Frankenforests

Charles and Claire Gilmour

Tasmania has been sold out and sold a lie. The games up Forestry – you can keep spinning those lies, but with the growing number of eyes, we’ve seen through your disguise! Is a Bartlett run Labor government clever enough to kindly respect the environment that sustains us all? Will they kindly look at all the (in Bartlett’s words) “data, evidence and knowledge”, both locally and worldwide? Or are they proud to be in era where they can stand back and watch the natural world die with the knowledge they did nothing? Is a Bartlett run government any different to a Lennon run government? Are they still controlled by the forest industry thugs?

BUGGER nature and biodiversity, modern forestry decrees, trees ain’t useful trees unless they’ve been nullified, codified and, modified, to be a bonafide pulp wood tree.

Genetically Modified Forests created from the ashes of Tasmania’s rainforests, native forests, ancient forests – what a legacy to leave behind.

If Forestry is only using the rubbish from sawlog harvesting and is not woodchip driven then why has so much research gone into creating seed and trees specifically for kraft pulp production? And for its secondary use as a fuel in biomass power plants?

What does the industry say itself about it?

http://www.stba.com.au/documents/AFGPaperMay2004_AFGformat.pdf

“ The primary breeding objective for the national E.globulus (Blue Gum) tree improvement program is to maximize the net present value per hectare ($NPV) from forests grown for kraft pulp production.”

“Clearly, companies continuing to use just native seed from the best provenances will be losing significant potential productivity.”

Hence the marching band of pulp wood plantations and the furphy on regenerated native forests. Forestry Tasmania, let alone Gunns, have little interest in supporting, protecting or growing native forests.

“Although the primary objective of most STBA Members is to produce woodchips for pulp markets, …”

It’s been more than obvious (and rather interesting who are STBA Members) what Forestry Tasmania and Gunns objective has been – woodchip driven not sawlog driven. And what’s even more scary is FT are spinning their euc’s around the world, like a disease, infecting ecosystems world wide.

And just where are the likes of FT, Gunns and the state and federal governments pushing and prodding to? Stupid, blind, ignorant, greedy people, prepared to risk it all to recreate nature into what they want just so they can fill their pockets.

The truth behind plantations and so called regenerated forests…..

“Frankenforests: GE Trees Threaten Ecosystem Collapse”

http://www.alternet.org/environment/58477/

“Eucalyptus, a fast-growing, high-yield hardwood, is notorious for colonizing native ecosystems. The species has become so successful in California, it’s now listed as a plant pest by the state’s Invasive Plant Council. The tree additionally depletes ground water, exacerbating drought conditions, and is extremely flammable, potentially causing massive wildfires, an ongoing issue for the American South, where ArboGen is headquartered.”

http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/files/GE%20Trees=%20Cell%20Eth-comp.pdf

“Eucalyptus, native only to Australia, is a favorite species for pulpwood plantations worldwide. It is a notoriously invasive tree species, that often out-competes native plant species.”

The Introduced Species Summary Project of Columbia University found eucalyptus to be a great threat to ecosystems: “The loss of biodiversity and habitat is a great threat from the … eucalyptus. It creates virtual monocultures and can rapidly take over surrounding compatible areas, completely changing the ecosystem. That monoculture creates a loss of habitats for many species that relied on the previous system. Due to its great capacity for taking over a wide variety of habitats, the … eucalyptus could possibly spread to a great range of systems where there is enough water content and create huge monocultures.”36

“The US Forest Service also reported concerns about the ability of eucalyptus to suppress the growth of other plants: “The leaves of … eucalyptus release a number of terpenes and phenolic acids. These chemicals may be responsible for the paucity of accompanying vegetation in plantations. Natural fog drip from … eucalyptus inhibits the growth of annual grass seedlings in bioassays, suggesting that such inhibition occurs naturally. At least one leaf extract has been shown to strongly inhibit root growth of seedlings of other species.”37

According to the TCA Timber Communities Australia –

http://www.tca.org.au/reportssubmissions/docs/060823nsw_pnfsub.pdf

“Eucalypts are sunlight demanding species and are amongst the most intolerant to competition of all tree species.”

Hence clearfelling and burn burn burn all and sundry, so the preferred pulpwood and euc’s can have the space and a monopoly over any other native tree species.

According to FIAT –

http://www.fiatas.com.au/index.php?id=26

“Forests impact on water quality and yield.”

“Healthy forests distribute water runoff over a longer period of time and improve water quality.”

All too true. So why are they pushing for pulpwood, for young trees and thus destroying native forests and water catchments?

According to TCA

http://www.tca.org.au/index.shtml

“… current research shows that timber production not only has a minimal effect on water yield, …”

Obviously FIAT and the TCA are in disagreement.

According to CSIRO research:

http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/science/2006/sr11-06.pdf

In respect to water:

“The rate of soil evaporating is reduced by the presence of surface mulch or other forms of vegetative litter.”

