Reality: Replanting doesn’t replace a forest. When a native forest is logged, complex ecosystems are wiped out. What’s left is often a monoculture of species selected for 'maximum growth' or regrowth forest that lacks the biodiversity, soil structure, and resilience of the original. Replanted areas also don’t support the same wildlife or perform the same ecological functions.

All trees are not equal. Mature trees provide far more habitat, sequester more carbon, and help stabilise ecosystems. Many native eucalypts take over a century to form hollows – vital nesting and shelter sites for countless species. Logging regimes in New South Wales sees forests cut down long before these hollows form, meaning much of the regrowth is biologically sterile compared to the old growth it replaces.

Reality: In practice, native forests are commonly logged on 20–30 year cycles, not the 100 years claimed. This short rotation doesn't allow trees to reach ecological maturity or develop the hollows essential for wildlife habitat.

Even if left for a century, many eucalypts wouldn't form the necessary hollows to support wildlife in that timeframe - meaning our state forests are essentially biologically sterile, never able to grow long enough to actually support our wildlife.

Reality: Forestry Corporation of NSW has a documented history of breaching environmental regulations, including illegal logging and inadequate protections for threatened species . These repeated violations undermine any claims of sustainability.

Reality: This claim relies on dodgy accounting and greenwashing tactics. Forestry corporations often count non-forested areas like grasslands, wetlands, rocky outcrops, and even roads or fire breaks in their “unlogged” 40%. These ecosystems are frequently incapable of supporting commercial logging operations in the first place, and many don’t contain forest at all — let alone mature, ecologically significant forest. Including these areas inflates the numbers to mislead the public into thinking far more forest is being protected than actually is.

What’s more, the areas included in this 40% which are forested are often excluded not for ecological reasons, but because it is uneconomical or logistically difficult to access. Steep slopes, unstable soils or limited timber quality can all make an area unsuitable for harvesting. These exclusions are not about conservation - they’re about cost-efficiency.

And crucially, this 40% is not guaranteed protection into the future. Once the “easy” parts are harvested, Forestry Corporation can - and often does - come back in later years to log what remains. This tactic allows them to cycle through a compartment over decades, eventually logging it in its entirety, while still claiming portions are "unharvested."

In reality, up to 60% of a native forest compartment can be logged outright in a single operation, leaving only thin strips or isolated trees behind. The remaining 40% often provides little or no suitable habitat for forest-dependent wildlife. Even more concerning, on the NSW coast - where logging is most intensive - only 10-13% of coastal state forests are excluded from logging for environmental protection. The 40% figure is little more than spin. It is designed to obscure the scale of destruction occurring in our native forests under the false banner of “balance” and “sustainability.”

Reality: In NSW, regulations permit the retention of as few as five trees per hectare when threatened species like the Swift Parrot are found within the logging area - and that’s the bare minimum only if threatened species are recorded. In practice, this amounts to clearfelling. Such operations destroy vital habitat and deal a devastating blow to biodiversity.

The minimal retention of trees fails to maintain the ecological functions of the forest. Such extensive removal of vegetation disrupts wildlife corridors, alters microclimates, and leads to soil degradation. The resulting landscape bears little resemblance to a natural forest ecosystem.

Reality: The definition of “old growth” has been manipulated and weakened over time by governments and industry bodies to allow continued access to mature forests that would have previously been protected. This shifting of goalposts means forests with large, ancient trees and high conservation value can be excluded from formal old growth mapping.

By altering the criteria for what constitutes old growth, authorities have enabled the exploitation of forests that possess the structural and ecological characteristics of ancient woodlands. This practice undermines conservation efforts and leads to the loss of irreplaceable ecosystems.

Reality: Various types of rainforests, including warm temperate and subtropical, are still being logged in NSW.Wet sclerophyll forests with dense rainforest understories, which provide similar ecological functions, are also under threat.

