Well said Roland. Academic freedom is important. The only restraints on that freedom should be the laws that apply to all Australians regarding speech. Poynter's article, along with a churlish attempt by a group of Young Libs to attack so-called 'academic bias' points to a disturbing trend to silence academics. The same people then loudly proclaim freedom of speech when their views are attacked

There should be no limiting of freedom of speech, and the professors are free to express their opinions. They are also free to express their opinion that the world is flat.

However, the issue is that when they put their names and positions within the acedemic institute they represent, they attach the credibility of the institutions to the their opinion.

In spite of the disingenuous claim by RB that there is some accounting req in the legislation, the reality is that the letter is published by persons with no more connection to the subject than the plumber down the road.

The green movement has never had a problem misrepresenting information, and as this misrepresentation is not illegal there is in reality very little that can be done unless the universities object.

Soft centred lefty article because someone had a go at them in OLO.

The biggest problem facing academics (in some disciplines) is the academics themselves. Many would sign anything fuzzy in the staff room because it seemed to segue with their self centred political outlook.

Academics can spend days discussing books such as 'Who moved my cheese?' but when it comes to freedom. the kind of freedom they are talking about is whether I'm free on Friday to see students - and I'm not.

Shadow Minster got it right re his comment on academics and plumbing.

@Shadow Minister: the issue is that when they put their names and positions within the acedemic institute they represent

No, that is not the issue. Being transparent by revealing who you are, what you do, and your affiliations is never an issue.

Not doing those things can be an huge issue. For example Mark Poynter, rightly attacked the poll in that open letter. Nowhere did they reveal the poll was commissioned and paid for by the Wilderness Society. I attack the AEF not being more transparent about who they represent.

If you want to attack the academics or the organisation, find something they lied about, or where they deliberately deceived by omission. As far as I can tell they did neither of those things.

Wood production in Australian forests is restricted to just 9% of public forests and supported by strong government controls and policies. In reality the biodiversity and other non-wood values are already being conserved in the majority of Australian forests that are legally unavailable or unsuitable for wood production.
The signatories to the open letter are simply another politically motivated green lobby group seeking to close down the native forest timber industry in Tasmania by means of highlighting perceived (rather than actual) environmental problems and imagined issues of governance.
Ironically, should they achieve their goal, they will be helping to drive up the demand for tropical hardwoods, many sourced by illegal exploitation of rainforest and associated fragile ecosystems in developing countries.

RStuart,

Affiliations are always an issue. All the corporations I have worked for have required that emails contain the phrase "does not necessarily represent the views of the company" and discourage the use of the company's name when giving opinions on Facebook etc, precisely because the company does not want to lend its name to anything unless it has been vetted.

The universities apparently do not have this concern.

Academic Freedom is a non sequeter , every time I hear "Academic Freedom" I cringe .
These People are not lamenting their "Freedom" they are instead crying out for their lost "Credibility" , many People now regard them as "Spinners" who account for the Political situation "First".

When they do this they become "Liars" enabled with protection because they are Academics . That was the Past , as for the future , the "Dreaded Skeptics" will prevail possibly unfortunately .

PS I know 'sequeter' is a spelling mistake , I am sorry that the new Google spell checker cannot correct it .

There are enough examples of loss of academic and scientific freedoms when scientists involved with soil health and organic farming methods (or those who opposed GE) - failed to have their contracts renewed or lost their jobs.

Lets never lose the right for anyone including academics to voice an opinion - particuarly when it relates to issues of governance.

Thankfully most thinking people know if an academic gives his opinion it is just that, he or she is not representing the institution nor is it even implied. Never has been in my experience.

Perhaps we should start us a good old fashioned book burning too.

pelican: << Thankfully most thinking people know if an academic gives his opinion it is just that, he or she is not representing the institution nor is it even implied. >>

Pelican has it in a nutshell. Universities are not corporations (yet), and the principle of academic freedom is one of the key differences. It would be a sad day indeed for our society if ever academics are bound by the intellectual straitjackets that apply to employees of companies.

Poynter's attack on the open letter is a good example of why academic freedom should be defended. The unholy alliance between Tasmania's government and its forest industry is precisely the kind of issue that should be subject to criticism and examination from a cross-disciplinary perspective.

ac·a·dem·ic&#8194; &#8194;[ak-uh-dem-ik] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution, esp. one for higher education: academic requirements.
2.
pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.
3.
theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.
4.
learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.
5.
conforming to set rules, standards, or traditions; conventional: academic painting.
6.
acquired by formal education, esp. at a college or university: academic preparation for the ministry.
7.
(initial capital letter) of or pertaining to Academe or to the Platonic school of philosophy.

That's the dictionary's description , I might be missing something here , Is 'Academic' a Qualification ? People calling themselves Academics are really only Teachers an honorable Profession but not one that would displace an Agronomist from his job eg; Organic Farming .

Mr Browne
Wow – I must have really hit a raw nerve to deserve a whole article! I could write a whole new article in response to yours, but it is a long weekend, so just a few points.

So, apparently I have attacked “academic freedom” and am intent on “silencing critics” – well, I guess you are following standard argumentative practice in exaggerating your opponent’s position to create the launch pad for your own argument. Perhaps though you should take your own advice and read my April 9th article a bit more closely.

You will see that I have in fact acknowledged the right of academics to say what they want. My major point was that by stepping outside their area of expertise and so trading on their credibility as academics to push what are then largely personal agendas, they run the risk of effectively silencing themselves by losing the respect of the community.

