Dear readers, On 18 Aug 1995, David South wrote: >According to "Forest law", forest plans in Japan...In Alabama... > >For Australia, I do not have similar data for 1990 nor... >...Some suggest Australia will have more land in forests in >2010, others predict less. The outcome will likely depend on the rate of >tree planting.... Yes but even if the replanting can match the clearing (area for area) in Australia the biomass of forest (or volume) is a different matter. But still very important. (It is related to tree height of both canopy and understory and related to the amount of species habitat, especially for those that rely on tall trees for nests, or rely on wet forest floors.) Some of the planting which is occuring is back dated planting, only just realised as necessary due to salinity and erosion on the mainland resulting from massive scale clearing done many decades ago for grazing land. > >However, >Christopher Dean suggests that private individuals in Tasmania are still >converting forests to agriculture (about 20% of private timberland harvested >in Tasmania (1991/92) was converted to cropland/pastures?). I quoted my source. Why use the term "suggested"? > For Australia, >FAO figures below suggest a loss in forests of 183,000 ha/yr (is this also >due to conversion to pastureland?). Can anyone fill in the blanks in the >table below or do we just rely on various opinions regarding tree planting >and agricultural conversion of forests in Australia? "Various opinions"; really. Several times I have presented data to this listserver group. Recently I even made the extra effort to collect data from Forest Services and other collating type sources. Before recently I was reporting what I had noted "in the field" so to speak. It looks as though that information was not regarded as "field data" by some. (E.g. Last year one academic replied to the group that what I said was different to what he had studied. Later I found out that he had not examined the aspects that I was reporting from experience but had studied different aspects and relied heavily on printed matter.) Until that sort of discrepancy is addressed I'm certainly not going to bother collecting information from other sources, so it can be refered to as "opinion". >About 25% of Tasmania (1,727,000 ha) is in World Heritage/National >Park/other Reserves. David, can you please explain the relevance of this last statement and what "other reserves" means (e.g. does it included RAPs, "stream side reserves" etc. or are they sanctuaries). I think the statement is irrelevant because a national park is not necessarily forest and neither is World Heritage. Also neither most national parks nor World Heritage areas in Tasmania are enforced sanctuaries for wildlife. Additionally, how does the area reserved relate to whether a different area should be cleared when endangered (or otherwise) species are relying on both areas? Regards, Chris. -- chris.dean@anu.edu.au, LPO Box 171, ANU, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. ----Native animals need protection from imported domesticated humans.---- Disclaimer: The ideas and data etc expressed above are mine and not necessarily those of anyone else.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0