Extracts from an offical Department of Sustainability and Environment letter are quoted below. This was written on behalf of the Premier, Environment Minister and DSE chain of command, in response to allegations that logging of Dingo Creek was illegal. The letter parades a suite of myths which could be considered as "Obtaining financial advantage by deception", an offence under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic):
s. 82. Obtaining financial advantage by deception
(1) A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any financial advantage is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).
(2) For purposes of this section, "deception" means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person."

Before continuing to the myths, consider that:
- A financial advantage is gained as more timber than legally allowable is obtained by ignoring Code of Practice compliance, bringing income to the DSE and others.
- The letter attempts to deceive by claiming there are no problems with the area being logged. Errors of fact do not have to be deliberate; the offence can be committed recklessly.

Myth 1
"These forests are managed in accordance with the East Gippsland Forest Management Plan and various National Park and Reserve Management Plans".
Facts
1/ The Forest Management Plan, East Gippsland Forest Management Area (DCNR 1995) lists the area as Special Management Zone 843/01, which requires "detailed planning required to protect rainforest values and ensure best possible use of B+ sawlog resource".
No detailed planning was prepared, and rainforest was not fully protected. The 2001 Coupe Plan listed "Standard Silvicultural practices", which was later confirmed in Court as "not special".

2/ The Management Plan also lists the Special Management Zone as an area in which Powerful Owl habitat will be conserved, and that this will occur within the SMZ. Instead Dr. Stephen Henry, Flora and Fauna Coordinator at DSE, drew a large circle around the only known Powerful owl nest site in East Gippsland and declared there was enough habitat in nearby reserves, so hollow-bearing trees would not be retained in the SMZ. This was not only contrary to the Management Plan, but also Action Statement 92, Powerful owl and Action Statement 192, Loss of Hollow-bearing trees, and therefore the Code of Forest Practices.

3/ The area of concern was the area being illegally logged, so Park & Reserve plans did not apply.

Myth 2
"The East Gippsland region has a world class comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system. The CAR reserve meets, and in most cases, exceeds the nationally agreed criteria for the protection of wilderness, old-growth and biodiversity values."
Facts:
4/ The nationally agreed criteria developed by the Joint ANZECC / MCFFA National, Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee, 'JANIS', included:
It is necessary to approach old-growth criteria in a flexible manner according to regional circumstances, especially when forest ecosystems are still relatively widespread and retain large areas of old-growth. Wherever possible, areas of old-growth requiring protection should be included in the area identified to meet biodiversity criteria.
(1) Where old-growth forest is rare or depleted (generally less than 10% of the extant distribution) within a forest ecosystem, all viable examples should be protected, wherever possible. In practice, this would mean that most of the rare or depleted old-growth forest would be protected. Protection should be afforded through the range of mechanisms described in section 4.
(2) For other forest ecosystems, 60% of the old-growth forest identified at the time of assessment would be protected, consistent with a flexible approach where appropriate, increasing to the levels of protection necessary to achieve the following objectives:
- the representation of old-growth forest across the geographic range of the forest ecosystem;
- the protection of high quality habitat for species identified under the biodiversity criterion;
- appropriate reserve design;
- protection of the largest and least fragmented areas of old-growth;
- specific community needs for recreation and tourism.
5/ Dingo Creek was identified as containing high biodiversity, including Powerful Owl habitat, rainforests, and others, published as Site of Significance values (Peel 1999) and in the Management Plan. This "Should" have been protected.
6/ 60% of old-growth forests were not protected. Only 47.56% of old-growth state-wide and 53.78% of old-growth in East Gippsland is included in "Formal Reserves".(Keenan and Ryan 2004) Protection in "informal reserves" raised these totals to 67/9% state-wide and 68% in East Gippsland. The "informal reserves" include areas requiring protection under the Code of Forest Practices, such as stream-side buffers, rainforest buffers - exactly the issue I was raising. The "CAR Reserve" clearly relies on proper management of the logging areas to meet its protection goals.
7/ Appropriate Reserve Design includes minimising edge effects and providing buffers on high-value areas (Platt 2002). The logging of Dingo Creek increases edge effects and removes a fire-retarding buffer on the larger rainforest stands in the National Park. The stands of old-growth wet forest at Dingo Creek did have fire retarding properties due to their sparse fuel arrangement and high moisture content of ground fuels, both properties lost by logging.
8/ Dingo Creek was contiguous with large stands of old-growth to the East and South and was part of the "largest and least fragmented areas of old-growth" on the Errinundra Plateau.
9/ The Site of Significance values of Dingo Creek included "scientific value" and "educational value" (Peel 1999) and was being utilised as a study area (See the Quest" meeting the JANIS criteria of "specific community needs for recreation".