I think this danger is much more pronounced when they act (as this group did), in an overtly political way by timing their open letter for 4-days prior to an election. In my opinion, such an act has been viewed with great cynicism by a significant slice of the electorate who are probably already less than enamoured with academia.

I don’t believe this a good thing. Ultimately, our society is that much poorer when the general regard for academia as being thoughtful, objective and above politics is eroded by acts such as this. I am myself university-trained and so will be just as affected when academic qualifications lose their lustre in the public sphere.

Rowland, when I read articles such as yours, I have to ask myself, where does this fit in the grand scheme of things? Is it because your thoughts have been challenged somewhere and you see this as some sort of undemocratic restriction on your freedom of expression? Is this righteous indignation?

There exists today, in most democratic countries, a group think entity I describe as “the howling”. This entity and its key players also have an identifiable process.

The key players are sourced from academia, intelligencia, media, glitterati, compliant politicians, activist science and disproportionate representation from advocacy/NGO groups.

The process starts with a false premise, for example, that “we are all being denied rights and liberties”. This is followed by an extended and persistent “awareness” campaign by examples of violations. Next there is the advocacy by the key players and the proselytizing phase. This “converts” minority perspectives into a pseudo-majority view, establishes credibility by authority and creates an urgent imperative for action.

“The howling” is responsible for creating a “spectrum of popularity”, outside which our politicians perceive the risk of loss of voter support by venturing outside the policy exclusion zone created by “the howling”.

The net effect has been to polarize group think politics around this narrow spectrum of minority appeasement. This is squeezing political party policies into such a narrow band that they have become almost impossible to differentiate (political averaging), as result we see more hung or minority government. As we have seen in Tasmania, S.A. W.A and possibly will see in the UK. Not mention Obama’s landslide victory by 2.7%.

Under Turnbull it was difficult to distinguish between the main parties however, some discernable differentiation is now starting to emerge from Abbott. We will however, continue to be subjected to tokenistic/populist pronouncements, nanny state initiatives, 24/7 media spin, the precautionary principle, political averaging and the inevitable drone from “the howling”.

Even as part of “the howling” Rowland, you still have the right to an opinion, you don’t have the right to be right. More importantly, your academic freedom is no more sacrosanct that anyone else’s

Mr Browne – another point

You said: “he makes the unfounded assertion that forestry operations are more highly regulated than other land use activities”

Is there a Code of Practice for Farming? Do farmers ploughing paddocks, spraying weeds, harvesting crops etc have to comply with an approved operational plan that meets the requirements of this Code? Do outside people come onto farming properties to monitor farming operations to ensure they comply with this operational plan? I’m not especially knocking farmers, but I’m pretty sure the answer to these questions is NO.

So asserting that forestry operations are more highly regulated is hardly unfounded

Mr Browne
You said: “Tasmania’s so called “regulation” of the forest industry is self regulation”

This view encapsulates a lack of trust in a whole profession to do their job. It is an attack on the integrity of people who love forests, are highly knowledgeable about them, and specifically trained in their management. This includes those such as myself who have 3 to 5+ years of university training in forest science. Essentially, they stand accused of intentionally wrecking the environment - but why would they?

Its basis is a conspiracy theory about corruption and conflicts of interest which is an affront to all concerned. This is founded on decades of environmental activism which has lumped foresters and the timber industry together into a so-called “forest industry”. In reality, they are separate entities who have always had an adversarial relationship typical of a situation where one group (foresters) plans and regulates the activities of another (timber industry and its contractors).

In the public forests where the forest debate is centred, foresters are employed by the government to regulate a private industry. Where is the conflict of interest?

Admittedly, the situation is more clouded on private lands where the industry employs its own foresters to manage its own operations. But these operations must still comply with government regulations such as the Code and its requirements, and industry-foresters operate under a licence issued by the government to meet this obligation. In addition there are overriding environmental audits by a government authority, while certified timber companies must meet another layer of auditing.

Of course, those who are philosophically opposed to timber production simply dismiss this as corruption and call for reform.

If we can’t trust those who are trained in the job who do we trust? Oh let’s see, perhaps activists and scientists associated with the environmental movement can regulate forestry operations. This would be akin to convicted criminals regulating the judicial system. In both cases, the would-be regulators are philosophically opposed to the very existence of what they are regulating. Hardly sensible, yet this seems to be what forestry critics are advocating.

Mr Browne - one final point before I go and watch the footy
You said: Ïf Poynter had paid attention to the public debate ...... he would be aware that accounting and economics have been major components of thät debate"

Of course they are, but I would contend that this is another area riven with conspiracy theories and speculation by people (usually acting on behalf of environmental activism) who may well have qualifications in these areas but have little understanding of the industry they are dealing with.

Just as law has various branches such as corporate, family or criminal; an economic degree does not immediately confer expertise in every branch of the field. Forest economics is a particular branch of this field.

Amongst those who have specialised in this area, there is just one vocal ANU resource economist who has worked virtually as an anti-logging activist since the early 1990's. Indeed, she was once referred to as the äcademic spokesperson of the no-native-forest-logging clique of the environmental movement". As expected her pronouncements have been heavily influenced by her underlying philosophy and have been regarded as being highly contentious by other forest economists.

Those academics with economic or accounting qualifications amongst those who sighed the open letter gave no indication that they have any special knowledge in the forestry sphere.

