Lockett and Abetz add to the haze

Dr Frank Nicklason

Mr Lockett and Mr Abetz seem to share more than just their given names.

Unfortunately they both have written letters (Mercury 26/4) which tend to confuse rather than enlighten regarding the issue of forest burns.

It is critical to make the distinction between fuel reduction burns to reduce bushfire risk (widely accepted by the public) and the burning of vast quantities of residual biomass (shown to contain much potentially commercial timber in coupe audits) following the clearfell and burn regime used on Tasmania’s mixed wet native forests.

This latter practice, defended by foresters on the basis of scientific studies in the late 1950s, is deeply unpopular and justifiably so. Fifty years on, the planet is faced with climate change, loss of biodiversity, water security concerns, soil depletion and increasing air pollution.

The risk to benefit ratio of the ‘business as usual’ approach is now unacceptable.

Converting our biodiverse native forests with wet understorey to dense, dry eucalypt regrowth must stop.

Frank Nicklason