LETTER: Taking issue with forestry article claims

DEAR News Of The Area,

I WOULD like to clarify some points made in the article ‘No social licence for native forest logging say protesters’, (NOTA, 16/10/2026).

The impression is given that all forests are “clear-felled”, destroying habitat areas, and there is a total disregard for the environment.

Using words like ‘clear felling’, ‘wreck wildlife corridors’ and ‘endanger animals’, as portrayed in the recent article, is clearly emotive, with no clear evidence to support such statements in practice.

Clear felling denotes total removal of all plant life and no restoration.

Clear felling only occurs in plantations, which is a form of tree farming either in State forests or private property.

Trees are grown similarly to commercial crops – harvested and replanted. Clear felling, in terms of this definition, has not been practised in state forests for decades.

It is well known that there are more wildlife – including koalas, plant species and bird life – killed in locked-up, poorly managed reserves and national parks, through wildfires, weed overgrowth and closed fire corridors, than anything perceived due to forest harvesting practices.

Consider the Pilliga forest that was continually harvested, having 30,000 koalas on lockup, now believed to have fewer than 2000 after years of mismanagement and bushfires.

In the GKNP 12,000 koalas were found to be thriving in the world-class managed state forest area alone – will this continue or end up like the Pilliga?

The article gives the impression that all trees are cut down to produce low-grade products such as tomato stakes and pallets. Again taken out of context.

Mature trees are classified across a range of grades, from high to low quality, and mainly used to produce high-quality products for housing (flooring, decking, structural beams), furniture, industry infrastructure, railways, mining, ports, forest and park walkways etc. Will we import all of this going forward, and at what cost socially and economically? How responsible is that?

I would refer you to the Reef Research Foundation website (reefresearch.foundation  – Forestry Awareness) where there is a detailed article provided by Forest Corporation setting out the forest life cycle for harvesting and regeneration, which covers cycles from 100 years, 40 years down to three years, to actual harvesting. This details the responsible forest management approach adopted in Australia.

The argument that the timber industry is economically unsustainable using one part of the supply chain as evidence  is not telling the whole story.

Forestry is a long-term investment in our future.  We are talking of a $4 billion-plus industry in NSW, in excess of 8900 direct jobs and an estimated 22,000 indirect jobs, across the whole supply chain from growing, managing, harvesting, manufacturing, to wholesale and retail.

Let’s keep things in perspective. Tell the whole story, the facts, and the whole truth.

Noel Atkins,

Director and Chair,

REEF Research Foundation Forestry Awareness Program.