  Within a year of arriving at the ANU (the centre of Australian forestry policy development), he and Plumwood became aware of plans for extensive clearing of “useless” native forest for pine plantations across the country and so began work on a sustained critique of Australian forestry practices (Routley and Routley 1973a) alongside joint work rethinking issues in environmental philosophy. The critical and “pugilistic” style of the book caused an uproar in forestry—with an attempt to suppress its publication (cf. Routley and Plumwood 1986). The repressive nature of the Australian forestry industry was widely understood from within, with one forestry insider commenting, on receipt of a letter from Sylvan early in the project, that: “for an Australian forester, receiving a letter from you is somewhat akin to a new Party member getting a birthday card from Alexander Solzhenitsyn” (Sylvan RSC, Box #45). Closer to home, they were also criticised by some colleagues who, in the days before applied philosophy had come of age, saw their work as “propaganda” rather than scholarly research. Despite resistance though, the book’s successful publication helped reform forestry in Australia, being subsequently described by a leading forestry expert as “monumentally important” and “the most incisive and devastating economic analysis of forestry … ever done in Australia” (Byron 1999, 53). All three editions published through the ANU Press between 1973 and 1975 sold out but by 1975 Sylvan was, remarkably, banned from using the ANU’s Forestry Department Library (the central store for documents relating to the development of national forestry policy) and further, planned editions were effectively stopped.