5 ms·

Logging of the forest that the Tasmanian government planted, to log. Fear not, a Tasmanian tiger never saw the forest they are logging. Environmentalists trip

Logging of the forest that the Tasmanian government planted, to log. Fear not, a Tasmanian tiger never saw the forest they are logging. Environmentalists trip over themselves on what “old growth” means. It is a renewable resource, and Tasmanian forestry is one of the most advanced and sustainable industries in the world.

ptx 8d ago
That leaves a few questions though (which I'm not implying that I know the answers to): Did this planted forest (used for logging) replace another forest that was used as a habitat for animals? Is it counted as an equivalent to non-logging forests to justify the destruction of non-logging forests? Can this sustainable industry sustain suitable living conditions for animals in the forest? Or can the industry only sustain itself and its own interests in future resource extraction?
contingencies 8d ago
If you're not someone's flamebait LLM bot: citation please. I find it very hard to believe that an endangered species chooses to live solely in recently planted forest, particularly with focused legal defense from such an esteemed and long-running NGO as the Wilderness Society. I find it far more likely you are incorrect, and frankly spouting nonsense. There is nothing 'advanced' and 'sustainable' about clear felling old growth forests supporting endangered species, if you are lucky enough to have them as Australia is (they are vanishing globally at an insane rate). It is about as nuanced as shooting your children in the head.
- onethought 5d ago
  If forestry planted it... is it "old growth" ? And yes, animals could go live in it, even if it was planted. What's your alternative? boycott wood? Let the trees fall and rerelease their carbon as they rot?
kiicia 7d ago
but you didn't even seen that article, it's about logging causing yet another species to go extinct, planted or not you can always plant more forests but you cannot resurrect what went extinct, extinction is forever, new forest is 20 years
- contingencies 7d ago
  Very importantly, the biodiversity of mature old growth forest is exceptionally distinct to a bunch of 20 year old (often single or few species) trees. Take parrots for example. Many rely on old trees with openings or hollows for nesting. Without sufficiently old trees, they literally can't live there. The growth of such critical habitat often takes 100+ years, whereas fungi, reptiles, orchids, insects, and bryophytes may never recover from clear-felling.

ptx 8d ago

That leaves a few questions though (which I'm not implying that I know the answers to): Did this planted forest (used for logging) replace another forest that was used as a habitat for animals? Is it counted as an equivalent to non-logging forests to justify the destruction of non-logging forests? Can this sustainable industry sustain suitable living conditions for animals in the forest? Or can the industry only sustain itself and its own interests in future resource extraction?

contingencies 8d ago

If you're not someone's flamebait LLM bot: citation please. I find it very hard to believe that an endangered species chooses to live solely in recently planted forest, particularly with focused legal defense from such an esteemed and long-running NGO as the Wilderness Society. I find it far more likely you are incorrect, and frankly spouting nonsense. There is nothing 'advanced' and 'sustainable' about clear felling old growth forests supporting endangered species, if you are lucky enough to have them as Australia is (they are vanishing globally at an insane rate). It is about as nuanced as shooting your children in the head.

onethought 5d ago
If forestry planted it... is it "old growth" ? And yes, animals could go live in it, even if it was planted. What's your alternative? boycott wood? Let the trees fall and rerelease their carbon as they rot?

kiicia 7d ago

but you didn't even seen that article, it's about logging causing yet another species to go extinct, planted or not you can always plant more forests but you cannot resurrect what went extinct, extinction is forever, new forest is 20 years

contingencies 7d ago
Very importantly, the biodiversity of mature old growth forest is exceptionally distinct to a bunch of 20 year old (often single or few species) trees. Take parrots for example. Many rely on old trees with openings or hollows for nesting. Without sufficiently old trees, they literally can't live there. The growth of such critical habitat often takes 100+ years, whereas fungi, reptiles, orchids, insects, and bryophytes may never recover from clear-felling.