News 
 National Rural News 
 Forestry 
 General 
 Report calls for logging shake-up to save Murray gums 

Report calls for logging shake-up to save Murray gums

22 Dec, 2009 07:18 AM
NEW national parks covering more than 70,000 hectares must be created in south-west NSW, and infrastructure built to create artificial floods, if the state's iconic red gum forests are to survive.

A comprehensive new report from the Natural Resources Commission, commissioned by the State Government, calls for a reorganisation of the timber industry in the region.

There was not enough water flowing down the Murray River, the report found, and in some areas up to 80 per cent of the red gums across vast swathes of river country were dead or dying. Some areas of forest needed double or even triple the current flows to survive in their current form.

"The science has shown that the forests no longer grow sufficient wood to sustain the current scale of the timber industry,'' said the commissioner, John Williams. "In the face of the scientific facts that we have detailed in our reports, it is untenable to do nothing.''

Dr Williams said he hoped the report's findings would inform the decisions of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which manages river flows.

The logging industry was furious with the report's findings, which suggest that an industry on the current scale will cease to be viable in the next decade.

"This report has categorically failed to provide the balanced, scientific assessment it was charged with," said the executive director of the NSW Forest Products Association, Russ Ainley.

"The end result is the naive and completely baseless view that the forests will soon be dead, so they should be made into national parks."

The timber industry said small towns around Deniliquin would be ruined by any move to follow the report's recommendations, though some 35,000 hectares of forest would potentially be left open to logging if the report's recommendations are adopted.

Dr Williams said the commission's research was thorough and far-reaching, citing the endorsement of staff from key forestry studies centres and universities in support of its conclusions.

The Government has set up a working group, including senior staff from the departments of Premier and Cabinet, Environment and Industry and the NSW Treasury to ''co-ordinate the Government's response to the report''.

But the Premier, Kristina Keneally, made it clear that the pledge of her predecessor, Nathan Rees, to create a big new national park and provide an assistance package to loggers would largely be honoured.

Dr Williams said some of the expected job losses in the region would be offset by employment in a new tourism industry in a preserved forest, although he acknowledged that there would certainly be a net loss.

''Our estimate, and we'd like to see more research done, is that about 120 jobs in total will be lost,'' he said. ''But we've really got the opportunity for an iconic Australian park for the future, and it will produce a much greater economic outcome over time than the current timber system.''

The National Parks Association said the report offered the State Government a clear choice to preserve the forests or let them die.

The Wilderness Society welcomed the report's findings but called for further restrictions on logging.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Tell John Brumby, so-called `Australia's Best Labor Premier' to stop taking water out of the Murray for Melbourne at t he expense of the river, the towns on both sides of the border and the river gums. The hypocrisy of Labor is breathtaking. By the way, I think these trees have seen droughts before and survived. And the loggers actually have the interests of the forest at heart to sustain their source of income. Artificial floods; doesn't that go against Labor and the Green movement's theology of locking everything up and letting nature take its course? Tedious, very tedious.
Posted by mbh, 23/12/2009 7:43:57 AM
And Liberal / National would be any different mbh?? Get real. Politicians will do what they need to for re-election and won't make politically sensitive decisions in most cases regardless of party.
Posted by JayDin, 23/12/2009 8:12:42 AM
mbh@7.43, what is your solution to the halt the degradation of our natural resources? I find it interesting that your comments are more of a conservative political rant rather than well thought out observation on the article. The fact is that “Brumby’s” water that is going to Melbourne is water that has been made available due to massive spending on irrigation efficiencies. It is new water from the system. Another fact is that conservative side of politics has refused to say that they would decommission the North South pipeline. Last time I checked Adelaide is not in the Murray catchment, should we decommission their Murray River pipeline. I live on the Murray river I also manage farms and I have notice in my time that the river is not the river I grew up on any more, it actually now resembles a leaky irrigation channel. Leave the politics out of it and think about doing something constructive to leave something for our children.
Posted by Ian, 23/12/2009 8:36:41 AM
I hope Russ Ainsley comments have been taken out of context, I suspect that less water means less growth which means less timber which means less jobs. The natural flooding has been disrupted for years and now the forests are starting to show the effects. I hope they work to get rid of the carbon and other pests as well. I also hope that they make environmental water available for all the private forests out there.
Posted by the lorax, 23/12/2009 9:31:12 AM
Now let me get this straight. It is OK to invest money to create artificial floods in national parks but it is not OK to invest the same money to create the same artificial floods to improve the health and productivity of state forests? It is the greens who waste perfectly good water by sending it back down the Snowy River to the sea and it is the greens who now claim that not enough water is flowing down the Murray. The logical response is to thin the forests so the number of trees matches the available water. And if artificial flooding of unthinned national park will improve ecological values then the same flooding of the thinned state forest will produce even greater ecological and economic returns. Any departmental moron can devise a simplistic binary, "yes/no", "either/or" decision framework. But if this issue is to avoid a grossly negligent improper exercise of power then Keneally, Williams and Kanowski had better start thinking "all of the above".
Posted by Ian Mott, 23/12/2009 9:46:09 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
18 December, 2009
21 December, 2009
POLL
Q: What will be the centre piece of your Christmas feast?

Beef
(9.4%)

Lamb
(8%)

Ham
(26.2%)

Turkey
(20.8%)

Seafood
(18.1%)

Vegetarian
(7.8%)

Other
(9.6%)

Total Votes: 562
Poll Date: 18 December, 2009

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...