| Back to Letters | Back to Forest Letter Watch |
But, surely, log volume estimates should not be based on guesswork, but on detailed field inspections by experienced, professional foresters. And if there is an unavoidable element of uncertainty, then surely the department should err on the side of caution, and sustainability. For example, if the department estimates that there is an available log volume of 5000 tonnes plus or minus 800 tonnes, then it should only grant a licence for the removal of 4200 tonnes - not 5000 tonnes, and most certainly not 5800 tonnes which, from the way the department has consistently overestimated available log volumes, might well have been its instinctive choice.
Another disturbing possibility is that, because of its passion for large-scale clear felling, the department has forgotten what selective logging is all about, to the extent that when it assessed available timber volumes it failed to recognise where it had ever taken place.
Murnane also observed that "everyone wants to look after the forest for timber, water, and tourism". Well, actually, some people would see this as a rather limited and anthropocentric view. It has no regard to any value which the forest might have beyond its potential for immediate human benefit. It says nothing, for example, about the need to sustain the habitat value and biodiversity of the forest over the long term.
It is also doubtful whether the Department of Natural Resources wants to look after the forest for timber, water, and tourism - not, at least, in a manner which gives due weight to the importance of each of these potentially competing objectives.
It is, sadly, even debatable whether the department really wants to
look after our forests at all.
| Back to Letters | Back to Forest Letter Watch |