the same brush. Some of us
> practice
> sustainable logging production that does not destroy timber stands
> as they
> are continually regenerated. Unfortunately that is not the practice
> everywhere. My timber land provides homes for bears, deer, wild
> turkeys, elk
> and many other little critters. Even though it is periodically
> logged it is
> still beautiful. /jmac
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|