In Tasmania, Forestry burns just about everything, including the leaf litter. (Under the guise of ‘fuel reduction burns’). Forestry practices in Tasmania destroy the infrastructure of the temperate rainforests and native forests it is clearfelling, chipping and burning.

“The actual values of the long-term water balance components are determined by climate, vegetation and terrain factors.”

Forestry talks of ‘prescriptions’ and forest plans per coupe, but they broadly sweep the same tarred brush over the whole landscape. They do not fulfill their obligations to ensure the protection of special values (ie endangered animals, plants, water courses, etc) in these forests. They say they use specialists to assess each coupe, but in reality it’s more often than not, an FT rep who is not a qualified specialist in all the ‘special values’ they are assessing. If they are hounded to do exactly what they say they will do, they say it costs them too much.

In reality the likes of Gunns can’t really afford the proper value of our forests.

“Differences in age structure can create substantial differences in forest water use…”
“ … when the forest has reached full maturity (i.e., has approached a maximum height and leaf area), a slow decrease in water use to a new equilibrium has been observed, particularly in forest in high rainfall areas. This typically does not occur until one or more decades after canopy closure.”

But pulpwood trees are not grown for this long. And with a monster of a pulpmill neither will so called regenerated native forests be left long enough. Hence exterminated and dried out temperate rainforests. Forestry spins a line that it makes no difference what vegetation cover there is, it will rain regardless. They obviously missed that kindergarten science lesson on rainforests. Wonder why they are called ‘rain’ forests?

“Commercial plantings are established with a view of producing optimal volumes of good quality wood that can be harvested as low costs. From a forester’s point of view, this translates in a preference for higher rainfall areas, for fertile, deep soils with good water holding capacity, and for accessible and extended areas with low slope.”

Hence the notable band of clearfelling and plantations of ‘low quality’ pulpwood in these areas in Tasmania, both in state forest and on good farming land. Take the best and leave the worst to the rest.

No government brain = no public gain.

“… the key differences in water yield impact between commercial and environmental plantings are:”

“Commercial plantings are likely to be biased towards parts of the landscape where they show higher than average impacts on water yield, whereas environmental plantings can show greater, smaller or average impacts depending on their primary purpose.”

Forestry says they no longer convert state forest to plantations, (though their 3 year coupe plans say different), but they burn everything including the undergrowth, killing much of the emergent undergrowth (often replaced by invasive weed species) and aerial spray eucs which do not like competition. This so called regrowth native forest is often little better than plantations. FT is not in the practice of doing environmental plantings, but are abysmally practicing on the environment to grow commercial tree crops (mainly to chip), and failing the environment on a world class scale. Like Gunns, this practice takes away more than it gives. Greedy egomaniacs have created this destructive insanity.

In respect to carbon sequestration:

“Montegu et al. (2003) propose that carbon stocks under commercial plantings will ultimately be 10% lower than under environmental plantings.”

“Most of the sequestration of carbon in the short to medium term (<100 years) will be in biomass rather than in soil carbon. Overall there can be expected to be strong correlation between carbon sequestration and water yield impact, therefore. The links to pollutant generation are less direct, but it can be argued that better growth and litter production will lead to better soil surface protection, this will be influenced more strongly by the management of the undergrowth than by tree growth, however.” This current forest industry does not like undergrowth. It hampers the growth of their preferred species. They prefer to trash and burn it. Infact in so called ‘regenerated’ forests and in rainforests, where undergrowth is particularly important, they like to wait a year or two or three for the undergrowth to re-establish after clearfelling, then burn it, so they can completely annihilate the competitive undergrowth – trees, plants, seeds and all. When Forestry says they are mimicking nature when they regenerated native forests they are, more often than not, being deceitful. Little of what FT says can be taken at face value (which we have personally learnt from experience). In respect to salinity problems: “The 15 year rotations are relatively short, but may be considered representative of pulpwood plantations. After clearing, water and salt yield and salinity rapidly return towards their pre-planting levels, and this is achieved within 95% around 10 years after clearing.” Hence this marching band of plantations (under whatever guise ie some now called regenerated forests) are good for nothing but the likes of Gunns pulping pocket. Tasmania has been sold out and sold a lie. The games up Forestry – you can keep spinning those lies, but with the growing number of eyes, we’ve seen through your disguise! Is a Bartlett run Labor government clever enough to kindly respect the environment that sustains us all? Will they kindly look at all the (in Bartlett’s words) “data, evidence and knowledge”, both locally and world wide? Or are they proud to be in era where they can stand back watch the natural world die with the knowledge they did nothing? Is a Bartlett run government any different to a Lennon run government? Are they still controlled by the forest industry thugs? Frankly WHO in a position of power to create clever, kind and far reaching legislation gives a damn about our forests and how vitally important they are to our and the natural world’s survival? CHARLES AND CLAIRE GILMOUR