Forest plans

Press, 17 April 1980, Page 16

Forest plans

Sir, — I find Professor McKelvey’s defence of native forest logging (April 12), lacking in perspective. The quantity of timber produced from native podocarp forests is rapidly declining to become an insignificant proportion of our total timber supply. Already the Reefton mechanic’s job is likely to depend on local exotic plantations, not on beech forests. The Takapuna housewife will not be able to afford a heart rimu table. It will be purchased instead for her Remuera counterpart for its snob value. Native timber is becoming the prerogative of a wealthy elite. The undue attention paid to the select group is demonstrated at Whirinaki where 75 per cent of the podocarp stands are zoned for logging. As this and other examples show, foresters invariably favour a small minority of forest “owners” and choose a logging option. True public ownership of State forest remains an unrealised goal. — Yours, etc., S. R. JUNE. April 14, 1980.

Sir, — In his recent article on State forests Professor McKelvey says that the public was not concerned with forest policies until recently. This is not really so; the Royal. Forest and Bird Protection > Society has been a wellknown body since .its inception in the early 1920 s with a considerable public involvement. It has consistently called for better forest management; conservation or preservation as seemed appropriate. He also criticises sections of the conservation movement for wanting rapid solutions. These are indeed desperately required now to preserve the vanishing remnant of deep forest birds whose vital low- . land habitat is all but gone, as a result of past governments’ refusal to heed the moderately expressed public concern of groups such as the society. The South Island’s Little Grey Kiwi disappeared quite recently, its passing hardly noticed. There will be no deep forest species left by the turn of the century if present logging policies are allowed to continue. — Yours, P. A. G. HOWELL. April 13, 1980.

Sir, — Professor Peter McKelvey stretches the credibility of his otherwise thoughtful article by suggesting that some groups in the community have a preference for logging native forests but are politically disadvantaged. He takes a peculiarly selective view in seeing the preservation lobby as well-organised and vocal while implying that hunters, West Coasters and furniture users are not. His Takapuna housewife with a heart rimu lounge suite is possibly intended to represent the silent majority, although in fact more than 80 per cent of all wood used for furniture today is radiata pine. Furni-ture-making makes very modest demands on native forests. The interests of furniture buyers and indeed wood consumers of all kinds are vigorously promoted through the political process

by trade associations, and there is no shortage of supporters around the Cabinet table for the philosophy of exploiting any resource that can turn a few dollars. — Yours, etc., GUY SALMON. April 14, 1980. Sir, — Despite the beguiling title of Professor McKelvey’s article, (“The Press” (April 12), with its poorly disguised special pleading, our native forests need tire attention of foresters as little as they need those of deer, goats, opossums and other noxious animals. Their untried, untested proposals, illustrated by his colleague, G. Chavasse, in recent articles amount to. nothing more than dangerous • meddling with a resource so diminished that the country cannot afford any other policy than a complete cessation of all further logging if anything of value is to survive. Considering the known use of high-quality West Coast rimu for cheap house framing: in Canterbury, one wonders how the prdfessor has the gall to raise the issue of decoration; while his appeal for. consideration of the indigent, intransigent and illiterate who have not a care beyond the gratification of their immediate appetites seems very curious coming from a university academic. — Yours, etc., A. GILBERT. April 14, 1980.