It's all well & good to try protecting the environment. I can't think of anything more pressing. I have yet to see a policy which encompasses the needs of mankind & the environment. problem is , which one deserves priority. On the other hand if we ruin the environment it's mankind that loses. The environment will recover as it always has. It's just that next time mankind won't be there to see it. I would like to see one of those experts put up a proposal for all to see which is in fact a balancing act between man's desires & nature. For every job lost due to green policy a green's job should compensate the other. I mean 100% of what is being exploited from the environment every green has no qualms about utilising the product. I say to the greens stop raving on about the environment when you haven't got any alternative. Gay Bob's been in Parliament for 25 years but what has he achieved by way of protecting the environment AND protecting peoples' livelihood. I personally abhor the fact that almost everything I have is made from polluting enterprise. My work is contributing to pollution. When I remark about the emission caused by my employment I get told that the community is entitled to the service we provide, yet it is the people who benefit from that pollution who whinge & moan when the service is interrupted yet I get accused of polluting the environment when I do provide the service. I say to all those expert & selfish mutts out there, put your money where your mouth is. Come up with a solution or be quiet.

Taswegian
Re your concerns about forest fire, the following quotes are pertinent:

"a thick smoke had been observed ... west of where the ships lay at anchor" and "during the whole day smokes were visible along the coast" Able Janz Tasman, Storm Bay area, Tasmania, December 1642.

"Fires and smoke seen day and night ...." and "The greater part of the trees were burnt at the foot ... There were marks of fire almost everywhere; and in many places the earth was covered with ashes"
Nicholas Marion du Fresne, captain of the French boat, Le Mascarin, Storm Bay, Tasmania, March 1772.

To live in Australia has always been to live with fire and smoke. We do not do nearly enough burning of the forest compared to pre-European times, and the consequences are evident in the three Victorian mega bushfires since 2003 which have caused severe environmental damage.

I am unsure whether your concerns relate to post-harvest reneration burns or fuel reduction burns, or both. But the reality is that even "pristine areas left untouched" will inevitably be burnt at some stage. There is far less environmental damage if the bush is burnt in a planned and controlled manner in autumn then in uncontrolled summer conflagrations in heavy fuels allowed to accumulate through a lack of periodic fire.

By becoming activists, academics like the ones that signed the open letter compromise their independence. The local Southern Cross television news last night featured Tom Baxter as a Governance Lecturer, to interpret the current constitutional actions of the Tasmanian Governor. Did they know that his field was Corporate Governance, e.g. about companies not about Parliaments, nor did they acknowledge that the TV audience would remember that he was the organiser and spokesperson for this partisan open letter. By using such a tainted expert undermines the value of the news service and the University’s reputation.

To attempt to use smoke from the very necessary regeneration and fuel reduction burns as an excuse for the academics activism undermines the science of forest management and the detailed procedures of the independent Forest Practices Authority and the Environment Protection Agency to minimise the impact of such burns. A detailed look at why the management of vegetation fuels is critical for public safety, economic and ecological reasons can be found at http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/Smoke_Managment/smoke_leaflet.pdf .

Fire has been part of Tasmania’s environment, even before settlement by man. A detailed look at the bush fire heritage can be found at http://ffic.com.au/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=90&Itemid=174
Tony Mount, a forest ecologist, now retired, after a career involving fire and silviculture research from 1957 to 1991, has authored two publications Tasmania's Ancient Bushfire Heritage and Managing Tasmania's Fire Environment based on a series of presentations he has given on the subject. The papers give an insight into the development of modern harvesting, silviculture, and bushfire management of Tasmania's diverse and unique forests.

These well researched documents are a far cry to the alarm created by two media releases from the greens issued in the last days of the election to blame a blanket of smoke over North East Tasmania on the State’s forest industry. Even when the scientists at Bureau of Meteorology pointed out that the smoke was from fuel reduction burns in Victoria, lit to prevent a repeat of the Black Saturday disaster, the greens and their supporters continued to vilify forest workers without comment from these academics demanding ethical standards of politicians.

MW Poynter I suspect Abel Tasman moved his ship when the smoke got too much. People who live in houses may not have that option. Days of smoke haze seem to induce a form of bronchitis in some people. I regard the whole issue of fire management as far from settled. Foresters are convinced in their own minds that burnoffs are a good thing. Here are some reasons why they may not be. First it turns all that carbon in forest floor and understorey into CO2. Our PM back in 2007 promised to reduce CO2 and perhaps one day he may get around to it. While some iconic species such as E. regnans may need fire for germination they also need damp shady conditions. Burnoffs more frequent than say once a century may remove shade plants, dry the soil and change the microclimate via reduced albedo and transpiration.

The effect of overly frequent burning will be to transform a biologically diverse landscape in to a kind of urban sprawl. Fewer plant and animal species with more of a uniform size. For example I doubt an E. regnans sprouted in a burnoff regime will ever make it to 100 metres tall. The average amount of carbon-in-store will be higher than in an unlogged forest because it has been added to the atmosphere along with all the burnt fossils fuels. Boys playing with matches not only degrade the natural beauty but also prevent forests from being the vitally necessary carbon sinks and biodiversity refuges we need them to be.

Taswegian
Indeed, Abel Tasman may have been able to move his ships, but the reason for pointing out his and other pre-Eoropean settlement observations about fire is to show that it is a natural feature of the Australian landscape. Indeed, our flora and fauna has evolved to be fire dependent and so trying to exclude fire is not only an impossibility, but would severely damage the Australian environment.

So, fuel reduction burn-offs are not just to protect people and property, but are necessary to mimic (as far as is possible) the requirements for maintaining environmental integrity.

Agreed E.regnans has a naturally very low frequency of fire, but it is only one forest type which occupies only a very minor part of the landscape. These wet forest types are generally too damp for broadacre fuel reduction burn-offs anyway, although logged coupes are burnt specifically to create suitable conditions for regeneration.

Most forest types are drier and research over a long period suggests that these have a natural fire frequency varying from between 10 to 30 years depending on where they are and what species they are comprised of. These are the areas where fuel reduction burn-offs are done.

Yes, carbon gets released in burn-offs but beacuse these are done in autumn and burn with low intensity, far less is released than if the area was to burn on a hot windy day in mid-summer. The point is that carbon is being released and recaptured by forests on a daily basis as trees (and parts of trees) decay and then regrow. It is delusion to think that we can stop these natural processes.

So basically if the academics agree with you its all fine and well.

But if they write an open letter or campaign for something they've crossed a line? Interesting take on democracy.