kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 3732
Joined: Jun 6 2002

quote:Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
...

IMO (which others are perfectly free to disagree with here) some activists take too much of a puritan "noble savage" view of FNs and seem to expect them to suffer quietly in hopeless poverty. OTOH (and according to some FN contributers I've seen) some native leaders mostly just seem interested in economic development now, regardless of potential future costs to their own autonomy, culture, environment or health. Where the balance between two valid interests are is a question I guess everyone involved will have to consider carefully, hopefully within the context of each situation, but IMO Again the final decision should remain up to the FN involved themselves. Perhaps we should learn to trust their collective judgement a bit more -if indeed that is what this decision actually represents.

...

Re Clayoquot Sound I guess I'll have to see what this particular deal involves first, before casting any stones. The previous compromise by the BC NDP allowed for some limited mostly selective logging as well as preservation areas so I'm curious now to see what or who exactly is motivating this latest turn of events. If anyone else has anymore information or angles on it then I'd be interested in seeing it. That's all from Erik the Terrible here.

[ 03 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]I am sorry if something I posted offended you. I did not understand your previous post and it seemed to me to be demanding a condemnation of the logging by the NDP.

I share your view that we need to wait and see what the actual plans eventually look like. It is a dilema for many of us. I understand the need for economic development and I sincerely hope that the First Nations involved come up with a plan that is sustainable and uses the best logging practices. I can't imagine them just clear cutting their ancestral homeland so I am hopeful. I was also concerned about some environmentalists who have a knee jerk reaction to any logging and a belief that their views should supercede the views of others.


Clayoquot to be logged?! By: West Coast Greeny (40 replies) August 2, 2006 - 8:47pm
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 7:36pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 7:13pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 6:55pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 6:48pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 6:21pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 6:12pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 5:58pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 5:39pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 13 2006 - 11:00pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 13 2006 - 6:02pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 13 2006 - 1:17am)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 13 2006 - 12:38am)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 11:17pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 11:04pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 10:34am)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 10:22am)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 6 2006 - 9:16pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 6 2006 - 5:47pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 9:44pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 8:11pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 8:07pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 7:58pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 6:44pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 5:27pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 5:07pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 4:20pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 4:07pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 4:00pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 12:18pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 7:13pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 6:43pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 2:38pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 1:54pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 2 2006 - 9:19pm)
  • Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 2 2006 - 8:47pm)