The controversy over logging old-growth forest has generated heated debate. Forestry consultant Rod Smith observes that, for some people, rainforest and old-growth forest can mean "anywhere I happen to be standing at the moment which in my purely subjective judgment is worthy of protection. Especially true if I can see it from my backyard". Not a helpful attitude.

Forestry consultant Rod Smith writes in the Launceston Examiner.

The controversy over logging old-growth forest has generated heated debate.

Unfortunately there seems to be no common ground on terminology.

To a botanist or a forester "old-growth forest has over mature to senescent trees contributing more than 30 per cent of the crown cover and has not been significantly affected by man-made disturbance. Fire does not preclude classification as old-growth".

This used to be commonly called virgin forest. Regrowth forest is less than 1l0 years old. Mixed-aged forest is self-explanatory.

Rainforest has less than 5 per cent eucalypt crown cover over species such as myrtle, sassafras and celery top pine.

Well-meaning people with different agendas tend to use these terminologies loosely.

I have observed that, to some, rainforest and old-growth forest can mean "anywhere I happen to be standing at the moment which in my purely subjective judgment is worthy of protection. Especially true if I can see it from my backyard".