Some time ago I belonged to a local bushwalking club. One of our members was employed by DSE to oversee the operation of the timber industry in the mountains to the north of West Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley.
On one expedition to a logging coop he explained to us that it was mandatory for the tree fellers to leave the old stags because the leadbeaters possums used them for their nesting places. That was not all. After the coop had been cleared, trees was replanted and guess what. These young trees provided the very food that the possums thrive on.
On a related subject it is wrongly claimed that the timbet industry is responsible for the devastating fires which destroy the possums habitat. The crown fires which cause the major damage on a hot windy day need rubbish on the forest floor to sustain their intensity. Without that rubbish, the fire will not run. After the fires of a couple of years ago, I flew at a comparatively low level across the hills to the north of Healsville. This particular area had not been burnt but had been in the receipt of some embers from nearby. Where the embers had landed an individual tree had burnt, but the fire had not run because the forest floor was clean.
If the professor and his cohort wish to preserve the habitat of the possum and the other species in the forest, they would do well to get out into the forest and help the DSE to carry out more cool burns in the autumn instead of just locking it all up and creating the conditions for an inevitable firestorm.

David

Presumably, the leadbeater possum ‘saviour’ is an ardent opponent of cool burns that help minimise the accumulation of thick forest floor fuel and reduce the intensity of forest fires that otherwise would guarantee the absolute destruction of possums in the area.

Is the ‘do-gooder’ aware of the fact that owls are a natural predator of those possums, and if so, will there be a move now to cull those owls from the Victorian forests?

Exactly Mark, exactly!
Other threatened fauna are often subjected to captive breeding programs; and or, relocation to far safer habitats?

I wonder just how much damage the dumber than door knobs green inspired lock it up as N.P's caused; which in Vic, created the largest uncontrollable wildfire in history; and I daresay, wiped out hundreds of threatened or endangered species, which had to include hundreds of Leadbeters possums!

At least when we logged such areas, there were multiple logging roads that also acted as fire breaks.

And selective logging put many more eyes and knowledgeable fire fighters on the ground, fighting to save the very resource that feeds and clothes them; and puts a roof over their heads.

Moreover, electrically controlled grazing is far and away, a far better less carbon intensive method of reducing the fuel load!

Horses, i.e., will vegetate barren rock with their seed loaded manure!

And palatable grass may store more carbon than much slower growing trees! But particularly on virtually bare rock, where trees aren't currently possible, and cloven hooves do little damage! Ditto ground baked rock hard and impervious to water/rain, by successive burning!
Rhrosty.

However, most of this material has emanated from just one forester and it has often been contentious, particularly in relation to firIn addition, this forester is both a vocal proponent of timber harvesting and the figurehead of a political campaign for a the expansion of old growth harvesting.

The forester makes a lot more sense than the possum hugger.

Cobber the hound - could you take the time to point out where Mark Poynter's article is wrong or misleading, rather than just try a cheap, totally incorrect, shot?

My reading of it is that there is no campaign, political or otherwise, for the expansion of timber harvesting, which is at an historically low level. And as for 'old growth' forests, they have been completely safe from logging for at least 20 years! Poynter makes a good argument for the continuation of sustainable timber harvesting in the central highlands.

Tourism and the forest industry can continue to exist happily side by side, as they have done for over 100 years in the area. Importantly, extending the park area would not change the bushfire risk which is the main risk to possum populations. Critics must answer Poynter's well-argued case that massively extended national parks will not prevent decline in possum numbers.