That's an outstanding idea Hasbeen. Actually, before I go on, you're being sarcastic aren't you? I mean your next post will be about limiting the number of Catholics, people of colour, Jews, people with a limp and inveterate nose blowers, won't it?

I mean the logical extension of your idea is quite marvellous because it will give us a ready made army and then we can attack New Zealand.

The disastrous situation for the river red gum where 50,000 visitors per year were promised and only four (4) people sign the visitors book on average each day, is similar to the ‘Tarkine’ in NW Tasmania.

The Savage River National park and regional reserve was created as a result of the Regional Forest Agreement in 1999, and according to the Parks and wildlife service contains “the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia”.
The Savage River NP and Regional reserve, has a combined area of 35,660 hectares.

The management plan boasts: The rainforest located on the Savage River Plateau is the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia. The area is an outstanding biological resource and a major refuge in Australia for myrtle (Nothofagus cunninghamii) dominated rainforest, a type of forest with strong affinities to Gondwanic land flora. A high diversity of rainforest communities occur within the park including representative callidendrous, thamnic, implicate and intermediate callidendrous/thamnic rainforest communities. Botanically, the area is considered to be of international significance.

However, the promised boon in tourism has yet to eventuate; numbers of visitors to the Savage River National park are so low it is not worth recording.

The former Tasmanian government proposed to seal a link road to provide access to a look-out and to recreational facilities over looking this magnificent rain forest. The Liberal Party, in opposition, chose to support a series of tourism projects within the region instead of the road. Both plans had some hope of creating jobs and building a tourism industry alongside the existing northwest industries of mining and forestry.

Yet the greens plan is to create a 450,000 ha National park and lock it up as World Heritage. Hopefully they will buy a visitors book to record the success of such a plan.

Take Queensland. A huge expansion of national parks from less than 5% to around 7.5%. What a joke - less than half of what is considered the international standard - and when's the last time Take a look at every environmental indicator relating to biodiversity and they are all in decline. The problem of biodiversity management isn't in the national parks, it's in the mismanagement of all other land. The lack of any duty of care, conservation or protection in lands where humans and biodiversity intersect makes it clear that we still need national parks protected from human uses. We also need to change the way we manage private land, leased land, agricultural land and urban land. When's the last time the AEF supported restrictions on land use held in private hands for purposes of conservation? More national parks, not fewer and a complete change in the idiotic view that we are entitled to use, profit and ultimately do what we want to our own life support systems.

What was the reason for the creation of national parks. I have a feeling that the answer is not so warm and fussie but I do not know the history so I don't know the truth. I have heard talk that they are for colateral for the world bank when we can no longer service our debt. The founder of green peace was kicked out of the movement when progressive socialists took over the movement to further their power grab. People want heaven on earth but because of the fallen Adamic human nature we serve the overlord not the Lord. Commonsense is a very rare commodity in the kingdom of the overlord. Wisdom starts with the fear of the Lord and as we reject him and go our own ways we have to wear the consequences. The only answer that I can give is learn the truth so you can make correct choices for your future, for choices made on asumptions are like flying a plane by the seat of your pants, which makes an exciting read in fiction but is very dangerous in real life.

rstuart resorts to a common but unfair method of arguing by pointing to associations of Max Rheese. Yet these associations have no bearing on the substantive case Max has argued about national parks. He could argue the same case, genuinely held, without the IPA or Gunn's, and it would still need to be responded to on its merits.

Perhaps in the circles in which rstuart mixes, argument-by-association is considered effective but to me it precludes debate of the issue and suggests a very closed mind on rstuart's part. Even worse, it is a case of the mainstream view (represented by rstuart), attempting to vilify a dissident position.

I'm with Karl Marx, whose motto was: De Omnibus Dubitandum (Question everything!). More power to your pen, Max.

@byork: rstuart resorts to a common but unfair method of arguing by pointing to associations of Max Rheese.

No, it is not unfair. Common sense tells you to treat the recommendations of an unbiased friend very differently to those of a salesman selling the product. Max is very definitely in the second category. He is paid to say the things he does.

Be that as it may, if a person comes up to you and says "I am a salesman for product X and want to spin you a spiel about X", then fair enough. Caveat Emptor. As you say, there is no need for myself or anybody else to come along and say "beware he is just a salesman". The facts the salesman presents are still facts, no less useful because they were given to you by a salesman. Since you are aware you are only getting one side of the argument, you can go looking balance elsewhere.

Max wrote this article as the representative of the "Australian Environmental Foundation". Anybody who wasn't familiar with the organisation might assume from the name the article was biased towards the greenie viewpoint. This is reinforced by Max writing as it comes he has some heartfelt concern for Australia's Nation Parks. But in fact the reverse is the case. The AEF is an industry sponsored organisation, and it presents the antithesis of the greenie viewpoint.

Unlike what I was doing in pointing it out, this is both unfair and mildly deceitful. But only mildly, as Max always does add the associations at the end of the article, and to everybody who takes the time to look it up it rapidly becomes obvious the AEF is just a mouthpiece for the forestry industries. The problem is of course not many people will take the time to look it up, and Max is relying on that.