Myth 3
"More than half of the East Gippsland Region (some 580,000 hectares) is included in the CAR reserve system and only about one quarter of public land is actually available for timber harvesting."
Facts:
10/ More than half the CAR reserve system in the East Gippsland Region is unsuitable for timber harvesting, as it is too steep, comprised of rocky outcrops, contains logged areas which failed to regenerate into eucalyptus forest, is a water body or stream-side.
11/ The other areas of public land not available for harvesting include the DSE's offices, other Government buildings, public parks, footpaths, roads, and areas protected by other laws (such as the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 (Vic).
12/ An alternative figure of how much land suitable for logging that is actually available would be very high.
13/ This is completely irrelevant to the issue of illegal logging and adds to the deception that existing reserves are adequate for threatened species conservation.

Myth 4
"Less than 2% (or less than 0.4% of all public land in the region) is harvested each year in accordance with the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production."
Facts:
14/ It's true that a small fraction of harvesting is done in accordance with the Code of Forest Practice.
15/ Sustainable logging is planned to occur on an 80 year cycle, which would involve logging 1.25% of the available area each year. Logging at a rate of 2% is above this sustainable limit, contrary to requirements of the Forests Act 1958.
16/ Hollows required for wildlife conservation do not occur until trees are 120-150 years old (Mackowski 1984, Stoneman et al 1997, Gibbons et al 2000, Gibbons & Lindenmeyer 2002), so a logging regime that conserves some hollow-dependant biodiversity might be conducted at a 200 year cycle, or 0.5% per year. The DSE admit " The result (of current logging) within harvesting zones is a loss of forest with old growth features upon which a significant part of the biota depends, particularly species that utilise tree hollows, such as possums and gliders, and species which depend in turn on those species, such as large forest owls" (DNRE 1998). This unsustainable loss of species is contrary to the Code of Forest Practices requirement for "a strategy to conserve threatened species" (s2.3.6) within the harvesting areas and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) objective "to ensure that any use of flora or fauna by humans is sustainable" (s.4(d)) and "to guarantee that all taxa of Victoria's flora and fauna can survive, flourish and retain their potential for evolutionary development in the wild" (s.4(a)).

Myth 4
"More than 85% of all old-growth forests in the East Gippsland region is in the reserves system or otherwise unavailable for timber production."
Facts:
17/ 53.78% of old-growth in East Gippsland is included in "Formal Reserves".(Keenan and Ryan 2004)
18/ Old-growth retained in stream-side buffers and other areas called "informal reserves" are not truly protected. Even if the buffer is properly marked and not disturbed, the edge effects include increased wind-throw, increased weeds (particularly Blackberry), loss of connectivity & habitat value and increased risk of fire. Such disturbed areas would not meet the Woodgate definition (Woodgate et al 1994) of old-growth forest.

Myth 5
"Rainforest on public land in Victoria is protected. The East Gippsland Forest Management Plan provides the definition of rainforest as well as more specific, working guidelines for the field identification of rainforest in East Gippsland."
Facts:
19/ Rainforest on public land in Victoria is often logged. Through poor identification skills of Forestry staff, inappropriate prescriptions, inappropriate definitions and lack of Code of Forest Practice compliance, rainforest stands and rainforest ecotones are regularly included in logging areas. (MORE)
20/ The definition of Cool Temperate Rainforest, as listed as a threatened community under the Flora and Fauna Act 1988 (Vic), is provided in the "Final Recommendation on a Nomination for Listing" of the "Cool Temperate Rainforest Community" (Scientific Advisory Committee 1990).
21/ The definition of rainforest provided in the Forest Management Plan, East Gippsland FMA, is narrower and less accurate than the real one.
22/ Application of the definition of rainforest provided in the Forest Management Plan, East Gippsland FMA, led to Foresters incorrectly believing that:
- presence of tree-ferns mean it's not rainforest
- gaps in the canopy mean it's not rainforest
- it the stand is less than 0.4ha, or less than 20m x 100m (of continuous canopy) it's not rainforest.
(Long & Channon 2002).
23/ The Code of Forest Practices is the legal instrument which provides protection of rainforest, lack of compliance with which was the subject of my letter. This claim indicates that the letter was not even read. Specifically; - The Code Prescribes minimum 40m buffers, but 20m buffers are applied to linear rainforest in East Gippsland. The Code requires other plans to exceed the Code's minimum requirements.
- The logging operation fails to comply with s.2.3.7 of the Code of Forest Practices, which requires detailed planning to achieve full protection of rainforest.
- later it was found that no buffer had been applied to a rainforest stand at one location.

