Where exactly is the forest with its complex ecosystem going to be allowed to be? We've taken so much already. Even Victoria's native grassland is all but gone and the last remnants are about to be taken over by suburbs.

Over the years I have observed, with considerable sadness, that many Australians are really still Europeans when it comes to "attitudes" about many aspects of the environment. "The only good snake is a dead snake" is still widespread, although research in western NSW wheat lands indicates that one brown snake will save the grower about $5000/year (2001 values) with its control of mice populations. I once did a bit of a survey of farmers, showing them photos of various landscapes with different levels of pasture and clearing; most regarded the the ones with the appearance of a classic English park (grass with only one or two trees/acre) as the ideal landscape, irrespective of where in Oz they happened to be.

Bushland generally, and forest particularly, seem to invoke feelings of "threat" in many people. This is in stark contrast to the escapees from inner city living following their "tree change" desires. All too often they'll ensure flammable eucalypts are right next to the house. The hamlet near where I live has 350 households in such an environment, most in uncleared country with ridges and gullies facing the prevailing westerlies and with access driveways too narrow to get a Cat. 1 Isuzu fire truck anywhere near the house.

And, because the local govt (equivalent to UK's Shire Councils or USA's County Councils) is dominated by real estate developers who wish to maximise personal profits and minimise their land contribution to roads, we have lots of cul-de-sacs that are guaranteed to entrap evacuees.

Sigh!

Cheers, Rowan