 30 days is 'ludicrous' timeframe for First Nations to decide on old-growth logging deferral, chiefs sayEnvironmental | 176839 hits | Nov 06 7:35 am | Posted by: DrCaleb  The provincial government's 30-day deadline for First Nations to decide whether logging operations on old-growth forests should be deferred is "absolutely ludicrous" and leaves no time for meaningful dialogue, the president of the Union of B.C. Indian ChiCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2023 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2023 by Canadaka.net
This will be used as a cudgel to attack and distract by the usual suspects.
?
Who is attacking what, and distracting why?
-J.
This will be used as a cudgel to attack and distract by the usual suspects.
?
Who is attacking what, and distracting why?
-J.
The logging conglomerates attacking the First Nations who insist on respecting the land regardless of profit, distracting from the harm that logging for profit creates.
-J.
Or there are many that say preserving X% is not good enough every fucking tree must stand.
Add on ancient rules like I see responsible fst the most devastaionj in my area, tax breaks for 'clearing' land for farm use. FOr fusks sakes, the only thing they can grow here is hay. yet all over a huge scars of cleared land everywhere that no one will ever farm or even buy. And you thought old fashioned clear cuts were bad.
Add on you thought our bureaucracy was bad. Add on clans, hereditary Chiefs. elected Chiefs and councils and all their NGOs into the mix... 30 YEARS and we'll still be going blah, blah, blah.
I have many questions all of a sudden....
-J.
Logging goes too far sometimes, and it makes no sense to not see those trees replaced with seedlings or small trees to replenish.
Except that IS the problem. Forestry conglomerates have convinced people that planting a monoculture of trees is the responsible thing to do after clear cutting. But diversity is what nature needs to be successful, and a monoculture is what the industry wants to see for future cutting.
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/1 ... 538745094/
This makes a lot of sense.
I've noticed this on a lot of my recent hikes through forests with a greater variety of trees and plant life. A greater array of animals and insects (and snakes) that populate the area and contribute to it's sustainability.
My last couple of hikes through one particular area was quite rewarding as well as a learning experience, having seen some species that would be harder to find in a basic forest or even simple parkland.
-J.