The "Greens" Political Party nearly all Academic's negotiated a Preference deal with the ALP to stop 'Cool Burning'in our Nations Forests (1981 I think) This decision culminated with the death of 147 People and the Crucifixion of the Victorian Fire Brigade Captain who will exit with No Entitlements ! How so ? The most essential tool for controlling Fire in Eucalyptus forests was removed from his war chest by a bunch of Academics who now declare that nothing would have saved those people on that extreme day . Pure Crap if there was no significant under-story eg; dead or dying undergrowth , shrubs and forest detritus and the Eucalyptus thinned properly (Sensible Commercial forests produce healthy trees) the heat needed to force the oil out of the leaf canopy would have not been available this is interesting to watch the sequence is: burning under-story , dark colored gas visible above Crown , crown leaves start to burn , sparks from crown ignite eucy oil gas above crown . Other considerations are Burrawongs and other Palm like shrubbery these plants burn at extremely high temperature and make the forests future regrowth long term due to soil destruction .
Kick the Academics out of the Forests , manage the Forests like a tree Farmer would , healthy well managed Forests are not Dangerous but are deserving of our respect .

Mark Poynter’s article “Crossing the line from academia to activism” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10279 questioned the appropriateness of academics publishing an open letter on a key electoral issue just four days before the Tasmanian election. Whilst it questioned the role of academics and the use of authority of their titles in political activism, it was not about reducing freedom of speech or censorship.

Now one of the non academic signatories to the open letter in Mr Roland Browne, a Legal Practitioner of Hobart has responded, yet failed to state his involvement with the letter. This involvement includes being the co-author of a key reference used by the academics. He fails to state that much of the open letter relies upon claims he made at a 2002 conference of the Tasmanian Environment Defenders office (EDO) is his capacity as its Chair.

Despite not declaring these affiliations the author then justifies the academics’ open letter by claiming “the public debate is skewed by the enormous resources of the institutional players of the forestry industry”

Yet the EDO has been a prominent participant in the debate, with EDOs being largely funded by the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department. Tom Baxter, EDO committee member and open letter signatory, was identified by the internet activist organisation Get Up as the organiser of this open letter.

Get Up hosted a ‘public forum’ and paid for a full page advertisement of this open letter as part of a $140,000 advertising campaign for the Tasmanian election. The advertisement was also linked to Environment Tasmania and Our Common Ground’s massively resourced campaigns that were designed to influence the outcome of the Tasmania election.
The ability to spend $140,000 on prime time TV advertising and full page newspaper advertisement, reflects the strength of the financial resources of the green lobby, with the Canberra Times ( 19 Dec 09) indentifying that just four of Australia's biggest environment groups spent more than $70million last financial year.

Perhaps the last paragraph of the article should read: the public debate was skewed by the enormous resources of the green activist industry.

The feigned concern from a lawyer about "self-regulation" is a bit rich. The lega profession doesn't have much of a ttrack record in Tasmania - witness failed mortgage schemes in the 90s. I declare my interest as a former Board member on the Forest Practices Board. I also point readers to a paper by Cashore et al of Yale University which placed the Tasmanian forest practices system in the top three in the world.

Foresters are professional people with a high level of training. Just as any other profession they are trained to manage forests for a sustainable future. While ever humans utilise forest products including timber, paper and other non timber forest products then foresters will be required. Indeed some of the foremost conservationists and managers of national parks around the world have come from the ranks of professional foresters.

As National President of the Institute of Foresters of Australia I can assure Mr Browne that our organisation's resources are quite limited. We rely entirely on mamber subscriptions from a base of about 1300 people. We certainly do not tag along with everything the "industry" advocates. Just as the legal profession is not in agreement all the time.

This article should act as a reminder to Mr Poynter that he and his industry do not have dominion over Australian forests and that Joe Citizen is accustomed to industries and their representatives (including sycophantic governments) endeavours to silence critics.

A UWA survey in 2007 of 17 institutions across Australia, found academics had witnessed or experienced cases of suppression by all state, territory and federal governments in the areas of health and the environment.

Affected researchers had their research reports blocked, faced abnormal delays in pursuing or publishing their research, or were directly requested to modify or sanitise their results by a government agency. Some were refused funding.

Then there are peer-reviewed papers describing how industries try to influence the science on environmental reporting, revealing evidence of a systemic problem.

An excerpt from the FAO workshop on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change, conducted in Modena Italy during 2008 advised that:

“The major forestry certification standards and certification schemes are weak and pro-chemical. These standards have evolved largely to suit the industry and their customers. Their environmental credentials are questionable.

“Chemicals used in Australian forestry: 25 herbicides, 9 insecticides, 2 fungicides and seven classes of adjuvants.”

However, Australia’s Forest and Wood Product Research and Development Corporation advise the names of twelve chemicals in the management of plantations:

"Amitrole, Atrazine, Chopyralid, Fluroxypr, Glyphosate, Haloxyfop, Hexazinone, Metosulam, Metsulfuron methyl, Simazine, Sulfometuron methyl, Triclopyr" and also that:

Five of the thirteen major herbicides used can be purchased “off the shelf.”

Listed in this chemical brew are products which are proven to be toxic to freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates, suspected endocrine disruptors and carcinogens.

Perhaps to further their own interests, forestry industry representatives have criticised the mining industry for felling trees in state forests and national parks to get at the bauxite but just who is profitting from the trees felled by the mining industry?

I guess one could safely assume that the culture in these industries is to be "first in, best dressed" and that alert academics and Joe Citizen should just butt out?

