🚀 go-pugleaf

    Here is a few facts, a few of you might find "interesting"..

The Government land use decision: environmental & economic impacts.
===================================================================

   The proposal, the Majority Option, forms the basis of the provincial Govt's
Clayquot sound land use decision on April 13, 1993.. 

The Government protected 60% of the original forest & 33 Percent of the land 
area.

This is *THREE* times the amount international environmental authorities such as
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and the World Wildlife
Fund for Nature believe is sufficient to protect ecosystems.

The Government Decision:
-------------------------
1  Doubled protected areas

2  Created one of North America's LARGEST PROTECTED COASTAL OLD GROWTH TEMPERATE
   FORESTS (including the 21,000 hectare Megin valley, and the 6,000 - hectare
   Watta-Shelter watersheds)

3  Created 78 Km of protected coastline which, in conjunction with the adjacent
   Pacific Rim National Park, provides the longest protected coastline on the
   Continent's west coast..

4  Reduced the size of the commercial forest by about half.

5  annual allowable cut by one third.



The economic impact of the decision included the elimination of:
----------------------------------------------------------------

A, about $60 million in annual economic activity

B, 1,000 direct and indirect jobs.

C, 21 million in total annual govt revenue:
      12  Million reduction in Federal each year
       9  Million reduction in Provincial each year
       .5 Million reduction in Municipal each year

   In terms of what it means to you, they either increase your taxes or cut
   funding..  This type of lost revenue, to the health care system:

      1,000 Open heart operations per year..
     42,000 hospital bed days..

   Bottom line is with the deficite on the rise, and Canada hurling over to the
   same fate as New Zealand, somebody is going to have to come up with the
   revenue to put all this back, and then some...

Reaction to the final land use allocation:
--------------------------------------------

1 MacMillan Bloedel disagrees with the decision.  Logging set asides and 
  restrictions are greater then agreed to by a majority of local interests.

2 Local Communities believe the decision was equitable, but just a first step
  towards implementing strategies for over-all sustainable development.

3 Environmentalist are outraged by the decision.  They threaten to disrupt
  logging and to promote a boycott of the forest products from the area.

4 The first Nations (Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council) rejects the decision and
  questions the government's jurisdiction over land claim areas..

5 Labour wants the government to mitigate the decision's impact on job loss
  in the area.



New Logging regulations imposed, UN recognition sought
=======================================================

   On June 2, 1993 the provincial government followed its land use allocation
decision by imposing forestry regulations which ARE THE STRICTEST ON THE 
CONTINENT.  Companies which fail to comply with the regulations will not be
permitted to operate.

This New standards call for
----------------------------

1,  A complete ban on large scale clearcuts.

2,  a restruction on clearcut size to an average of about 10 - 40 hectares.

3,  Reduced road building.

4,  Increased use of helicopter logging and skyline systems, particularly in
    sensitive areas.



   At the same time, the government announced the British Columbia would
 pursue a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve for Clayoquot Sound..  (Does anybody know
 what this is???)

   It also empowered local interests to continue their involvement in managing
the forest resource through the Clayoquot Sound Oversight Committee which will
review all forest operations.  A scientific panel will provide ongoing 
refinements to the new standards...

The above is a few "key pieces" from a pamphlet I picked up at my local
Share Our Resources Office..

  I have been gathering lots of pamphlets on the issue in an "attempt" to see
the issue from a few more angles..  At the moment I feel pretty ignorant of
all the issues involved right now.  I am however not ignorant enough to
realize that I can no longer rely on what the media shows as an accurate 
portrail of the facts.  The media only shows things which have "conflict"..  
There's no "conflict" in the above facts..  It's not news worthy...  Quoting 
one TV news director, "the reason why the one side get's better air time, 
is they present it in a manner which is news worthy".  So as a result, the 
news crews tend to totally miss the issues, failing MISERABLY to present them.
Instead they report the news-worthy actions of the side that best presents
them in a "news worthy" fashion..

  The facts documented above have been known for a looong time, and any old
CUB reporter could have researched this stuff..  However the above "boring"
facts are not news-worthy and will probably never reach a broadcast station.
Remember that the next time you are watching the news...

Cheers....

						----- Robb -----


We now return you to your regularly scheduled news reading...