Don’t understand the logic of Tasmania reserving any more of its land area, when there is already 37% set aside (a conservative estimate) in national parks and reserves that are fully protected from any development. The country with the most national parks and reserves in the world has 25% of its land area set aside from development. And it is rightly extremely proud of this achievement. Hopefully the rest of the world can follow this lead. But it begs the question however, how much should be set aside? Have just come back from a month in one of the poorest countries in Asia. Seeing how Iittle the millions have there, it is hard not to see Tasmanians as selfish in wanting more of its land area (more than anywhere else on the planet) set aside from being used productively. Yet some people actually want more reserved! How so? The rest of Australia seems to be content to subsidise Tasmania to make this happen. But in so doing isn’t there a responsibility to the rest of humanity to also have a share of those resources? Keeping less and sharing more seems to be a very much stronger moral argument than holding on to 50% more national parks and reserves than anywhere else on the planet. Let alone agitating for more to be created. If anything, Tasmania needs to delist some of its parks and reserves, which would give more to humanity and it could still hold on to its world title.