The reality is that the biggest affiliation problem with academia and academics is with corporate interests. Public private partnerships, entrepeneurial academics with patents or ties to for-profit companies, secretive research, funded positions and projects, and academics speaking on behalf of those interests - sometimes in incredibly inaccurate and vitriolic fashion. In some areas of science (look at nano and GE), the quality of the science and the quality of the teaching have been incredibly compromised by academics who are incredibly compromised. And there are academics - Universithy of Melbourne, University of Adelaide for example, who use their positions to advocate for corporate interests, well beyond the scope of their expertise. Open and vigorous debate should always be preferred to censorship, but any fair minded look at the realities of cash strapped universities makes it clear which interests have the upper hands in debates such as forests.

Methinks the Foresters Institute doth protesteth too much. Not only do they try and silence criticism from the academy of the unholy alliance between themselves and industry in Tasmania, but they bleat about the grassroots activist organisation Get Up being able to raise money from the concerned public.

Admittedly, they've had it pretty well all their own way in Tasmania until quite recently, so I guess it's understandable that they'd want to maintain the status quo which privileges them over the public interest.

"Thankfully most thinking people know if an academic gives his opinion it is just that, he or she is not representing the institution nor is it even implied."

However, the other 90% who base their opinions on sound bites do.

SM
One of the things we should not wish for is for academics to live under the same pressure as those who work for corporations or government, in speaking out about matters in the public interest.

Do we really wish that academics work within the same restrictions as public servants and legally prevented from voicing concerns in the public interest - it will be as CJ said, one of the last bastions of free speech down the tubes.

Forestry and industry groups have equal right to put their views which they do with regularity. It is a shame that this privilege is not also granted to employees of some of these corporations without risk of job security and intimidation (in some cases).

Would there have been a furore if the academics been pro-forestry?

Be careful what you wish for.

So what your saying is we must respect Writer and his Shingle and forgive his/her Transgression against us under the notion of Academic Freedom .
Some sort of 'Prefect and Mere Mortal' relationship?

What "Transgression against us" are you talking about, Garum Masala?

First it's not me thats complaining , the Academics don't like the Common Mans aggressive attitude towards them .
Academics don't respect the Proletariat , they come with a loaded gun their Leviathan is a Great Big University , in a political sense they can defeat the ambitions of the common Man in a nutshell Academics distort Democracy to defeat the Common Sense and Life Experience and Integrity of the Common Man and Woman .

Oh, those "transgressions".

Thanks for the explanation, whatever it meant.

That's fine CJ , I understand . Pedestals are relatively easy to climb and very testing to descend .

Not being familiar with the Tasmanian forestry scene, I won't make comment on whether it is being well or badly managed. But I can comment with some authority on the political games that were played on the people of WA during the Regional Forests Agreement debate of the late 1990s. At that time here in WA, the anti-logging movement used every devious trick in the book to convince electors in the lead-up to the 2001 state election that logging of native forests was morally evil and environmentally destructive. Similar to the public letter from 26 Tasmanian academics, we saw groups such as the Royal Society of WA come out with 'position statements' against logging, claiming credibility for their opposition on the basis of their academic affiliations more than the facts contained in their statement, even though they had not consulted with or gained approval from the membership of their organisations for the content of their statements.
Some government scientists also claimed their employment was at risk if they dared to speak out against existing government policy or industry practices, yet such people played and continue to play major advocacy roles in the WA environment scene without losing their jobs or doing harm to their academic or bureaucratic standing.
If the 26 academics had a genuine message of concern to pass on to Tasmanians, they should have made their positions public in the months and years prior to the state election, not 4 days beforehand.

Suppression - CASE 4:

Name Dr Philip Keane
Position Lecturer in Botany, La Trobe University (1975- ).

"Background: Published an article in a national weekly newspaper (January 1977) about the spread of cinnamon fungus in Victorian forests.

"Action: Chairman of the Forests Commission of Victoria applied great pressure on the University's Chancellor, Acting Vice-Chancellor and the Deans of Science to take action - nine letters written and hand-delivered between 3rd and 24th February 1977.

"Status: Unchanged by events. The University Council was informed of the attacks and the appropriate officers (Chairman of Department, Dean of School of Biological Sciences) resisted all pressures and strongly rejected the allegations made.

"The Chairman of the Forests Commission was further informed that all Australian University Statutes are framed to allow staff to speak publicly on controversial issues thereby preserving academic freedom.

“A typical pattern for a suppression attempt seems to be as follows.

"A person makes a public criticism, a critical analysis in a research document, or some other 'threat' to the forestry establishment. Leading foresters, for example in the government forest services, then apply pressure on the individual's boss to have the criticism stopped, for example by making verbal complaints in person or by telephone, or by sending letters of complaint.

“Steps taken to prevent recurrence of criticism include informal comments about the individual's competence and motivations, hindering of research, blocking of appointment or promotion, and threats of dismissal. Such efforts, even when immediately unsuccessful as in the cases of Keane and Rawlinson, can by setting an example serve to reduce the future likelihood of research in sensitive areas or of public comment by others.

“Besides the forest industries, some other prime sources of suppression - either directly, or indirectly via subservient government and academic bodies - are chemical industries, pharmaceutical industries, electrical industries, mining industries and automotive industries.”

The Ecologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, January-February 1981, pp. 33-43.

http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/81ecol.html

>Thirty years hence and the more things change, the more they stay the same and cinnamon fungus continues to spread across the nation, infecting hundreds of thousands of hectares of native vegetation.

Protagorus
The case you are putting forward bears no relation to the Tasmanian 'open letter' by 26 UTAS academics because, unlike the botanist Keane,almost all the letter's signatories were acting outside of their field of expertise. Moreover they did it 4-days prior to an election.

Without being privy to Keane's 1977 newspaper article, I suspect that the only similarity between him and the 26 UTAS academics was that in both cases there was an alarmist view being peddled which was at odds with the reality.

