There is a certain ‘political correctness’ to the proposition that we must immediately be all plantation timber, private forests & don’t touch with a 40-foot pole land reserved (State Forests), for the production of native forest products. This is only an utopia that exists between the ears of a select few that fails miserably in the short term future. Unless the plantations are in a very high rainfall area, hardwood species take a very long time to mature. If the plantation timber is not ready, State forest timber out of bounds, then the small area of private owned timber would have to be raped unmercifully. Why not spread out the available forest area out to a large area & conduct a timber harvest in a planned & sustainable manner. By all means plant forests for future product but only on marginal agricultural land. With a rising world population & the uncertainties of climate we need all the food production land available.

Hydrological changes: Changes in hydrological regimes such as damming of watercourses, may impact species reliant on wetlands, waterways or water bodies, such as the grey snake, which occurs in low lying areas found on floodplains and near inland watercourses. Mechanical activities that result in simplification of habitats, such as leveling of gilgais and melon holes, will also be unfavourable to grey snakes.
Feral animals: Frog-eating snakes, such as the grey snake, are at risk of poisoning through the ingestion of cane toads. They are also eaten by cats and foxes. Destruction of wetland habitat by feral pigs is a major threat to this species, along with the associated destruction of frog habitat and direct competition for their food source (frogs).

Totally off-topic, but I also find it absurd that it is legal to own a cat, but illegal to own a quoll.

My apologies for such long rant.

I like quolls. I like 600 year old trees. I like 300 million year old species that have only one lung. I want our environment protected. Please don’t hate me if that makes me a Greenie. But I do understand we need people living in the bush, with sustainable communities and the jobs to support them to do that. And if Barakula’s ecological values have been sustained and can be sustained under the current system because it has been resourced; why change?

Perhaps I am being diabolically cynical in suggesting there was a trade-off between some conservation groups and the ALP – the govt ends ‘old-growth’ logging in Qld (debateable in Barakula) and the conservation groups don’t campaign against the sale of Forestry Plantations Qld. It also gives them a reason to favour the ALP over the LNP in the next electoral cycle and thus not fracturing the green-left alliance. I am just speculating though. But I do find it surprising no conservation groups seems to discussing best land use and future environmental protection for the chunks of territory under FPQ control.

While perusing the FPQ website, you can glean the following information.

FPQ does not commercially harvest timber from native forest areas within its State Plantation Forests and does not conduct commercial forestry operations in Queensland’s native forests (except for the harvest of wildlings where necessary).

Also;

FPQ’s 45,000-hectare Hoop Pine plantation resource represents one of the few examples in the world of a native rainforest species grown successfully in sustainably managed plantations.

To give people some idea of some of the real estate we are talking about go to google earth yourself and compare Beerburrum and Beerwah State Forest – which is introduced pine, with the contiguous Glasshouse Mountains and Bribie Island National Parks, and remember that it is almost an entire catchment area for the Pumicestone Passage – with creeks with some of the highest ‘ecological values’ in the SE. And that it is covered by the SE 2020 regional plan, which aims to keep the ‘green space’ zone between our ever expanding cities.

Or the Toolara/Tuan State Forest’s just north of that – also introduced pine, which coincidentally contain some watershed for the Mary River, and entire creeks which flow directly into the ocean. It is about an equivalent size as the Fraser Island National Park and is opposite its southern end. I understand that we shouldn’t just talk species but eco-systems. But I also think the Grey Nurse is cool; intrauterine cannibalism is fascinating.

And the ecological work FPQ does is important too; it not only carries out management on adjacent lands (burning, pest control etc) it also has a program to lease private land for timber, (thus providing an income for vegetated land) and that is concentrated on Western Hardwoods. We’re selling a utility like this in an era of climate change?

But to bring the story back to Barakula and logging, FPQ does seem to be aware of the political situation. There is this;

FPQ’s ongoing expansion of hardwood plantations over the next decade, supported by Queensland Government programs such as the Western Hardwoods Plan, will result in 20,000 hectares of land previously cleared for agriculture being planted with a range of hardwood species, principally Spotted Gum, Gympie Messmate and Western White Gum by 2015.

Those quotes are from this Sustainable Management Overview.

Their Strategic Plan Overview notes;

Strong market demand for plantation products
• Decreasing supply of competing native forest products;

Growth assumptions

o Hardwood expansion for delivery of Governments Western Hardwoods plantations
commitments with the support of Community Service Obligation funding.

