To save themselves all this grief the industry could stick to 100% plantation timber. Otherwise there is a suspicion that they are harvesting trees that began long before the workers were born and timber which is of a quantity and quality that is hard to reproduce. Therefore logging of these ever expanding areas is essentially 'wood mining' which is not sustainable.

Very well put Mark, it is a pity that the community at large does not realise the damage that the Greens and their Labor stooges have done to the Australian economy, in particular Tasmania where the unemployment rate is so high.

We are going to have a similar attack on the forest industries in Victoria because some misguided professor from Melbourne University is blaming timber getters for his claim that they are responsible for the demise of the Leadbeaters possum. The real reason is that the poor little sods have had their habitats destroyed by the wild bush fires which occurred due to inadequate clearance of debris on the forest floor due to poor management by DSE. The intelligent management of timber coops is actually aimed at enhancing the possums environment by preserving the old stags in which they nest and re-sowing the trees to provide food from the young leaves.

David

And which Greens are supporting 'science-based policy in relation to climate change'? I'm not aware of any Green spokesperson who even cares to acknowledge that global warming stopped in 1998, much less to recognise the enormous number of recent studies demonstrating that the link between carbon dioxide and global temperatures is tenuous at best. As far as the Greens are concerned, climate science stopped at about the same time that global warming did.

As long as the last twig remains alive Mr Greed will have some "scientific" reason to be allowed to take it away.

Spot the difference from the UNESCO World Heritage guidelines:

“Minor modifications to the boundaries: A minor modification is one which has not a significant impact on the extent of the property nor affects its outstanding universal value. (163)

Significant modifications to the boundaries: If a State Party wishes to significantly modify the boundary of a property already on the World Heritage List, the State Party shall submit this proposal as if it were a new nomination. This re-nomination shall be presented by 1 February and will be evaluated in the full year and a half cycle of evaluation according to the procedures and timetable outlined in paragraph 168. This provision applies to extensions, as well as reductions (165)”

The former Labor government at the urging of the greens choose to extend the TWWHA by claiming it was minor to avoid the lengthy time period for a proper evaluation.

The World Heritage committee chose to ignore their own rules and allowed this massive extension to be deemed 'minor'.

Thus the new government is quite entitled to withdraw the minor modification as by UNESCO definition it does not have a “significant impact on the extent of the property nor affects its outstanding universal value!

Amazingly "experts" from both James Cook University and University of Tasmania has publicly offered their opinion but failed to mention this key difference!

It's a democracy and the people have spoken. No amount of tail wagging the dog activism, will change that.
Moreover, in the not too far ahead Tasmanian election, they could speak even louder!
44% of Tasmania's forests are already locked up; surely that's enough already?
The problem here is a tiny minority of activists, who think democracy is a joke.
Or that rules that don't suit them can be broken at will, or private property trespassed on with complete impunity!
One well publicized activist summed it up for me, by referring to the tree she was camping in, as her tree!
No it's not, it's our tree.
Indigenous peoples have been selectively logging their old growth forests for Milena, without harm to either flora or fauna!
In fact opening up the forest to this limited exploitation does it good.
The logging trails act as fire breaks and the clearings allow younger more vigorous growth to replace the geriatric timber.
Fire destroys more than just timber, and as long as selective logging puts eyes and experienced fire fighters in the forest, the forest and all its inhabitants win.
Finally, trees store carbon whether vertical or horizontal!
Let the people, (the owners) decide, guided by the facts and science, rather than a few dozen elitist activists, guided almost exclusively by their own flawed ideology!
Rhrosty

I have no expertise in forestry, but my understanding is that young trees, being in a period of vigorous growth, have a much higher uptake of CO2 than old trees. If I am right in this, surely all the campaigning for 'old growth forests' is contrary to the interests of the planet.

Tony O'Brien

Kettering, Tas

In a generation or two much of this overprotected native forest will have degenerated into weedy and fire ravaged wilderness, and people who really care will curse those who created it by discarding science based management and resource use.
Ancient Woodman