Much of Launceston's handsome architecture, such as the old Public Library and the Mechanics Institute, have gone forever demolished in the seventies to be replaced with all glass and concrete monstrosities; all in the name of progress but displaying very little prudence.

Mr Upston is also wrong in his assumption that community groups, such as Launceston Heritage Not Highrise, are against development; such groups merely wish to preserve what remains of Launceston's unique, remarkable and renowned architecture and to ensure that any proposed development is genuinely appropriate.

As a result of the lack of proper planning and due process over the years developers, local government and state government are now having to pay the price for rectifying mistakes of the past.

While at times the planning process is most frustrating, it is best for all concerned that any proposed development has to negotiate all the bureaucratic hurdles and obstacles before it is allowed to proceed.

If the proposal falls at any of the hurdles then the process entirely justifies itself.

ANTHONY Galvin (The Examiner, December 31) mentioned saltwater fishing licences. To be clear, a licence is not required for fishing with a rod and line in marine waters in Tasmania.

Further, the state government has been clear it does not intend to change this.

A licence is required for some specific activities including fishing for abalone, rock lobster and scallops, and netting.

Information on licence requirements is available on the DPIPWE website.

The government is developing a 10-year strategy for our recreational sea fisheries.

This will identify how we can manage our sea fisheries together and ensure they provide a resource for future generations to enjoy. The strategy is being developed via extensive public input and a draft will be available for comment early this year.

IAN Macpherson's bluster (The Examiner, January 6) against activists who he claims are determined to drive out Christian voices and influence and to destroy any notion of there being a loving God.

Thank goodness for these activists and the sooner they can rid the world of this utterly evil creation the better.

Why defend a mythical God who created a world where there is such misery that is not our fault?

His God is capricious and mean-minded to create a world of injustice, or is bone cancer in little children a sign of love?

What right do these Christians assume to judge those of us who don't subscribe to their illogical and irrational beliefs?

In the words of US President John Adams, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it".

Australia grants citizens freedom of religion; can those followers please give intelligent citizens freedom from religion.