DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**KLhdfskja** · 05-15-2012, 08:45 PM

Last few weeks since this story surfaced regarding Australian Government's listing of Koalas as vulnerable, I've been following a lot of the debate on a local level because it is in the region very near where I live that Koalas and logging have been a major environmental issue for past five or six years. A lot of protests and a lot of mis-information coming from both sides of the debate.

I found this story just now.

Environment Dept confident over koala move

Updated May 14, 2012 12:55:49

The State Office of Environment and Heritage says logging and koala protection can co-exist in the New South Wales south east.

The Federal Government will give nearly $2m over the next six years to establish logging exclusion zones in the Mumbulla, Murrah and Bermagui State Forests.

But Koala conservation groups and the Greens are worried that Forests New South Wales will oversee the initiative.

Biodiversity Conservation Manager, Mike Saxon, says additional measures will be put in place to ensure the endangered species are protected.

“The area that we've identified as most important to exclude from harvesting includes all of those areas, plus a buffer and then it links them through,” he said.

“The project also includes funding for us to do additional surveys in areas, outside of exclusion zones, in areas that maybe logged.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-1...w&section=news
I'm someone who has always believed there is a place for logging because timber is one building material we have is renewable (steel and concrete aren't, they're only recyclable). A lot of people in my region are opposed to logging in any form, and it is those folk who I tend to disagree with somewhat because they don't address issues like sustainability and renewables (do they think not chopping down trees won't see an increase in the need for steel and concrete?).

I'm by no means a fan of the forestry industry either as it currently operates. NSW taxpayers actually subsidise this industry because it can't even manage to fund itself, let alone turn a profit. This Koala issue is already re-igniting debate down here and the more I look at it, the more I'm becoming someone who thinks we need to halt logging here until a new RFA can be drawn up which includes the latest scientific data and information. The new RFA agreement isn't due until 2019 and given the delay in implementing the last one, it could be a decade until the new one passes into law. Meanwhile the remaining Koalas 'round here in State Forests may well disappear (only fifty animals thought to be living in the forests mentioned in the news item). The idea of protected corridors sounds good on face value, but then I read a summary of a really interesting study by a uni researcher as part of her PhD. Her focus was the nutritional requirements of koalas and how food trees can change their nutritional levels and toxicity. Basically means that there may be plenty of suitable food trees in an area, but at certain times the food is of crap quality, so the koalas move on to find better sources of food, often on trees of exactly the same species as those they just vacated. Corridors might not be large enough to allow for this movement.

Post getting too long, I'll put a link to that document along with some other interesting items in another one.

05-15-2012, 08:45 PM	#12
KLhdfskja Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 434 Senior Member	Last few weeks since this story surfaced regarding Australian Government's listing of Koalas as vulnerable, I've been following a lot of the debate on a local level because it is in the region very near where I live that Koalas and logging have been a major environmental issue for past five or six years. A lot of protests and a lot of mis-information coming from both sides of the debate. I found this story just now. Environment Dept confident over koala move Updated May 14, 2012 12:55:49 The State Office of Environment and Heritage says logging and koala protection can co-exist in the New South Wales south east. The Federal Government will give nearly $2m over the next six years to establish logging exclusion zones in the Mumbulla, Murrah and Bermagui State Forests. But Koala conservation groups and the Greens are worried that Forests New South Wales will oversee the initiative. Biodiversity Conservation Manager, Mike Saxon, says additional measures will be put in place to ensure the endangered species are protected. “The area that we've identified as most important to exclude from harvesting includes all of those areas, plus a buffer and then it links them through,” he said. “The project also includes funding for us to do additional surveys in areas, outside of exclusion zones, in areas that maybe logged.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-1...w&section=news I'm someone who has always believed there is a place for logging because timber is one building material we have is renewable (steel and concrete aren't, they're only recyclable). A lot of people in my region are opposed to logging in any form, and it is those folk who I tend to disagree with somewhat because they don't address issues like sustainability and renewables (do they think not chopping down trees won't see an increase in the need for steel and concrete?). I'm by no means a fan of the forestry industry either as it currently operates. NSW taxpayers actually subsidise this industry because it can't even manage to fund itself, let alone turn a profit. This Koala issue is already re-igniting debate down here and the more I look at it, the more I'm becoming someone who thinks we need to halt logging here until a new RFA can be drawn up which includes the latest scientific data and information. The new RFA agreement isn't due until 2019 and given the delay in implementing the last one, it could be a decade until the new one passes into law. Meanwhile the remaining Koalas 'round here in State Forests may well disappear (only fifty animals thought to be living in the forests mentioned in the news item). The idea of protected corridors sounds good on face value, but then I read a summary of a really interesting study by a uni researcher as part of her PhD. Her focus was the nutritional requirements of koalas and how food trees can change their nutritional levels and toxicity. Basically means that there may be plenty of suitable food trees in an area, but at certain times the food is of crap quality, so the koalas move on to find better sources of food, often on trees of exactly the same species as those they just vacated. Corridors might not be large enough to allow for this movement. Post getting too long, I'll put a link to that document along with some other interesting items in another one.
	Quote