So,the dreaded Greenies are all ganging up on the Tasmanian forest industry.

I daresay that,without those Greenies we would have seen much more destruction of forests and rivers in Tasmania and elsewhere in Australia.The fundamental problem with the forest industry who Mr Poynter speaks for is the Greed Is Good and Growth At Any Cost syndromes which so afflict Australia.

I suggest to Mr Poynter that he takes some sabbatical leave from his day job,whatever that is,and does some reading and research on the environmental problems of Australia and see how the facts disclosed in those readings concur with his views on forestry in Tasmania.

Anyone who refers to Bjorn Lomborg as a "respected international commentator on the environment" can't be taken too seriously!

No doubt if a group of Academics endorsed the activities of the Tasmanian forest industry, Mr Poynter would be singing their praises.

Perhaps, Manorina, you should take your own advice, take a sabatical, do some research on Tasmanian forestry, then report back to us with facts, and not just emotional rhetoric.

The author seems more concerned with the 'eminence' of the contributors rather than their concerns.

Without getting into the usual them bad, us good type roundabouts, let's just ask do those in the forestry camp think Gunns has at anytime behaved badly? Has their influence and management in relation to government relationships (or governance) been open, honest and transparent. Have any of their 'findings' been questionable in relation to environmental impact?

Fact is you just have to accept that many Tasmanians voted Green because of forestry concerns, we are a democratic nation and dengirating anything 'Green' is not going to change the fact that there are real concerns about sustainable forestry in Tasmania.

Do you really believe that the forestry industry would respect matters of sustainability or old growth forests without regulation?

Basically it doesn't matter what the forestry industry wants - the people have spoken.

Manorina
The topic of this piece is really about the appropriateness of academics (many from unrelated disciplines) effectively engaging in political activism, but I'm not surprised that the mere mention of 'Tasmania' and 'forests' in the one article would steer the discussion off-topic.

Since you ask, I have written a book on the topic of forest activism so am pretty well versed on all the arguements for and against timber production in native forests. I agree with you that Australia has many serious environmental problems, but harvesting and regenerating a minor portion of our forests is not one of them, except in the minds of those who can't countenance human resource use.

You should take your own advice and find out a bit more. Perhaps you could start with The State of Australia's Forests Report 2008 by the Bureau of Rural Sciences.

Re your comment: "The fundamental problem with the forest industry who Mr Poynter speaks for is the Greed Is Good and Growth At Any Cost syndromes ..."

This article is about native forests - most n.f. timber production occurs on public lands managed by government agencies - how is there any opportunity for the industry which draws timber from these forests to expand their operations? National parks and reserves may be being illegally logged in south east Asia, but not in Australia.

PS: why is it that those who wish to protect forests or seek restraint from the forestry industry are labelled as activists (as though that in itself is a bad thing)?

The people listed would not qualify as activists if you take the definition to mean confrontational and militant. Nevertheless sometimes in the face of corruption you need militants and confrontationalists.

Using your interpretation, there are activists on both sides of the forestry debate in Tasmania, in which case the activist is in the eye of the beholder.