Reality: Logging is permitted within 5 metres of waterways, leading to pollution, erosion, and the destruction of habitats for aquatic and riparian species.This proximity fails to provide adequate protection for these sensitive ecosystems.

The lack of sufficient buffer zones allows sediment and pollutants to enter waterways, degrading water quality and harming aquatic life. The disturbance of riparian vegetation also destabilises stream banks, increasing the risk of erosion and further ecological damage.

Reality: There is a lack of transparency and verification for this claim. On-ground observations indicate that many "protected" trees are inadequate for supporting wildlife, and significant habitat trees are routinely felled.

Without independent monitoring and clear criteria for tree protection, such claims remain questionable. Effective conservation requires accountability and adherence to scientifically informed practices.

Reality: While some trees are left standing, they are rarely the best habitat trees. The retained trees are frequently too small or structurally unsuitable to support the species they are meant to protect, rendering the practice tokenistic.

The selection of retained trees often prioritises operational convenience over ecological value. As a result, the trees left behind may lack the necessary features, such as hollows or sufficient canopy cover, to serve as effective habitats. This minimal retention fails to compensate for the extensive habitat loss caused by logging.

Reality: Surveys are often inadequate, outdated, or conducted at inappropriate times, leading to the destruction of critical habitats.This negligence has resulted in the loss of biodiversity and the decline of threatened species populations.

The failure to conduct thorough and timely surveys means that many species are not identified or considered during logging operations. This oversight leads to the unintentional destruction of habitats and contributes to the decline of already vulnerable species. Effective conservation requires rigorous and up-to-date surveying protocols.

Reality: Greater gliders are one of Australia’s most iconic and rapidly declining arboreal marsupials - but current logging practices are nowhere near adequate to protect them. Forestry regulations require only a 50-metre buffer around any identified den tree, but this is a tiny fraction of the habitat area a greater glider actually needs to survive. Gliders depend on large, connected tracts of mature forest with multiple hollow-bearing trees. A 50-metre radius does nothing to preserve their full home range or movement corridors.

Worse still, den trees are extremely difficult to locate. Surveys must be conducted at sunset, using spotlighting and long periods of observation, to detect gliders emerging from their dens. In vast forested areas, identifying even a few den trees is like finding a needle in a haystack. As a result, most den trees are not found, and logging proceeds unchecked. In many areas, no surveys are done at all, or they are done hastily and inadequately - leading to the felling of den trees and destruction of critical habitat.

Research shows that the primary driver of greater glider population collapse is logging, due to the loss of hollow-bearing trees and fragmentation of habitat. The Greater Glider was uplisted to Endangered in 2022 due to rapid and widespread decline. Continuing to log their habitat under the illusion of "protection" is not just negligent - it is knowingly contributing to extinction. The current measures are grossly insufficient and have been roundly condemned by scientists, conservation groups, and community watchdogs alike.

Reality: Logging native forests exacerbates climate change.While timber products store some carbon, the majority of carbon in forests is stored in the soil and biomass.Logging disrupts these carbon stores, releasing significant amounts of CO₂. We know that mature old growth forest sequesters more carbon per metre than younger, regenerating forest. Moreover, logged forests become more flammable, increasing the frequency and intensity of bushfires, which further release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

Furthermore, research from the Australian National University (ANU) indicates that forest regeneration projects, which are often used to offset carbon emissions from logging, have had negligible impact on carbon sequestration. This suggests that the carbon released through logging is not effectively offset, leading to a net increase in atmospheric CO₂ levels.

Reality: This is one of the industry’s biggest myths. Logging often makes forests more fire-prone by removing moisture-retaining canopy, increasing flammable undergrowth, and leaving behind slash piles. Intact native forests are more fire-resistant and play a vital role in regulating local climates and water cycles.

