ttbn,
Time you woke up and accepted that no healthy environment means no you.

Could these people actually lie straight in bed.

In Queensland we have areas which 80 years ago were totally cleared, & planted to improved pasture. Now regrown much of this stuff is now declared "pristine" native forest, & permits to reclear are refused to the landholders.

Either forests can't regenerate, or this stuff is not pristine. Of course, we don't expect anything but ideological claptrap from such twerps.

Incidentally a recent study using satellite data showed that there are 26% more trees in Oz now, than there were at white settlement. I wonder what these ratbags would consider enough for us to use a few for house building?

I wonder if the Dr bit is Dr of environmental science, or just a nice handle they give each other. If the former, I once read the course notes of the Environmental science course at a major university. It was obvious that after studying for a BSc for 4 years, these "scientists" would still not have enough math to make change for a bus ticket, & they have the hide to call it a science degree.

The authors of this article may be well intentioned, but they should have looked up from their stethoscopes and undertaken a bit of basic research into East Gippsland's public land tenures and forest management regimes before making such errant claims.

Most of East Gippsland's forests are not used for timber harvesting. Around 85% is already in some form of reservation. Such as formal National Park or other type of conservation reserve; or informal reservation, such as a State Forest Special Protection Zone or management reserve (ie. streamside reserve); or is simply unsuitable or economically inaccessible.

Included in these vast conservation reserves is all the region's consolidated areas (>1 ha) of old growth forests. Most were already reserved, but in 2006, the Brumby Govt reserved the remaining 43,000 ha that the timber industry had been expecting to base its future around. So the central premise of the article that old growth forests are being extensively harvested is simply wrong.

Outside of the reserved areas of consolidated old growth forest, there are scattered individual old trees or very small patches of old trees, and some of these occur in the designated wood production zones which are typically comprised of younger forest. So, yes, some old trees are still harvested or affected by harvesting, but hardly enough to threaten wildlife species as this article is claiming.

In a perfect world we would be able to produce durable and decorative hardwood timber (which is incidentally much in demand amongst the wealthy demographic inhabited by medical specialists) without any discernible impact on wildlife. But as it is not a perfect world, the best we can do is to limit and strongly regulate timber production in a minor portion of a forested landscape overwhelmingly dedicated to conservation. This is effectively the current situation.

Mark Poynter, Fellow, Institute of Foresters of Australia, Vic Division.

Slightly off topic, but many would have seen the tragic result of environmental busybodying and interference in property rights (remember, property rights are one of the pillars of democracy) on 'Sunday' on Channel 7 recently. I refer to a Mr. Turnbull and his successful prosecution for the murder of an government inspector policing environmental legislation - some might say, 'telling people what they can or cannot do on their own property. A truly awful event, in which a young family was robbed of a husband and father (for merely doing his job), and an eldery man, hard working man, wealthy from producing the most important commodity of all - food - will spend the rest of his life in jail. All because of rampart environmentalism brought about by climate hysterics and elites who have never done a proper job of work in their lives. Pagans who worship trees, and look down their noses at human beings.

My first sympathies went to the slain inspector, perhaps because I was at one time also an enforcer of government legislation: I was lucky to cop no more than abuse, and I have no idea how this man conducted himself in his duties, but he did not deserve death. However, I can feel for Turnbull, a man of my own generation, who has been bewildered and angered by a bunch of crackpot elites who condemn fracking on productive land, but who also prevent people from clearing their own very valuable land to produce more for an increasingly hungry world. Whatever your opions on this shocking event are, it would not have happened if it had not been for the excessive, maniacal religion of environmentalism that has been forced on us all.

Several reviews in recent times have shown that timber harvesting (anywhere in Australia) has not caused the extinction of any species, so the authors are going way over the top to claim that it does. There is not 'an appalling rate of extinction in this state'.

Contrary to the Doctors' claims, it is my understanding that VicForests does employ specialists to conduct ecological surveys to help inform their harvesting plans.

The authors rightly say that forests provide opportunities for recreation and exercise, etc, but State forests (which may be occasionally logged) are far more available for a greater diversity of outdoor activities than national parks will ever be.

The good doctors should be aware that for every hectare of Australian native forest that is 'locked up', there is increased pressure on SE Asian forests where logging is not subject to the high level of regulation that we have in Australia.

One day someone will be brave and honest enough to see how many lives of humans and animals have been caused by the Greens not allowing burn offs in many places where there is housing.