Dr Peter Attiwill (25/2) refers to "rigorous scientific studies and, assessments" in the East Gippsland Regional Forest Agreement (RFA). Has the associate professor of botany forgotten what "scientific" means? It is the opposite of "science" to draw conclusions without data. The RFA "assessment" included virtually no data on the effects of logging. This vacuum is the basis for Dr Attiwill's preposterous claim that "extensive scientific literature (shows) not one" extinction has been caused by logging, and the "fundamental ecology" of our forests is safe. Worse still, the RFA's threatened species assessment was severely restricted due to time constraints. The paper on forest owls even admits to having "no biological basis" at all, which would be funny if it wasn't deadly serious
Dr Attiwill similarly misleads us about the reserve system being good enough. No assessment was made of the adequacy of the size and' shape of the reserves for threatened fauna. Nor was any distinction made between secure and temporary reserves. Indeed, the Victorian Government has now achieved what it has always wanted - reserve boundaries which can be altered as easily as lines on a whiteboard when the industry needs to log a "reserve". They are called Special Protection Zones - more gallows humour.
Woodchip apologists like Dr Attiwill often speak of a "balanced outcome".
Perhaps he means balancing the growing demands of the woodchip industry
with reduced protection of threatened species and biodiversity?