Myth 6
"Although some parts of these national sites (of significance for rainforest) are not protected, these comprise the surrounding eucalypt forest, which have been included in the sites to for logical geographic boundaries."
Facts:
24/ The forest at Dingo Creek is part of Rainforest Site of National Significance 81 (East Errinundra). The forest made available for logging includes stand of pure Cool Temperate Rainforest, stands of Mixed Forest (a form of Cool Temperate Rainforest with a Eucalypt overstorey) and rainforest ecotones.
25/ The Dingo Creek catchment was included in the site and peer reviewed, with values including catchment integrity, stand integrity, scientific value, educational value, taxa at edge of range, disjunct taxa, and best of type representation. (Peel 1999) The valley was also included to act as a fire-retardant buffer on a larger rainforest stand to the south-east, which required protection of the old-growth Wet Forest stands.

Myth 7
"The forest management planning processes described above have taken into account the significance of each rainforest stand within these sites and afforded appropriate protection as required."
Facts:
26/ Stands of National Significance were afforded sub-catchment protection until the 1995 Management Plan was produced. This reduction in protection was objected to by conservation groups, botanists and other scientists.
27/ At Dingo Creek, the Management Plan lists the area as Special Management Zone 843/01, which requires "detailed planning required to protect rainforest values and ensure best possible use of B+ sawlog resource".
No detailed planning was prepared, and rainforest was not fully protected. The 2001 Coupe Plan listed "Standard Silvicultural practices", which was later confirmed in Court as "not special".
28/ In 2001, when the area was first logged, the Coupe Planner Amy Ware had no idea of the requirement for further planning, assuming any requirement to protect Site of Significance values was met by nearby reserves (Ware 2002)

Myth 8
"Prescribed burning in State forest in Victoria is carried out in accordance with strict prescriptions that are designed to contain fires adn protect nearby environmental values, such as rainforest."
Facts:
29/ Burning of logged coupes in the Dingo Creek area is done by dropping a burning petroleum gel (like Napalm) around the perimeter of the area. The updraft of the smoke rising forms a convection current that pulls the fire towards the centre of the area, which eventually burns out.
30/ Any rainforest values such as tree-fern groves or remnant trees ae incinerated and suffer severely during the high intensity fire.
31/ Rainforest trees are fire sensitive and do not regenerate after fire.
32/ At Dingo Creek and adjacent Yandowne Creek, a high proportion of the retained "seed or habitat" trees were killed during the fire, reducing the number to less than that required by prescriptions.

Myth 9
"While the main purpose of a regeneration burn is to provide a good seedbed and induce seedfall, the fire also removes forest fuels for a period following the burn, thus reducing the likelihood of wildfire."
Facts:
33/ This method of burning produces high intensity fires, which do not naturally occur in Wet Forest and result in inappropriate species regeneration. At Dingo Creek, the dominant Wet Forest tree, Errinundra Shining Gum, Eucalyptus denticulata, began regrowing as soon as the area was cleared, then were killed in the regeneration burn. On the Errinundra Plateau, areas formerly covered by old-growth Wet Forest are now covered by dense, young Silver Wattle because of this practice (Eg; Hammonds Rd, Sellers Rd).
34/ The regeneration process produces a dense, even aged crop, with high amounts of fine fuels, ground fuels and ladder fuels, with a lower moisture content and much higher potential for severe fire
35/ The seedbed was previously contained in litter, mulch, mosses, ferns and groundcover. The seeds included fungal spores, Geebung fruit, heath fruit, sedge seeds, rainforest tree fruit & seeds, and a broader range of species than those regenerated by fire.
36/ The same method of "regeneration burn" is applied to every Ecological Vegetation Type in Victoria, regardless of the natural processes, such as natural fire intensity and frequency.
37/ Species such as rainforest trees and fruiting shrubs are lost due to this regeneration method.
Myth 10
"The planning of these coupes has been carried out in accordance with the current land use planning provisions."
Facts:
38/ The Forests Act 1958 (Vic) requires consideration of Code of Forest Practice compliance during sustainable yield calculations. The inclusion of the coupes to be cleared without the special planning to protect rainforest is not in accordance with this.
39/ The Flora and Fauna Guarantee (Forest Produce Harvesting Order) 1988 (Vic) requires compliance with the regional Management Plan and Wood Utilisation Plan in order to permit the taking, keeping or moving of threatened flora. The failure to include special planning to protect rainforest values and conserve Powerful Owl habitat in the SMZ is not in accordance with this.
40/ The Australian Heritage Act 1975 (Clth), require conservation of National Estate values and was in effect at the time the Management Plan made the area available for logging. Despite this, a majority of the area and unique values occurring at Dingo Creek were not protected, so the planning was not in accordance with this.
41/ The Code of Forest Practices includes sections which detail Coupe Planning requirements and the requirement for a strategy to conserve threatened species. The plan to implement a listed threatening process, the loss of hollow-bearing trees from Victorian Forests (Garnett et al 2003) and a listed threatened species, Powerful Owl, Ninox strenua, (Webster et al 1999) is not in accordance with this.