I can remember at the time, that environmentalists were claiming that all of East Gippsland's forests were doomed by the impending spread of the Cinnamon Fungus, whereas the Forests Commission had made a huge investment in research and were finding that the fungus was limited to forests with certain species, soil types, and drainage characteristics and were implementing management strategies to minimise spread by human means. Thirty three years on, if you care to drive to East Gippsland you will see that the forests have not been destroyed.

Effectively what you and the author of the 1981 article in "The Ecologist" are saying is that academics are always right and that no-one has a right to critiscise them, but what if they are clearly wrong? Just who is trying to stymie free speech here?

“………unlike the botanist Keane,almost all the letter's signatories were acting outside of their field of expertise. Moreover they did it 4-days prior to an election.”

Mark Poynter – What is wrong with releasing any letter 4 days prior to an election when political candidates and their supporters, often influenced by large corporate polluters (and political donations), are doing the same thing but most often, for the wrong reasons?

If you believe the academics could be "clearly wrong" you will need evidence to support that assertion - evidence which you have not yet been able to provide.

I understand that you are the Director of Forest & Natural Resource Services and I note that in your publications and submissions, you promote and depend on the use of extremely hazardous pesticides and herbicides, (including the animal bait, 1080) in forestry management. However, you are not a toxicologist, chemist, biologist, medico, ecologist or hydrologist. Should we exempt you from the same criticisms you direct at others?

In addition, your industry (outside their field of expertise) want the public to buy the claim that plantations are better carbon sinks than unlogged forests but under the Kyoto Protocol, countries are not required to account for carbon lost through degradation and deforestation of their native forests. It appears that the industry is "clearly wrong" particularly when the claim has been proven wrong by the real experts.

I fail to see any splinter in the eye of well-researched academics (whom, I suspect, you regard as a threat to the questionable operations of your industry), who speak out in the public’s interest and therefore, for the common good.

Is there not a plank in the eye of an industry (with vested interests) whose representatives wish to deprive Australian academics of their right to free speech? Who will be next?

Protagorus

You said: "What is wrong with releasing any letter 4 days prior to an election when political candidates and their supporters ..... are doing the same thing but most often, for the wrong reasons?"

As I said in my original article and in a response to this Roland Browne attack on that article, academics can say what they will at whenever time they like. However, when it is 4-days prior to election it assumes a political tag which cheapens the integrity of what they say now, and may even carry through to things they say in the future. We take notice of academics because of an expectation that they are objective and apolitical. When we can no longer trust this to be the case, society has a problem.

You said: "If you believe the academics could be "clearly wrong" you will need evidence to support that assertion - evidence which you have not yet been able to provide"

Go back to my original OLO article on this matter (April 9th?) - that is where the evidence was discussed.

Protagorus

You said: " .... I note that in your publications and submissions, you promote and depend on the use of extremely hazardous pesticides and herbicides, (including the animal bait, 1080) in forestry management."

Where I have ever 'promoted' the use of agri-chemicals? I am not a chemical salesman, but a forestry practitioner who has been involved in the use of herbicides in the past, and since becoming a consultant 15-years ago have at times advised landowners on how to establish tree plantations on cleared farmland. Yes, this involves some use of herbicides, but hardly constitutes 'promotion'.

You said: "However, you are not a toxicologist, chemist, biologist, medico, ecologist or hydrologist. Should we exempt you from the same criticisms you direct at others?"

The involvement of those scientific disciplines is inherent in the development of agrichemicals and the formulation of appropriate rates of use and conditions of application in accordance with environmental regulations set out in government Acts. Therefore the practitioner who uses these products, if he complies with these regulations and instructions, is complying with the best available information from those disciplines.

I fail to see how this bears any relationship to my criticism of UTAS academics for acting outside their field of expertise.

You said: "..... your industry (outside their field of expertise) want the public to buy the claim that plantations are better carbon sinks than unlogged forests... "

It is hardly outside the expertise of forest scientists are to comment on this. The superior carbon credentials of managing some native forests for wood products lies in transferring carbon for long term storage into the community. Failing to account for carbon storage in wood products was regarded as a shortcoming of the Kyoto Protocol which is to be addressed in the future.

Those contesting this have tended to do so on the basis that unlogged forests will store carbon in perpetuity, when clearly this is not the case given the prevalence of fire in the Australian landscape, and the reality that trees eventually decay and die and so emit carbon.

Mark Poynter – You are extremely uncomfortable with what you perceive as the blurring of lines between academia and activism, but society also knows that no one understands the risks better than learned academics and no one is better placed to give informed opinions.

Perhaps I should ask your opinion on the reverse blur where in Australia's major universities you will find the far-reaching tentacles of global polluters, BHP Billiton, Chevron, Rio Tinto, Alcoa, Monsanto et al, who eagerly donate their blood money to buy Chairs in academia for this or for that and form JVs with our places of learning, significantly blurring the lines between academia and pollutant industries.

Society has come of age and understands that the governments they elect to protect human health and the environment are quickly corrupted and regularly override EPA environmental assessments with impunity to protect pollutant industries. Spokespeople with a conscience in government health and environment departments are too often gagged, dismissed or are leant on, forced to sanitise reports or deliberately lie to the public.

Very occasionally the public are privy to the truth such as a previous Victorian EPA Special Forest Audit Report which found that Government forest operations had resulted in: illegal logging in national parks; destruction of old growth trees in special protection zones; and multiple breaches of procedure. Problems identified in the report included:

• Poor planning, mapping, communications and training
• False assumptions
• Failure to follow procedure and obtain proper approval for logging

Victorian National Parks' Association Director at the time, Charlie Sherwin, said: "The EPA has shone a spotlight on an appalling series of blunders by Government forest managers, but seem unable or unwilling to recommend proper environmental protections."

