As a regular reader of the Geelong Advertiser and contributor to your "Your Say" segment, I realise that by including pictures, in my letter today, that it’s not in the normal format that you accept for this segment. But my intention is to convince you of the inaccuracies of Mr Drohan’s statements in the (GA 15/6). I’ve also found it impossible to answer all of his misleading statements within the 300 words that you allow. (eg: his claims - that native forests are increasingly going into higher value uses, that there has been an upward trend in log grades, that we CAN sustainably manage our forests this may be true but we are currently NOT achieving it, that the RFA will solidify existing processes, his comments on water catchments and restrictions are also misleading, the list goes on.)

In the cause of balanced debate, what this very important subject requires is a 1000 plus word article (simular to Mr Drohan’s) in your paper giving the argument against the logging of the Otways. I would agree to do this myself but I’m sure there are plenty of others with a higher profile.

 

With all this in mind I submit the letter below for your "Your Say" segment.

Like our Federal Government, representatives for the Otway Forest logging industries seem to lack the ability to put their cause to the public in a straightforward and factual manner.

The latest culprit is Jon Drohan, director of resources with the Victorian Association of Forest Industries (GA 15/6).

Firstly Mr Drohan claims that on average only 0.2% of the Otways are logged each year, he also states that nearly 70% of the area is not used for hardwood timber production. The truth is that some 71% was totally deforested in the 118 years between 1869 and 1987 at an average of 0.6% per year. 300% more than the claims by Mr Drohan (with 71% of the Otways already deforested it’s easy to see why this land is not being used for timber production). Refer the enclosed Victorian survey and satellite records to substantiate my statements, remembering that the 1987 image also includes all plantations and regrowth areas.

The picture accompanying Mr Drohan’s article (showing a single tree felled within an undisturbed forest) is also at best grossly misleading, I have included a picture giving a truer indication of logging in the Otways.

81,000 cubic metres of logs for wood chipping alone were removed from the Otways in 1997/98. This is not only almost double the "total" of 44,000 cubic metres claimed by Mr Drohan but was also an increase in wood chip logs of 63,000 cubic metres per year since 1990/91. This has been brought about by the fact that logging contractors now get more (per cubic metre) for residual timber than they do for some prime logs.

I agree with Mr Drohan, that the turnover from logging is some $21 million, but he failed to mention that the logging industry, within the Otways alone, has to be subsidised by $1.5 million per annum to be economical. As for his claim that the tourist industry only generates $1 to $2 million each year, the official tourism authority’s estimate of tourist expenditure within the region is in excess of $250 million.