Incidentally, the last I heard was that Dalby farmers who planted Hemp were left without a buyer. Do we even have a wood-products hemp industry in Qld? CSR was set up for a reason; well many reasons actually. But I digress.

These circumstances might be seen to justify an authoritarian and punitive approach in framing the law on the part of the government. We have to remember also that laws that are not policed are routinely ignored in any field where the laws are not respected by those affected. You see this in industrial relations, for example. Also occupational health and safety in the building trade.

In the early days of the VMA DERM, as it now is, used to publish a “kill sheet” of farmers that had been brought to book. No doubt this had a salutary effect.

There remains a question, however, whether a more cooperative approach would be better in the long run. In the same link still@downfall has provided @ 85, John Cotter of AgForce has suggested an incentive-based approach:

“Community expectations are that farmers have responsible environmental management systems in place on farms, and it is logically in the best interests of farmers to manage their resources sustainably so they can farm into the future.”

Mr Cotter said producers were already making major voluntary contributions to environmental stewardship schemes, with one million hectares involved in the Nature Refuges program and another one million hectares waiting to be signed up.

“AgForce believes that incentive-based schemes that recognise producers’ commitment to sustainable land management practices will achieve the best outcomes for all,” he said.

It seems to me that his suggestion would provide a better way forward. As exemplars multiply, norms would change and recalcitrant farmers would be left behind. Greens, where they have genuine information and expertise, might eventually be welcomed. At the moment farmers tend to see red when they are faced with greens.

Injune landholder Wally Peart said he felt betrayed by government.

Mr Peart – who was the inaugural chairman of Landcare in Queensland – said the landholders who had developed their land in the most sustainable and appropriate ways were the ones being suffering the greatest penalties.

“Under Landcare we encouraged people to leave scrub, leave shadelines and leave country untouched,” Mr Peart. “But the people who cleared their country wall to wall are the ones not in the best position.

“I feel absolutely betrayed.”

If you possess a good stand of a particular type of vegetation that has been heavily cleared by others who got in first, then you might end up with a good deal more than 30% of your property locked up. Frankly I just don’t know how common a problem that is.

It was over 10 years ago and I suspect that ambit positions were taken. It’s probably irrelevant now.

Go upthread in this posting to comment #26 to see the link Rumbellious gave of photos taken by Aila Keto who was trying to create the image of “Spotted Gum-Ironbark forest in Barakula State Forest severely affected by fire”. My answer at the time can be viewed the following comment @27. I will add that ‘creating of an issue’ is mischievous & mis-informative. (If there is such a word). The State Forest is very particular about its annual burning program. There are fires in Barakula at this time of year; very soon with increasing heat there will be no more fire permits issued. If you search around it would be possible to find a tree fire scarred as in the photo. The most common cause would be of a tree fall where a tree has naturally fell against a live standing tree & the fire with the extra fuel load killing this tree. To try to portray the norm of purposely hot fires roasting an entire area of forest is untrue. It is very easy to portray the blackened panorama of a recently burned forest area in negative terms but in some eco systems a fire every now & then is important. It may have something to do with the low fertile soils of Barakula type lizard country that the surviving vegetation to my observation appears to benefit after a burn.

On Pterosaur, I think it’s fair to say that his comments @ 51 saw me as having a different view and included this statement:

That you (over several posts) attempt to blame “conservation/ists” for the perceived problems in management is dishonest IMHO, particularly given the huge gaps in funding which apply.

If you ask those who know me I’d expect that “dishonest” is about the last appellation they’d think appropriate – wrong perhaps, but not dishonest. I don’t know how to defend myself from such a charge, so I’ll just plug on and people can think what they like.

My repeated line is that there is severe contestation between conservation groups and rural producers and an extreme lack of trust. The involvement of the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society at such depth in looking at forests that are quite different from rainforest is of great interest. In one of your links there were a couple of photos of burnt Barakula forest taken by one A.Keto.

Some of Aila Keto’s many honours and awards can be seen here and here. She has a reputation as an extremely tough negotiator with direct influence on the Beattie government and apparently involved in the formulation of Vegetation Management Act 1999 which is regarded as oppressive and procedurally iniquitous by primary producers.