“These findings are bad enough" said Sherwin, "but the EPA also failed to point out the conflict in the Barmah forest area, where the Department of Sustainability and Environment is charged with both running logging operations, and at the same time protecting the trees."

Protagoras - it's important (in my mind, at least) that you remain focused on the subject of the original article by Mark. I could argue with you that, in spite of what you say about the big global polluters, human health around the planet is improving remarkably, with the average lifespan of people in most countries now higher than at any time in human history. Obesity and other lifestyle diseases are starting to lower life expectancies in some developed countries but overall most people are living longer which is a great achievement of modern medicine, companies involved in food production, national governance, etc.
If we focus on the role of academics in the timber industry, I believe that a group of mostly non-expert academics publishing a letter 4 days prior to an election are making a political statement, an act deserving of criticism. They know that tenure at their institutions will be unaffected by such a political act, so long as they teach their students effectively and produce peer-reviewed research reports at regular intervals.
I therefore reject your implied claim that academics in non-forestry subjects are best in giving informed opinion on forestry issues. And living in their ivory towers usually keeps academics so remote from the real world that they have no idea what the risks are (I assume you mean the risks to the environment).
Finally, if you are without sin, feel free to cast the first (or next) stone as a result of the Victorian Forest Audit. I've never met anyone who didn't make the occasional mistake and you're living on the wrong planet if you think that the timber industry is or should be absolutely perfect in everything it does.

Mark – You appear to infer that the letter written by Tasmania’s academics was unprecedented therefore, it seems that you are out of touch with reality.

In 1995, New Scientist reported on outspoken American ecologist and academic, Paul Ehrlich, who caused a furore in Australia by claiming that the work of the country's ecologists was being censored and suppressed.

"Every time I come out here I am taken aside by my ecological colleagues and told that they can't get the word out because they are under threat," Ehrlich told a forum in Sydney. A foreword he wrote for a book on Australia's biodiversity had been censored by a government department. The original foreword, he said, "was critical of censorship.“

Last year, Adelaide Now daily paper reported on fifteen academics and doctors including a Nobel Prize-winner and two Australians of the year, who warned of the "mind-blowing risk" of the Olympic Dam expansion.

The outspoken Union of Concerned Scientists has ten eminent academics on their board.

It’s ironic that you question the integrity of courageous academics when you would have us believe that the pesticides you use in forestry are stringently regulated.

The majority of these pesticides are so hazardous that they are not available to the public. The quack APVMA has allowed your industry to spray millions of litres of lethal toxins from the skies, dumping hazardous solutions over communities and the landscape where they drift into ‘prohibited’ areas including rivers and waterways with impunity.

Yet only yesterday in Santiago, three pollutant companies were shut down for allowing dust to drift over one community and for polluting only one river.

Free and frank intellectual inquiry has always been under assault by dodgy legislative acts and by the chilling effect of secrecy and intimidation in industry and governments. Australia's ignominious environmental history lays testament to that.

It is society’s last hope that courageous academics in all disciplines, continue as educators to promote public debate, particularly on the industrial carnage which prevails, hence the degraded state of Australia’s biodiversity and consequently, the serious issue of economic blowouts in areas of public health.

I am sure that these ecologists are under threat. I would hazard a guess that in most cases it has to do with libel. (apparently it is illegal to publish falsehoods) and the effort required to actually check the content of what they print has limited their freedom of speech.

The letters printed by these academics are more carefully thought out, and simply express an opinion, using flowery non specific language such as mind blowing, especially since these academics have no experience whatsoever in the field, and could not mount a serious challenge in court.

Also appending your name to a populist attack on big bad industry has the political and personal risk of a Sunday afternoon drive and requires no spine whatsoever. (Similar to Rudd's new tax on tobacco)

I actually live on Planet Earth Bernie - feet firmly on the ground, which reminds me of your penchant to defend rogue industries which are far from perfect.

During your reign as an MP in the Richard Court government, your party saw fit to advance the sum of $100,000 of taxpayers’ money to a hazardous waste operator, one Jeffrey Claflin, who remained free from prosecution but who had breached every regulation in the book.

One week after your party lost office, WA residents witnessed a massive chemical fire at the hazardous waste plant, allegedly the largest in Australia’s history.

The hazardous waste operator kept the hundred grand and the taxpayer forked out millions of dollars to no avail in trying to halt the underground plume of hazardous waste which is now threatening the Helena River, a major tributary to the Swan.

Apart from the proprietor’s failure to keep an inventory, and apart from all the other hazardous compounds on site, Mr Claflin advised the Bellevue Fire Parliamentary Enquiry that there were 300,000 litres of white spirits, paint thinners, paints and 'mixed liquids' and 30,000 litres of the very hazardous perchloroethylene which all went up in the smoke of the bonfire. Only the Gods would know of the environmental fate of these dangerous gases.

That's the reality Bernie but thank you for permitting me to reminisce on yet another government failure to protect human health and the environment and also for reminding me how our parliamentary vaudevillians and registered government lobbyists continue dancing to the tunes of industry.

Protagorus
You are intent on shifting this discussion way off topic. Yes, there are financial links between universities and both industries and environmental groups (ie. The Wilderness Society and the ANU Fenner School).

