I am the son of a beekeeper but am bound to ask, why have the Tasmanian Honey producers apparently chosen to attack the industry that supports them instead of working to ensure that Leatherwood seeds are dispersed into the ash beds as well to germinate along with the other timber species?

Are they unwilling to pay for their part in the restoration of the forest? Please inform.

This debacle is typical of Tasmania; it represent lack of insiight and is symptomatic of a cowering government and a rapacious timber industry; in spite of the Forrestry Agreements Tasmania is logged indescriminately - and at a far greater rate than any reforrestation program might offset.

If you want to see Tassies forests go and see Burnie's highest man made structure that is the pile of wood chips on the foreshore near the dock or stand on the Murchison highway you can see most of the forest drive past on the back of a truck.

Inspite of the re assurances of the feds Tassie forests will soon be like most of its history, preserved in photographs at the very best.

The leatherwood issue is only the beginning.

What is this? Propoganda for the Bee keeping industry? This article is no more than a half hearted attempt to try and justify government regulation that will benefit bee keepers. If the service provided by the bees (an introduced species by any chance?) is so valuable, then why dont the bee keepers pay the loggers or anyone else responsible for destroying habitat not to destroy it? If for some reason this is not possible (i.e., some other perverse regulations, or non-existant property rights), then point the way forward that doesnt involve handouts and industry protection.

Really, Sneekeepete, if you seriously think Tasmanian forests will actually disappear then you must spend a very substantial part of your time with your head in a paper bag. Over 1 million hectares of forest is in reserves and cannot be touched. More than a million more is in State forests and private forests that are harvested in a cycle of harvest and regeneration. Not bad for a state with 6.8 million hectares in total. But whats a few facts when the spittle flies from your diatribe?

What I wrote hardly fits the definition of a diatribe - it was neither long, fulminating or that bitter - facetious maybe, slightly amusing possibly - and as for spittle I didnt see none. It was delivered in a calm and dispassionate kind of way. I am a calm and dispassionate kind of guy.

Drive from Burnie towards Roseberry via either of the highways - clear fell or mono culture re forestation from horizon to horizon. TIme will tell. The protections are temporary at best.

Sneekeepete sigining off, in a calm and dispassionate manner.

Whatever spin you want to put on it, Sneekeepete, the fact is you claimed Tasmanian forests will disappear when there is over a million hectares in national parks and reserves. This is the same, inexcusable, deceptive misrepresentation that cost Latham so dearly.

It's use in any discussion or forum betrays a fundamental disrespect, on the part of the abuser, for the people it was intended to influence. You should apologise to this forum.