Some readers may find this essay annoying. Others may find the responses of others to it annoying. But instead of venting anger and exposing one's own prejudices, why not use this space to critique what the essay has to say? If you feel it doesn't stack up, say so and support your case with a rational argument, preferably based on facts and logic. If you feel it does stack up, how about opening up the discussion about what it implies about the state of our society that we seem prepared to allow extremists to set the agenda, even though the economic, social and environmental consequences fall on the rest of us?

Thanks for a sensible, balanced article, Simon. Since the 2001 decision here in WA to immediately stop logging of old growth forests, the consequence has been a severe under-funding of the state govt agencies responsible for forest management. Just 10 years later, management issues such as Phytophthora dieback being spread by thousands of feral pigs and poor fire management regimes have seen environmental values in our forests fall.
If the suggestions in Simon's article are not put into effect in Tasmania, then its forest values are doomed to a slow, steady decline in the same way that it's happening in WA's jarrah forests.

Yes I can see that the best way to “manage” a forest is to clear fell it. That way there are no trees to get in way of the management team and we will have a nice waste of stunted, monotype scrub that is easy to look after.
Shame about the lost carbon sink and the rainfall loss due to lack of transpiration, complete absence of wildlife but it will be tidier

Sarnian, this is an article on forestry and conservation, not intensive agriculture (though that might be an interesting comparison for you to have a think about)