Indeed, the timber industry contributes to academic research into forestry and wood products at the University of Tasmania. However, the big difference is that scientists working on these programs have never engaged in political activism by publishing ópen letters'calling for eg. increased logging of forests or indeed other matters that may be outside their area of expertise. If they ever did they would be open to the same criticism levelled at the UTAS academics who acted prior to the recent Tas election.

Your comments re forest audits are focussed on one incident in which a few trees were mistakenly taken from an adjacent area due to a boundary issue. It shouldn't have happened but lets get some perspective here - Victoria has 8 million ha of native forest - all current and future timber production is limited to ãbout 9% of this area - so 91% is never to be logged again. In any one year less than 0.1% of the total area is logged and regenerated. Timber production is an insignificant environmental issue.

The major agrichemicals used in plantation forestry are RoundUp and a range of others such as Simazine, which can be bought at the local hardware. Hardly as dangerous as you are portraying, but undoubtedly you will beg to differ.

Protagoras - have a look at the Parliamentary Committee report (dominated by ALP members, by the way) into the Bellevue fire. It made no adverse findings against any politician or government. What it doesn't say is that it's people like you who ultimately are the cause of government inaction on important issues because you nit-pick over relatively unimportant issues while ignoring the elephants in the room.
Here we are trying to debate the issue of inappropriate academic involvement in the political process and the best you can do is run off on tangents.

Bernie – I am of the view that the political persuasions of any government are only relevant to their performance therefore, dumbing down the catastrophic environmental, economic and health impacts of the Bellevue chemical fire is despicable given the Liberal Party were in charge.

“The major agrichemicals used in plantation forestry are RoundUp and a range of others such as Simazine, which can be bought at the local hardware. Hardly as dangerous as you are portraying, but undoubtedly you will beg to differ.”

Mark – It is not I who begs to differ on your misinformation but the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, therefore I shall accept your apology in anticipation.

Pesticides include: “Amitrole, Atrazine, Chopyralid, Fluroxypr, Glyphosate, Haloxyfop, Hexazinone, Metosulam, Metsulfuron methyl, Simazine, Sulfometuron methyl, Triclopyr" (FWPRDC)

“Of the 13 most used active ingredients used by the plantation forestry industry, 5 are available for unrestricted purchase from hardware stores and supermarkets.” (FWPRDC)

I’m sorry that the FWPRDC has unwittingly dirtied things up for you Mark, however, this is a prime example of why the public urgently requires the assistance of Australia’s academics who are proficient in research techniques and are privy to additional and important information, while on the other hand, we Joe Citizens continue to be duped by corrupt, industry aligned governments and are forcefed corporate spin, peddled by rogue industries.

Protagoras is so far off topic and into her favorite conspiracy theories again.

" this is a prime example of why the public urgently requires the assistance of Australia’s academics" such as the philosophy professors I assume.

http://www.fwpa.com.au/Resources/RD/Reports/FWPpestreport.pdf?c=2&pn=PN06.4016

Of the pesticides used all but one is used in food production. 5 of these are readily available off the shelf in hardware stores, and the rest in bulk from agricultural suppliers.

Protagorus
Re chemicals: I am correct in saying that probably the most commonly used in plantation is freely available - that is RoundUp (active ingredient Glyphosate) which is widely used by home gardeners.

Perhaps you are the one needing to apologise for failing to mention several key points from the same FWPRDC report you have referred to, including:

"Plantation forestry .... accounts for just 0.7% of Australia's annual
pesticide use"

"All bar one of the pesticides used in plantation forestry are also used in food production systems (the other one is used in other industrial uses)"

"Pesticide use in plantation forests is mostly limited to just the first one or two years of the life of the plantation, which can be 30+ years"

"Aerial application of pesticides in plantation forestry accounts for around 0.5% of the annual area of land treated by aerial application each year"

"Environmental monitoring is generally conducted on a risk management basis by individual plantation managers. Where conducted on a systematic basis, water monitoring on a whole-of-catchment basis in Tasmania has shown few detections of chemical pesticides from any source"

You said: "..... the public urgently requires the assistance of Australia’s academics who are proficient in research techniques and are privy to additional and important information...."

No-one disagrees that academics acting in their field of expertise are critically important, but acting outside their expertise can be dangerous and unhelpful, particularly when it is politically motivated.

You said: "while on the other hand, we Joe Citizens continue to be duped by corrupt, industry aligned governments and are forcefed corporate spin, peddled by rogue industries"

As you are clearly into conspiracy theories which are unhelpful in being able to conduct a rational dialogue, there is no point in engaging further with you.

"As you are clearly into conspiracy theories which are unhelpful in being able to conduct a rational dialogue, there is no point in engaging further with you."

No worries Mark - I'll just prattle along with a few more "conspiracy theories":

I understand that the Bureau of Rural Science advised that Tasmania ran up the country’s largest area of new plantation in 2008, with 27% of the total from slightly less than 0.9 of Australia’s land mass.

The most recent State of the Environment Report (SOE) for Tasmania paints a somewhat dismal and extremely vague picture which indicates that monitoring in several areas of Tasmania's environment has been scant indeed:

1. The impact from bushfires and regeneration burns on air quality is not well understood.

2. Monitoring of groundwater is not sufficient to establish groundwater condition in relation to quantity or quality.

3. The reduction in the native forest estate between 1997–98 and 2007–08 was approximately 132,120 ha (multiply by 2.47 for conversion to acres)

4. There is uncertainty about the condition of many native animal populations.

5. In total, 608 species of plant and animal are listed as threatened in Tasmania (WA’s SOE lists 561 plants and animals as threatened. The S/W of WA is officially listed as one of the planet’s biodiversity hotspots – huh? Why not Tasmania too?)

