🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25jsc8$9nl@vanbc.wimsey.com>,
 sl@vanbc.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne) writes:

>
> What many people want is to simply slow things down sufficently so that we
> can make rationale decisions after we have the data. We don't currently have
> the data so it makes sense to collect the data.
>

  What is an acceptable timeline then? How are we to go about collecting
the data? How much (if any) of the area could reasonably be logged while
the data is being collected. The Government claims that 1% per year is
being logged. If it takes 5 or 10 years to collect this data then that's
presumably only 5-10% of the area which is affected in the interim. If the
evidence at the end of the 10 years clearly shows logging is a bad idea then
consider pulling the logging rights to the rest of it. I realize the above
is a rather simplistic analysis, but the point is that perhaps it's
reasonable to permit logging to proceed at a relatively low pace while this
research is being done. Are there ongoing studies into the ecology of the
area? If not why don't we hear people pressuring the government to conduct
them? Given the economic and environmental stakes here a few million for
a proper study seems like small change. Perhaps it's reasonable to permit
10 or 15 years of logging in the area while the second growth areas become
economically viable, then ban any further logging there.

  I don't claim to have the answers, I just don't hear enough alternatives
being proposed. If the people who want the area preserved proposed a
comprehensive scheme which protected the area and provided alternative sources
of income for MB, the loggers and the government I think they'd have a much
stronger case. If they have such a plan they've done a pretty poor job of
communicating it to the public.

--
=============================================================================
Malcolm Dunnett    Malaspina College                Email: dunnett@mala.bc.ca