Conclusion
Although the issue of illegal logging has been brought to the attention of "Crimestoppers" (Victoria Police), the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Victorian Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Sustainability and Environment, and the Attorney General, it seems no action will be taken and the practice will continue. Threatened species such as the Powerful Owl may become extinct as a result.
The Departmental response demonstrates complete ignorance of actual logging practices, and creates an illusion that massive reserves exist while logging has almost no impact. As a representative of the Secretary of the Department, the author is exempt from prosecution for anything done in the course of her duties. Did they break the law? Only you will be the Judge.

References
Commonwealth of Australia, (1997) Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a CAR Reserve System for Forests in Australia

DCNR, (1995), Forest Management Plan for the East Gippsland Forest Management Area, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the State of Victoria.

DNRE [1998) Victoria's Biodiversity, Directions in Management; East Gippsland, found at: http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/plntanml/biodiversity/directions/eastgipp.htm

Garnett, S., Loyn., R. & Lowe, K., (2003) Action Statement 192 ,loss of hollow bearing trees from Victorian native forests and woodlands, The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Gibbons, P., Lindenmayer, D.B., Barry, S.C. and Tanton, M.T. (2000) The Formation of Hollows in Eucalypts from Temperate Forests, in Pacific Conservation Biology, 6: 218-228.

Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D., (2002) Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia, CSIRO Publishing

Keenan, R. & Ryan, M., (2004) Science for Decision Makers; Old growth forests in Australia, Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences.

Long, W. (Senior Forester) and Channon, A., (Forester) (2002) from sworn testimony given to the Bairnsdale County Court, in the matter of DNRE v Hastings and Tantram.

Mackowski, C.M. (1984) The Ontogeny of Hollows in Blackbut, Eucalyptus pilularis, and its relevance to the Management of Forests for Possums, Gliders and Timber, in Possums and Gliders, Smith A.P. and Hume, I.D., Eds, Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney pp.517-525.

Peel, B., (1999) Rainforests and Cool Temperate Mixed Forests of Victoria, Flora and Fauna Program, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Platt, S.J. (2002) How to Plan Wildlife Landscapes: a guide for community organisations, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, the State of Victoria.

Scientific Advisory Committee, Flora and Fauna Guarantee, (1990), Final Recommendation on a Nomination for Listing; Cool Temperate Rainforest Community, Nomination No.207, Item NO.C1310, File No. 91/5685.

Stoneman, G.L., Rayner, M.E. and Bradshaw, F.J. (1997) Size and Age Parameters of Nest Trees Used by Four Species of Parrot and One Species of Cockatoo in South-West Australia, in Emu, 97: 94-97

Ware, A. (Forester & Coupe Planner) (2002) from sworn testimony given to the Bairnsdale County Court, in the matter of DNRE v Hastings and Tantram.

Webster, A., Humphires, R., & Lowe, K., (1999), Action Statement No. 92, Powerful Owl, Ninox strenua, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, the State of Victoria.

Woodgate, P; Peel, W; Ritman, K; Coram, J; Brady, A; Rule, A; Banks, J. (1994) A Study of the Old-growth Forests of East Gippsland, Conservation and Natural Resources Melbourne.