'the captain of the Titanic refusing to believe that your enterprise is fatally flawed.' When I have made the point that wood production is planned and controlled by foresters on a scientific basis, my professional discipline has been described as an 'anti-science rooted in greed and domination' and a 'science that fosters death' . Although the facts about forestry are readily accessible from government sources, my critics have described them as 'twisted deceptions, cover-ups, hidden agreements between power brokers who care little for the welfare of our planet' . They are apparently 'nothing but justifications for an evil that is supported by governments, corporations, and those who cannot see beyond their own narrow interests' . I am no 'logger', but a forest scientist with five years of tertiary training including a university degree, and close to 30 years of experience, including the last 13 years as a self-employed consultant involved with both plantations and native forests. But, despite this extensive grounding, any attempt to add an informed and rational voice to the forestry debate is met with a stream of personally vindictive bile. It would be surprising if any other scientific discipline has endured such public disrespect and vitriolic contempt as forestry. This mostly emanates from career activists who - through 'green' conservation groups - have engendered a supporter base that is largely drawn from an inner urban populace who know little about forestry. These include our brightest, most articulate, and highly educated people who are not normally prone to