Firewood ban fuels rural anger

In 2010, when the National Park replaced the state forest, our community was promised the loss of revenue created by job loss and loss of the timber cutting industry would be replaced by tourism dollars.

Utter rubbish. Everyone knows people who frequent National Parks do not traditionally spend money.

To add insult to injury, the government fabricated the projected numbers that would visit the park - thousands of visitors a day according to their figures. Maybe per year if we are lucky.

Mathoura, Deniliquin and Barmah have all suffered the loss of not only the jobs provided by the timber industry but also the loss of other small businesses who relied on the income from those employees, many of whom had to leave the district to find work.

Let's face it, these towns are not thriving; there has been no replacement of the lost revenue.

A small group of committed locals fought against the National Park implementation back then knowing full well that this would eventually be the result if it passed.

We now have our way of life being dictated by a small group of city dwellers with little knowledge or regard for life in regional centres.

Many locals rely on the self-collection of firewood to keep their heating bills reasonable, as well as being a recreational outlet.

The email permit holders received stated we would be able to collect wood from nearby state forests or purchase from commercial wood suppliers.

The nearest state forest is Koondrook, and according to their website there is no option for wood collection permits aside from the fact it is a one-hour drive from here.

Commercial suppliers will no doubt ask the same rate for wood as they get from Melbourne customers.

With wages in the country typically lower than those in the city, this will increase the cost of heating significantly for locals.

Our forest grew to be the largest red gum forest in the southern hemisphere through careful management by state forestry and the collective timber cutting companies.

It was in their best interests to keep it growing and healthy.

Now the forest runs the risk of dying through the lack of thinning, not only culling the surplus of trees to open the canopy but also removing excess cover of the forest floor allowing regeneration.

They say we need these fallen timbers to create habitat for wildlife.

There has always been an abundance of wildlife in this forest, with locals mindful not to over harvest standing and fallen timbers.

If we don't keep the forest floor relatively clear, we are leaving ourselves open to the possibility of a devastating fire that would take out the towns of Mathoura and Barmah, not to mention the farms backing on to the forest.

There would be no stopping it. As for the endangered wildlife, they too would be wiped out.

The NSW Government relies on the Green party to stay in government, and when the Greens ask for something the government gives it to them - we are currently the sacrificial lamb.

They are prepared to kill off towns to stay in power. Rest assured it will not stop here; the Greens simply don't want us in the bush and will eventually prevent most of the recreational access we still have.

Further to the wood situation, I understand the local council does not allow wood collection from the side of roads for the same habitat reason as NPWS, but it makes no sense to encourage wildlife to live beside busy roads.

The trip between Mathoura and Deniliquin shows how wildlife fares against vehicles.

Perhaps it is time our councils reviewed this, as it would also assist with the firebreak that farmers are required to maintain.

The firebreaks are pretty much pointless when we allow a build-up of fuel beside the roads.

The councils could set up a permit system and boost their own budget, as well as providing a safer habitat for farmers. Just a thought.

Yours etc.

Dani Joss

Mathoura