{"id":6751,"date":"2023-05-29T22:46:00","date_gmt":"2023-05-29T12:46:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/woodcentral.com.au\/?p=6751"},"modified":"2024-12-23T17:56:37","modified_gmt":"2024-12-23T07:56:37","slug":"victorian-native-forest-ban-guided-by-myths-misinformation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/woodcentral.com.au\/victorian-native-forest-ban-guided-by-myths-misinformation\/","title":{"rendered":"Victorian Native Forest Ban: Guided by Myths, Misinformation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Generating outrage and fear with misinformation is a great way for anti-forestry activists to generate tax-free funds. But when it goes on so long that an entire generation believes the misinformation as fact, it\u2019s time to hold them to account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A lot has been said about native forestry in the last 20 years. The timber industry\u2019s way of dealing with misinformation is to \u2018not add fuel to the fire and let it go away\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Generating outrage is a great business model for ENGO\u2019s. So, it makes sense to ignore it and not give it fuel. Why correct the deliberately controversial content about VicForests only to associate your company with the negativity? After all, attacks don\u2019t mention you, and few people make the connection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem with this mentality was that no one responded<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

The public expects you to defend yourself from damaging misinformation – failing to respond is assumed by the public to be an admission of guilt. The other thing silence does is allows gaps to be filled with assumptions. And that\u2019s the activist intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Native forestry can, often is, and should be \u2018arguably\u2019 the most sustainable building material and way of sourcing timber. This is how it\u2019s done in many of the \u2018verified-sustainable-forests\u2019 throughout the developed world. The intention is to balance all forest values with timber production. It\u2019s impossible to avoid scrutiny but it\u2019s the right thing to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Australia, activists want to blankety \u2018end native forestry\u2019 and move to plantation timber. A plantation, amongst other things, is about maximising timber production and not creating habitat. As a result, the plantation is designed to have no diversity and, therefore no habitat. It\u2019s a concept that works but the reality is we only have so much land and neither forest type exists in a vacuum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve long asked myself – which would people prefer we do more of\u2026 monocultures with no diversity? Or diverse landscapes with intermittent interruption under strict protocols?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am a huge fan of plantations \u2013 especially in relation to framing timbers. I just need to set the context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After growing tired of politicians and willing media reporting forestry in only a negative light, a few of us ran a pilot programme to show the whole story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Honest. A little chaotic. Transparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Forest Field Tour pilot programme<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m talking plantations, native forests, a producer, and the difference between quality from plantation and regrowth native forests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea was to have the people who manage forests or produce the timber show a selection of concerned individuals we knew would be \u2018on the fence about native forestry.\u2019 To let them see for themselves and ask all the questions they wanted as the day progressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We visited the 450 hectares of plantation forest purchased by the State. As an aside, the Victorian Government \u2018promised\u2019 to establish 25,000 hectares as a \u2018transition\u2019 – not one tree has been planted yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We inspected the difference between timber from plantations and regrowth forests. We also walked through several post-harvest native forest sites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The observations from the field tours were startling<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

The physical and emotional reaction people have when walking through a native forest instead of a plantation is clear. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I took the opportunity to ask people their responses to each and it was obvious in some that they were grappling with their preconceived perception compared with the reality they were immersed in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve been campaigned to believe plantation is the only answer but when you\u2019re within each forest type, you know that just isn\u2019t true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I observed one conversation progress from \u2018we need to move toward plantation\u2019 to \u2018why aren\u2019t we increasing native forest cover for all the benefits this creates while sourcing timber from those forests to pay for adaptive management?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(As if this was some new solution).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a question I have asked myself for decades.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of our tour guides from VicForests took us through several sites – \u2018thinned\u2019 forest to increase growth in remaining trees while still supplying timber to contracts; retention harvest – where much of the forest area remains untouched; clear fell – where whole coupes are cleared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

We stopped at a coupe near Noojee where they explained the surveys that must occur pre-harvest, the findings for this specific site, record taking and validation of data, and what informed harvest methods were used (and why).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than 60% of this \u2018coupe\u2019 had been retained for various values and the harvested 40% was smaller than we expected but still provoked emotion in most – it\u2019s hard not to. The background knowledge, however, of knowing what you are looking at and its history provides a clearer lens to form an opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A deliberate act from activists is to denigrate the industry as \u2018loggers\u2019 and to show freshly harvested forests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Logged\u2019 as they call it. It\u2019s as if the only thing the \u2018loggers\u2019 care about is removing trees without any other consideration, planning, or foresight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across the gullies, you could see diverse and established forests – thriving with biodiversity. Like it or not, this was a testament to the regrowth forestry process, informed by forest scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Myths and Misconceptions about ecological values in state forests<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

The values that exist do not need protecting against \u2018loggers\u2019. They exist because of the efforts of previous forest scientists who had planning and foresight when they informed the harvest and regeneration previously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a mosaic of varying harvest types over multiple decades – each prioritising the silvicultural outcomes prioritised in their respective dates – an example of VicForests\u2019 evolution. Good and bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One group asked our tour guide, \u201cWhy the ash species needed sunlight for growth, and what would happen in an established forest\u2026 would species not grow if a larger canopy sheltered it?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conversations changed to what the forest could be if these forests were to avoid fire for over 200 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn all likelihood,\u201d said our guide, \u201crainforest species might begin to emerge and take over as the dominant species\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is a \u2018healthy forest?\u2019<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

This discussion reminded me of a field trip I attended late last year with opposing groups and where a question was posed that I\u2019ll never forget – \u2018What is a healthy forest\u2019? A simple question, perhaps, but a surprisingly complicated answer\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this context imposed on us while immersed in these forests, you could argue that the ash-type forest that existed before European settlement is the healthy benchmark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After all, the fauna dependent on this mix of forests wouldn\u2019t be here if it evolved into a rainforest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How could it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They depend on a mix of tree species and understory not common in older, wet forests. However, is it even possible for a rainforest to exist in this location?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Previous harvest and regeneration sites across the gully
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Vast amounts were destroyed in the 1850s fires. More than 98% were killed again and regenerated in the fires of 1939. And again, in many places at varying points throughout the last 80 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what forest type and species mix is the benchmark we target for a \u2018healthy forest\u2019? What point in time is the goal? Which habitat do you prefer? Why? Does a healthy forest depend on a plantation existing elsewhere to supply human basic needs? Does it harvest timber to achieve a balance? If so, where and why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The day proved a success in transparency. It was open and helpful. If I were to cut the story there, you might say the pilot programme was a worthy effort. If I had my way, we\u2019d do these weekly to create an open dialogue with anyone interested in actual forest management\u2026 this was a pilot after all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Andrews Government bombshell occurred halfway through the Field Trip<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Ironically, mid-way through the trip the Victorian government announced an unjustifiable end to native forestry. This caught every member of the timber community by surprise and visibly took the passion out of our guides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The media statement, \u2018Security for timber communities<\/a>,\u2019 <\/em>was anything but.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I trowelled the news gritting my teeth, working through the blatant disregard for honesty. Looking for signs of someone holding Andrew\u2019s to account for this blatant contempt for affected communities. The title was in stark contrast to the content. It was disgusting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On that note, so far, no one has held Andrew\u2019s accountable for his promise of a \u2018transition to plantation.<\/a><\/em>\u2019 This media release clearly admitted that there will be no \u2018transition.\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n