Environmentalists trip over themselves on what “old growth” means.
It is a renewable resource, and Tasmanian forestry is one of the most advanced and sustainable industries in the world.
> Thylacine crania are far larger than expected for their body mass, as determined by their centroid size (Fig. 3a), and exceed the absolute cranial sizes of far larger marsupials such as red kangaroos (Supplementary Fig. 5). While the thylacine weighs ~17 kgs34, its cranial size (within ±10%) is similar to that of much larger species, between 24.5 and 66.7 kg (Fig. 3a). In contrast, most placental carnivorans that are close to the thylacine in overall cranial shape (Figs. 1b and 2a) are jackals and foxes weighing 6–14 kgs (Fig. 3b). The cranial size of the thylacine is on par with much heavier predators such as the grey wolf, African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), puma (Puma concolor), and leopard (Panthera pardus).
...
> The large size of the thylacine cranium has not been integrated into interpretations of its function, possibly because morphometric analyses generally remove absolute size43,44 and biomechanical comparisons usually focus on comparative, rather than absolute, generation of bite force44. However, a large cranium counteracts the weaker structure of a long and narrow rostrum by increasing the absolute magnitude of rostral resilience to stress and bite force. This is because larger crania are more resilient to intrinsic and extrinsic loads3,44 and carry more muscle3 compared to smaller crania that share the same shape. It is also possible that the wide zygomatic arch compared to other canids, particularly in larger thylacines (Fig. 4e), plays a role in buttressing the jaw joint against the leverage of the long jaw3,45, but this remains to be tested. Overall, the large size of the thylacine cranium thus indicates a specific mechanism of prey capture and/or immobilisation optimised for fast, high-impact bites whose force was dissipated across a large volume of cranial bone.
Interestingly the story of the Thylacines extinction starts a lot earlier than white settlement.
"The fossilised remains of thylacines have been found in Papua New Guinea, throughout the Australian mainland and Tasmania.
Factors including the introduction of the dingo led to the extinction of the thylacine in all areas except Tasmania about 2,000 years ago. The thylacine population in Tasmania at the time of European settlement is estimated at about 5,000."[0]
0 - https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/extinction...
Did this planted forest (used for logging) replace another forest that was used as a habitat for animals? Is it counted as an equivalent to non-logging forests to justify the destruction of non-logging forests?
Can this sustainable industry sustain suitable living conditions for animals in the forest? Or can the industry only sustain itself and its own interests in future resource extraction?
you can always plant more forests but you cannot resurrect what went extinct, extinction is forever, new forest is 20 years
There is nothing 'advanced' and 'sustainable' about clear felling old growth forests supporting endangered species, if you are lucky enough to have them as Australia is (they are vanishing globally at an insane rate). It is about as nuanced as shooting your children in the head.