Australia has many native rainforests, locating from the top of Australia in QLD, all the way down the Australian coast through NSW and Victoria. Woodland and rainforests are also located in South Australia and Western Australia. There is 4 % of Australia s forest left since European settlement. When they first settled they cleared most of the forested land for agriculture and for their settlement. With only 4 % left though of our native forests, it brings to a point if we should log them or not.
After looking at both points of view, I can see why conservationists are so passionate about stopping the logging to Australia s native forests, but on the other hand why logging companies are adamant that they need access to native forests. If we stopped logging completely Australia wouldn t be earning $4 billion. Also 182,500 people are employed in the forest industries, if logging was to stop there is a huge number of jobs at risk, and would leave Australia with a huge unemployment list. Conservationists though are worried about Australia losing its native forest, which would cause a huge economic lose with no tourists coming to Australia to see the native forests. A huge number of animals would also loose their homes, and also the habitats of new plants would be destroyed.
Conservationists point of view is to do with the greenhouse effect, salinity problems, the native forest being sold for 9 cents a cubic meter when commercial forest is being sold at $10.00 a cubic meter, and as said Australia s tourism and animals/plants habitat. Using heavy machinery and trucks and tractors for logging and harvesting is adding to the greenhouse effect, which is already bad enough. Australia lacks in native soft woods, and having our native forest sold at 9 cents a cubic meter compared to commercial being sold at $10.00 a cubic meter is insane. Australia thrives on tourists bringing money into the country. With our forests being logged, this equals less tourists which equals less money for Australia.
The logging point of view is that it needs to continue. It is widely recognised that a community needs timber, paper, tissue, cardboard, furniture and many other products made from wood. Logging is supervised by government forest management agencies to control short-term damage, and to protect a wide range of forest values, which include water catchments, flora and fauna, soil, and landscape. Logging discontinuing would cause around 182,500 people to become unemployed, leaving taxpayers with higher rates to cover for all of these people on the doll.
In this question I am sitting on the fence, and think that there should be a balance between conservationists and logging. I am taking this position; because there is no way you could completely stop logging as argued above, but something has to be done or Australia is going to be left without our native forests, and also as argued above this would stop tourists etc. conservationists though want to stop logging, but they use tissues, paper, furniture etc. They cant have it both ways. If we stop logging they would have to replace wood with other products such as plastics and metals that are more harmful to the ozone layer. Loggers though being adamant to get access to the remaining native forests though cant happen, until I say more seedlings are planted in protected areas. Preserving an entire forest estate would diminish our native forests. With modern adaptive management techniques, and strict codes of practise, native forests can provide a full range of products and benefits on a sustainable basis forever. Therefore from these facts I have presented I believe we have to log our native forests, only if it is controlled and new trees are being planted.
The only real solutions to Australia s huge dilemma are planting new forests as said above. Stop wood chipping, but value added products. And a huge way that helps is recycling. If we put these into action it may give a better balance and hopefully help more in the problems that are going on with the conservationists and loggers.