TAG
jarrah forest
Firewood panic – Jarvis’s order leads to double standards: Gavin Butcher
Gavin Butcher. The WA Government’s new forestry policy is unravelling. The responsible Minister, Jackie Jarvis, has started to panic, reportedly ordering 120,000 tonnes of firewood to be produced, and in the process is sacrificing supplies to sawmills. The result is that high quality sawlogs are being set aside for firewood instead of being manufactured for furniture and flooring.
Big miner stings taxpayers – the impact of bauxite mining on water yield: Frank Batini
Frank Batini. Probably the world’s largest mine, in terms of area, is Alcoa’s bauxite mine, located in the northern jarrah forest, within a biologically rich area, close to the State’s capital city (Perth) and on its domestic water supply catchments ... In 2007, Alcoa reported that the loss in water yield from five monitored catchments, where mining had occurred on part of the landscape, was 40-50 mmpa greater than in the un-mined forest. In the intervening 16 years the trees have grown and would now be using much more water.
Determining the WA timber yield: Jack Bradshaw
Despite evidence to the contrary, the WA Minister for Forests (Jacki Jarvis) continues to argue that the WA timber industry had to close because it has run out of wood as a result of reduced growth rate due to climate change, quoting reports from CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology as evidence. Neither of these organisations has any involvement in the determination of timber yield.
Science debunks McGowan’s forestry populism: Gavin Butcher
Gavin Butcher. Analysis of publicly available data by respected scientist Dr Lachie McCaw has shown that claims by Premier McGowan and his coterie of Forestry Ministers, Jarvis and Kelly, to be without substance. The WA government had stated that one of the reasons the timber industry had been axed was because the trees are no longer growing. Dr McCaw has used published data on the long-term forest monitoring plots called ForestCheck to demonstrate that the harvested forest is growing and the uncut forest is in decline.
Self-thinning forest understoreys and wildfire debate – closing question
In light of the discussion over many submissions on the topic of self-thinning forest understoreys and wildfire from our notable commentators - Jack Bradshaw, Philip Zylstra, Roger Underwood and Peter Rutherford - and the continuing differences of opinion, each was asked the following question, with a view to concluding the debate, at least for the time being, and hopefully on a constructive note: What more might it be useful to explore?
The Zylstra theory: a final comment: Roger Underwood
Having read the latest comment by Philip Zylstra in the ARR.News journal I was tempted to dismiss it as negligible, and move on. Then I realised that he had denigrated my colleagues, dismissing them as an emotional "lobby group”, and I realised that he must not be allowed to have the last word. To the extent that we are pushing for Australian governments to adopt a bushfire policy and management practices that minimise bushfire damage to the Australian people, to community assets and the environment, then yes, we are lobbyists. But we do so unemotionally, from the basis of science and experience.
Philip Zylstra’s response #4 – self-thinning forest understoreys and wildfire debate
The critique of our study of fire history in southwestern forests illustrates the difficulty of discussion around such emotive issues. We reported that according to Departmental records, bushfires were seven times more likely in areas of forest that still had the dense understorey that had been germinated by prescribed burns than they were in other areas where the understorey had self-thinned because it had been left alone. These are the facts, but they leave us at an impasse.
Peter Rutherford to Philip Zylstra #2 – self-thinning forest understoreys and wildfire debate
Both researchers I referenced show regular low intensity burning, as practised by Aboriginal people across the landscape, has been lost and Dr Fletcher believes the loss of cool, mosaic burning since European settlement has left us, as a nation, dangerously fire prone. Philip Zylstra seems to have missed this critical point.
Jack Bradshaw to Philip Zylstra #2 – self-thinning forest understoreys and wildfire debate
In his 24 October response on this issue, Zylstra states that in their study seven times more area of recently burnt forest was burnt than long unburnt forest. That is not in dispute. But was this because there were seven times the number of ignitions in these areas to start with because of chance or differences in area or because of some flammability factor? We simply do not know because this basic statistical requirement was not considered in the study. Is the conclusion biased, by how much, and in what direction? Who knows?
Philip Zylstra’s response #3 – self-thinning forest understoreys and wildfire risk debate
The mapped fire histories of the southwestern forests show that bushfires have been most frequent in forests with dense understoreys promoted by previous burns, and far less common in areas that have not been burned for several decades, allowing the understorey to naturally thin. Two new voices have entered the discussion on this here and made numerous claims, but their ill-informed comments have distracted from the point.
