| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
will_t
Ridden
Joined: Mar 13, 2006
Posts: 177
Location: Wellington
|
 Posted: Fri 18th Jul 9:32pm Post subject: The Forestry Industry |
  |
|
Well I saw the latest advertisement from NZwood on the telly and it annoyed me. There is a good chance that I am not in possession of all the facts so please enlighten me. So I thought I would consult vorb wisdom before I wrote something like this to them:
I believe you are misleading people when you advertise that forestry in New Zealand is an industry that is environmentally benign.
Forestry in New Zealand involves having vast tracts of land devoted to a foreign monoculture and decimating it on a regular basis. The soil is stripped of any nutrients it once held. This shows little respect for the need to increase biodiversity and to be responsible stewards of the land.
I understand the economic need to make productive use of the land, that jobs are provided and the fact that the industry is carbon neutral (if emissions associated with harvesting, processing, etc. are not considered). However I would like to be shown that something is being done to mitigate the environmental damage caused by large-scale forestry. If nothing is being done your advertisement is misleading.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
E Dogg Capizzle
Mangled
Joined: Sep 04, 2002
Posts: 21,047
Location: Riding the Entertainment Mastodon
|
| Posted: Fri 18th Jul 10:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Forestry 'decimates' land to a greater extent than any other land based industry? Any proof of that?Also what is the problem with 'foeiegn monocultures' here? Would you just prefer that it reverted to native? Sounds like a bunch of environmentalist buzzwords masquerading as an argument.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MattV
Chill'n down with the fire gang
Joined: May 29, 2005
Posts: 9,619
Location: New Plymouth
|
| Posted: Fri 18th Jul 10:21pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
He forgot to add other atrocities such as preventing erosion, preventing evaporation of water supplies, shelter to fauna and fuel for wild fires
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swtchbckr
Worn
Joined: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 538
Location: Chacha
|
| Posted: Fri 18th Jul 10:53pm Post subject: |
|
|
He's right tho, it makes a gnikcuf mess of the place for a while, >lawks, what will the tourists think!  < til it grows up again. While its all cleared, is when WE need to get in and build the bike trails...
Wardles near Oxford doing an excellent job of harvesting the land without clearfelling. totally viable production forestry (mainly exotic, big pines, firs, even some nice redwoods, and a bit of beech too. advocates of a production beech system... ( fair bit of debate round that))
they only take out bigger stuff, so there's ALWAYS woods, hilly woods. and MAN they need to get some trails in there!!! connector to and from the Wharfdale, could make some mint riding. 3 rather than 2 fords tho
| Quote: | | Would you just prefer that it reverted to native? |
actually, HELL YEAH,
but there's no chance of that happening, so in the mean time, more native regen could be encouraged on the waterways and on the less viable pine country, thereby leaving corridors for native spp to retain or even regain just SOME habitat. its not a lot to ask!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scatter
More beige than usual
Joined: Jan 19, 2003
Posts: 9,268
|
| Posted: Sat 19th Jul 7:30am Post subject: RE: The Forestry Industry |
|
|
| will_t wrote: | | The soil is stripped of any nutrients it once held. This shows little respect for the need to increase biodiversity and to be responsible stewards of the land. |
I suggest you read "Properties and Management of Forest Soils" by Pritchett and Fisher. Read the chapter on nutrient cycling then rethink your assertation that the soil is stripped of any nutrients 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotty
yeahnah
Joined: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 14,243
Location: Not quite sure yet...
|
| Posted: Sat 19th Jul 7:37am Post subject: |
|
|
| E Dogg Capizzle wrote: | | Sounds like a bunch of environmentalist buzzwords masquerading as an argument. |
Yup, I was thinking the same thing.
Forestry is one of the few land-based industries that Kiwis are good at that doesn't completely screw the envioronment.
but yeah, read the Scatter reference, I got put onto it a wee while back and it's a goodie. 
Last edited by Scotty on Sat 19th Jul 7:48am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scatter
More beige than usual
Joined: Jan 19, 2003
Posts: 9,268
|
| Posted: Sat 19th Jul 7:45am Post subject: |
|
|
The other thing to remember is that good old Pinus radiata grows in land that was never any good for anything else anyway (think central North Island with (if i recall correctly) its low cobalt content - sheep died but pine flourished).
The trouble is now they're converting former forest land to dairy and noticing the deficiencies in the soil.
No reflection of the activity.....just a reflection of nature!
Also, decimating it on a regular basis? Do you know what the life span of a commercial pine is?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
will_t
Ridden
Joined: Mar 13, 2006
Posts: 177
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Sun 20th Jul 9:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the info everyone - particularly the reference on soil nutrients.
Harvesting without clear-felling sounds great and so does allowing a small amount of native regeneration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pushbikerider
Mangled
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14,074
Location: No longer Running PNC Like John Gotti
|
| Posted: Sun 20th Jul 9:52pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scatter wrote: | The other thing to remember is that good old Pinus radiata grows in land that was never any good for anything else anyway (think central North Island with (if i recall correctly) its low cobalt content - sheep died but pine flourished).
The trouble is now they're converting former forest land to dairy and noticing the deficiencies in the soil.
No reflection of the activity.....just a reflection of nature! |
exactly, I rememeber studying exactly that fact and yes it makes me laugh how much of te forestry between Taupo and rotorua has been re-converted to pastoralism (I would hate to think what their fert and nutrient suplement bill will be
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
highspeedsteel
Ridden
Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Posts: 143
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon 21st Jul 9:40am Post subject: |
|
|
You are correct about the Cobalt deficiency, but also at the time no one knew about this. All they knew was that sheep died, and trees didn't. Dairy farmers have their cattle in the shed every day so the once a year or so you need to give an injection of Cobalt isn't too hard. More of a problem with sheep/beef farming, but even then it’s totally feasible. Also Cobalt can be applied with fertiliser (the efficiency of this is questionable). I'm not advocating the change in land use (forestry to pasture) just giving some perspective as to why it is now feasible to farm there when in the past it wasn’t.
The great depression also meant there was a large number of cheap workers to plant the area in Pinus radiate, and until recently the land was more productive ($) for forestry then other uses. Now with high food prices you can make more money from dairy farming.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radical_edward
Flogged
Joined: Mar 10, 2004
Posts: 3,812
Location: The not too distant future...
|
| Posted: Mon 21st Jul 10:27am Post subject: |
|
|
| E Dogg Capizzle wrote: | | Forestry 'decimates' land to a greater extent than any other land based industry? |
Well... clear felling leads to serious erosion.
Having visited forests in Germany that have been active selective felling forests for 800 years or so, I think that there is an unfortunate monoculture in forestry, but one of methodology and management.
I am not saying that all forestry should move to that method, but there are wider benefits than economic ones from forests. Rather than sparcing every penny we can from the soil, we could have in places enhanced recreational opportunities in forests that are indistinguishable from national parks. Well, our great grand children could
I am hoping that the return of forestry assets to the Maori (including myself, Ngati Awa card carrier) could help bring this about to a degree. What people don't understand is that many tribes have been playing a long game on treaty settlements. The Ngati Awa settlement was first petitioned for in 1867, the government accepted the grievance and that there should be compensation in the 1920s, it took until 1983 for the NZ govt to make an offer, and until 2005 for the final settlement to be negotiated and signed off.
On the other hand, the idea of national parks and forestry protection in this country came about when a concerned group of Kauri loggers realized that they had destroyed every tree worth logging within their living memory.
Forestry doesn't reward those after a quick buck. The best profits are only available to the descendants of the best foresters.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