One honour not mentioned was an honorary doctorate awarded at the Gatton campus of UQ in 2003. I’ve told the story before here (see also @ 42 and 43 on that thread) of how in her acceptance speech she suggested that Australia might be better off giving up farming. I’m not sure what her qualifications in dryland farming are.

Then there was the suggestion by Imogen Zethoven that I’ve reported on before see Whelan and Lyons p.7 who as head of the QCC wanted no vegetation clearing whatsoever. That was at a time when an Australian Greenhouse Office report nominated 40% of land clearing in Qld as being of regrowth.

In the bargaining before the establishment of the 1999 Act I’m told that the conservation groups wanted 80% preservation, whereas the producers wanted 10%. What the Government decided was 30%. That means, I understand, 30% of each vegetation type within a subregion. So 80% would mean in effect mean more than 80%.

Farmers who were exhorted for the best part of 150 years to clear the land and produce food are now routinely told that they are environmental vandals, it seems to them for just being there.

Now in the regrowth moratorium I understand that 1.9 million hectares of land has been coloured blue on the maps with the prospect of taking 1.2 million hectares out of production. Part of the problem with this is how the burden is unequally spread and the fact that farmers are to play the role of honorary park rangers without recompense or recognition.

“Locking up” land is not an unreasonable description under these circumstances. Some affected farmers are reported to be losing 50% or more of the value in their land, which, when you have a business plan and a bank loan is no small matter.

If there is blame on the part of conservationists, in part it relates to a lack of appreciation and sympathy for the position that the policy positions they are seeking has placed some of their fellow citizens in. Also an evident lack of appreciation that the food we eat, the fibre and timber we use has to come from somewhere.

There was a classic a few years ago when a Jondaryan cotton grower was attacked (verbally) by a green-oriented journalist wearing cotton jeans and T-shirt. In that case his response led to a series of programs on local radio that did a lot for mutual understanding.

Not all farmers do the right thing, but some who did and left vegetation on cleared land have now found that area designated “endangered” or “high value” regrowth and coloured blue on the map. Some of them did this as a result of earlier Landcare programs. The feel somewhat betrayed, so finding common ground is not easy at present in this state.

This is not strictly on topic, but it is important that people understand the context within which decisions are being made.

Probably too personal, another apology, (Sorry Pterosaur!) but I thought you were attacking Brian for having a different point of view. You have illuminated your position in subsequent posts. I’ll try to do the same.

But first, some more links. The report from the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society on the Conservation and Intergrity of the Western Hardwoods region. It includes these very relevent tidbits;

With respect to overall eucalypt species richness, Barakula State Forest has a higher level than any national park in the WHWD Area or in South-East Queensland. When Barakula is considered together with the national parks and state forests that form a continuous area of forest from Carnarvon NP to Isla Gorge NP and north to Blackdown Tableland, an area of 1 195 670 ha, the number
of eucalypt taxa totals 85. This compares favourably with the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (1 032 649 ha) which has 90 eucalypt taxa and for which World Heritage listing was based significantly on eucalypt diversity.

and

Species richness of threatened fauna in large tracts including Barakula, Inglewood Sandstones and the Belington Hut-Presho-Theodore State Forest group is similar to that of the equivalent-sized Carnarvon National Park. Between any pair of these areas, 25 to 50 per cent of the threatened species are not shared.

Another interesting report – actually a Brigalow-Belt Reptile Bio-diversity study. Barakula included.

This might explain some of the genesis of the national park lists and the scattered reports I have been able to find; including I suspect the reports given back to the local Toowoomba bird group (have a closer read Still@downfall and you’ll see that people who compiled those lists were either from Brisbane, or employed by the govt ).

The assessment of vegetation condition has been the focus of work being conducted by members of the Forest Ecosystem Research and Assessment (FERA) section of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Queensland, in a project entitled ?Forest condition and inventory in the Brigalow Belt South Bio-geographic region (BBS)?. The region is approximately 21,600,000 ha in area, half of which is forested and is located in south central Queensland. The region is diverse supporting significant agricultural, logging and grazing industries, all of which utilise or effect the distribution of forests and woodlands within the region. Current information on the effects of different management regimes on the forests and woodlands of the bioregion is largely unavailable and is therefore the impetus for this work. Information on the condition of the forests in terms of productive capacity and conservation status is needed for future planning processes and to ensure sustainable land management practices occur within the forests and woodlands of the bioregion.