Forest conservation biologist Dr Sue Baker has cited the Canadian experience in promoting ‘variable retention logging’ as a possible way forward for the forestry industry (Mercury letter 7/2). She correctly states that forestry practices should be informed by science.
But by which science?
I attended a talk delivered by Canadian forester Bill Beese, a guest of Forestry Tasmania, in 2007.
It was disappointing to find out that only 10-30% of natural forest was retained in these operations. In many ways the outcome is a clearfell less 10-30%.
There are other problems. The retained forest is particularly susceptible to edge drying effects and to windthrow.
Clearfelling and burning for eucalyptus regeneration is 1950s science and variable retention logging is only marginally better practice. Forestry Tasmania should be compelled to do better.
Forestry practices should pay much more attention to contemporary scientific issues such as climate change, preservation of biodiversity, and water conservation.
Much more effort must be directed to reducing timber waste, so obvious with present harvesting practices.