When forests are logged, the shade-providing canopy is lost, allowing sunlight to dry out the ground and remaining vegetation. The thick regrowth that often follows is dense with ‘ladder fuels’ – plants of various heights that allow flames to climb up to the treetops. This creates conditions for hotter, more destructive fires. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have confirmed that logged forests burn more intensely and more frequently than intact ones.

Logging in wet forests and rainforests causes especially severe and often irreversible damage. These ecosystems are naturally fire-retardant due to their cool, moist microclimates and closed canopies. But once logged, the soil dries out, the structure is broken, and they often regenerate as dry forest types – ecosystems that are more fire-prone and adapted to frequent burning. This shift is permanent on human timescales, turning fire-resistant forests into landscapes that fuel the very bushfires the industry claims to prevent.

Reality: While forestry corporation plays a minor role in fire management, their role is minimal compared to agencies like the Rural Fire Service or National Parks and Wildlife Service. These agencies are the primary responders in most emergency scenarios and already possess the specialised knowledge and infrastructure needed to manage large-scale fires. Forestry's involvement is often overstated and tokenistic - used more as a PR tool than a core firefighting strategy. Redirecting resources from forestry to these agencies could enhance efficiency and effectiveness in fire response.

Reallocating firefighting budgets from Forestry Corporation to the RFS and NPWS would be far more efficient. These agencies are specifically trained for fire prevention and suppression, and already manage vast landscapes with a conservation-based mandate. Forestry Corporation’s primary purpose is resource extraction - not land management- and its resources are limited and often less strategically deployed. Concentrating funding into dedicated fire agencies would improve coordination, equipment, staffing and strategic burn planning - particularly in high-risk areas - and eliminate duplication of effort. Every dollar shifted away from a logging agency and towards a professional fire agency increases the likelihood of effective, timely responses and long-term resilience.

Compounding this is the fact that forestry practices actively increase fire risk. Logging removes the mature canopy layer that helps regulate humidity and keep forests moist. It opens up the understorey to sunlight and wind, which dries out leaf litter and soil. After clearfell or heavy selective logging, the forest regrows as a dense thicket of young trees and shrubs, known as ladder fuels - vegetation of different heights that allows fire to climb into the canopy and explode into high-intensity crown fires. Research from the ANU and University of Wollongong has shown that logged forests are significantly more flammable than intact ones, particularly in the decades after harvest. Logging not only reduces the forest’s natural fire resistance but also makes bushfires harder to control and more destructive when they occur.

Reality: These initiatives are often public relations efforts to improve the industry's image. Other government agencies are fully capable of undertaking community engagement and environmental restoration without the associated environmental costs of logging.

Genuine community development and environmental conservation require transparent and accountable programs. Relying on logging companies for these initiatives risks prioritising corporate interests over public and ecological well-being.

Reality: We support a just transition for forestry workers - but continuing to log native forests doesn’t secure long-term jobs. In fact, studies have shown there are many more sustainable and secure jobs in tourism, environmental restoration, land management and fire risk reduction than there are in Forestry. By transitioning away from native forest logging, we could create a plethora of jobs and economic stimulus through sustainable management of these forests.

Furthermore, forestry frequently operates at a massive financial loss – costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year. Native forest logging is propped up by public money and delivers far more economic damage than benefit.

Reality: This is a deeply misleading claim. By the government’s own admission, around 87% of all timber taken from native forests ends up as woodchips, most of which are exported offshore. Of the remaining 13%, the vast majority is processed into low-grade products such as hardwood pallets or fencing - not high-value construction timber. In fact, most structural building materials in Australia come from softwood plantations, predominantly radiata pine, which are already capable of supplying our domestic timber needs.

Multiple studies and industry analyses have shown that Australia’s timber demand could be entirely met by existing and expanded plantation resources - particularly if we stopped exporting large volumes of plantation softwood overseas. Continuing to log native forests under the pretence of supporting the construction sector is not only economically unsound, but also environmentally devastating. It is a practice propped up by outdated narratives and industry spin, not by necessity or logic.