Image for Classical George W. Bush technique. Is this really the best we can do?

Forestry Tasmania forest ecologist, Dr Simon Grove, has attempted to place those of us who object to broadacre clearfelling and burning of native forests and monoculture pulpwood plantation development into the same camp as climate change denialists.(Mercury Letters 27/9).

He employs the classical George W. Bush era ‘with us or against’ technique to deride of environmentalists, and the large majority of Tasmanians, who are opposed to such practices, by labelling us “anti-forestry”. He claims we use “unscientific arguments”.

Science proceeds meticulous observation and hypothesis testing in pursuit of the elusive truth. It is respectful of thoughtful, observation based experience and opinion. It never seeks to misrepresent opinions nor belittle those who hold them.

There is no science, only commercial short termism, to support clearfelling and burning of biodiverse native forests.

These forest practices are counter to an intelligent, science based response to the realities of climate change.

• Dr Alison Bleaney: Is this really the best we can do?

Good reasons why we have to watch plantation certification and management in Tasmanian catchments:

http://hancockwatch.nfshost.com/docs/11sep.htm

The problem with plantations is often one of scale. 800ha of plantation logged in one hit and then aerially sprayed with herbicides. is this sustainable? All operations certified by Australian Forestry Standard and Forest Stewardship Council. Local councils are responsible for compliance to logging codes.

Is this really the best we can do?

First published: 2011-09-28 04:01 AM