6. It is not possible to report on the state or trends in the condition of Tasmania’s estuarine, coastal and marine environments because they have been incompletely described and inconsistently monitored.

7. Seven of the 20 Weeds of National Significance species are in Tasmania. Between 2001–07 the number of declared weeds increased from 86 to 102. The introduced soil-borne root rot disease, Phytophthora, is the most significant biotic fungal threat to native vegetation.

8. Effects of animal pests and native animal diseases on Tasmania’s native plants, animals and ecosystems are increasing (So much for the 1080 bait!)

David Obendorf is a veterinarian specialising in study of animal disease. He came to Tasmania in the early 1980’s and has a special interest in diseases of wildlife. In 1994 he was appointed to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the World Animal Health Body - the Office of International Epizootics - in recognition of his wild disease expertise.

Obendorf wrote an article titled “Poisoned Island” and has more recently referred to former Minister, David Llewellyn as “Chemical Ali.”

And was that guy Llewellyn in charge of Primary Industries and animal welfare too – the fox in charge of the chicken coop?

In 2004, Senator Bill Heffernan said Tasmania needed to move beyond denial and clean up its act on aerial chemical spraying.

"His comments follow revelations that a Tasmanian couple whose property was oversprayed with the herbicide atrazine had unknowingly been drinking contaminated water for the past six weeks. The couple's small farm at Wyena, in north-eastern Tasmania, was accidentally doused with the potential carcinogen on August 18 by a helicopter contracted to spray a neighbouring forestry plantation by Tasmanian timber giant Gunns Ltd."

"I think it's a disgrace what's been allowed to go on and I have continued to say that," he told ABC Radio. "I think the people of Tasmania deserve to know the truth. The industry and the Government need to get beyond denial on the problem.” Looks like Heffernan’s into conspiracy theories too!

The quacks at the APVMA have had a number of highly toxic pesticides under ‘review’ for more than 13 years including Atrazine which has been denied regulatory approval by the European Union and is banned in Europe, even in Switzerland, the home of primary manufacturer, Sygenta.

Now just with whom is the APVMA conspiring while they continue using humans as cannon fodder?

I daresay Mark that the hapless Tasmanian people would be truly grateful for the support of their altruistic academics trained in corporate governance.

En guarde!

Protagorus
I shouldn't respond to your latest stuff, but you shouldn't be allowed to get away with presenting selective facts. So here is a bit of perspective from the State of the Forests Tasmania 2006 Report.

You said: "The reduction in the native forest estate between 1997–98 and 2007–08 was approximately 132,120 ha"

While this amount of forest was lost to clearing for agriculture, plantation development, road construction and urban expansion over that 10-year period, the overall change in Tasmania's tree cover was negigible because of the counter-balancing expansion of plantations on previously cleared farmland.

Tasmania has a government policy that the state's area of native forest must never fall below 95% of its 1996 area. The reduction in native forest up to 2008 does not contravene this policy, which was mentioned in the State of the Environment Report from which you have quoted.

The reduction of native forest has slowed considerably in recent years as plantation conversion has now all but ceased on public land and is being phased out on private land.

In 2006, Tasmania still retained 65% of its 1750 native forest area, which is the higest rate of forest retention in Australia.

47% of Tasmania's forests are in formal and informal public land reserves, and private land reserves. This is the highest rate of forest reservation of any Australian state or other developed country.

To put into further perspective, while Tasmania lost ~13,000 ha of forest per year from 1997 - 2008; Brazil was losing 2 to 2.5 million ha per year mostly from clearing for agriculture.

Dear Mark

I’m pleased to hear that you agree that my selections are “FACT” due to the ‘fact’ they are taken from the Tasmanian government’s website – verbatim. Therefore, if you disagree with my selective “facts” why not liaise with your government associates so that the two sides of the story are compatible?

After all, the Tasmanian and federal government did hand over the generous amount of $250 million of taxpayers’ money to prop up a flawed industry, so Joe Citizen is entitled to more transparency than the current jabberwocky which prevails.

In addition, I’m primarily interested in the state of the environment and what your industry is dumping on the biosphere. I am not au fait with the current size of Tasmania’s forest since I live on the other side of the nation. Nevertheless, you boast that Tasmania’s only “lost ~13,000 ha of forest per year from 1997 – 2008” which is some consolation given Tasmania has a total land mass of 68,401 square kilometres while WA for instance, has a land mass of 2.5 million square kilometres.

In “fact” the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania had the smallest area of total native forest of all states and territories in 2006, but the largest area of native forest as a proportion of the state/territory area (52% and 46%, respectively).

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mXDLpnHQpBQJ:www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs%40.nsf/Lookup/4613.0Chapter100Jan%2B2010+native+forest+area+tasmania+hectares%3F&cd=15&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

So how long does it take for a plantation tree to reach maturity in Tasmania Mark? Fifteen, twenty years? I have read that Tasmania will not be capable of meeting customer demands (particularly with the reviled Gunns' proposal) so will your industry continue to plunder and poison native forests?

“One of the most significant threats to natural diversity in Tasmania is the clearing of native vegetation and its replacement with that of a different land use activity (e.g. tree farms, agriculture, dams etc).

"The total extent of native vegetation cleared since European settlement has been calculated to be around 23%, or 1.560 million hectares (CARSAG APU data 2002). Between 1972-1999, over a quarter of a million hectares of native vegetation were cleared in Tasmania.”

http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/bio/4/issue/41/ataglance.php