Clayoquot to be logged?! By: West Coast Greeny (40 replies) August 2, 2006 - 7:47pmRe: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 6:36pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 6:13pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 5:55pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 5:48pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 5:21pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 5:12pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 4:58pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 20 2006 - 4:39pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 13 2006 - 10:00pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 13 2006 - 5:02pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 13 2006 - 12:17am) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 12 2006 - 11:38pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 10:17pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 10:04pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 9:34am) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 7 2006 - 9:22am) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 6 2006 - 8:16pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 6 2006 - 4:47pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 8:44pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 7:11pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 7:07pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 6:58pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 5:44pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 4:27pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 4:07pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 3:20pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 3:07pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 3:00pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 4 2006 - 11:18am) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 6:13pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 5:43pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 1:38pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 3 2006 - 12:54pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 2 2006 - 8:19pm) Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 2 2006 - 7:47pm)
- Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Feb 27 2007 - 4:40pm)
- Quote: They took years to By: M. Spector (Jun 10 2010 - 9:40pm)
- Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 27 2006 - 10:36pm)
- Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 27 2006 - 8:03pm)
- Re: Clayoquot to be logged?! By: (Aug 21 2006 - 8:12am)
Lol, why I Love Babble, no matter How carefully I put things someone will always come up behind me and disagree again. I will longer feel guilty about my long winded pedantic writing style. Yes, I'm inclined to agree as well, I'm just saying now that these 'race' issues are going to come up, whether the left wants them to or not, as the previous posters put so well. It's also a 'sovereignty' issue, but most won't be so careful about their approach, some will happily turn this into another wedge issue.
The next thing to look at, for me, is whether the actual tracts being slated for logging is recognised Nuchalnuth land now or just a generic 'claim', if still a generic claim under the prior agreement then that Might be used as counter leverage. Then, how these 'sacred' vallies are going to be logged, selectively with real care or clearcut with cosmetic touches. Maybe some caring soul could also investigate if this is really a good deal for the local bands, and/or whether the chiefs really know what they *may* be getting into, and/or whether the decision really reflects the majority of members wishes. Either way it looks like the Greens have finally found an enviro issue they can really attack under this government.