Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser-machine
Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

quote:Originally posted by jester:
Logging FN AAC is frequently subbed out to large logging contractors for a set price per cubic meter.

Logging on the West Coast is accomplished with very large,specialised,expensive equipment.It is not a business one just jumps into.

Strategic partnerships with forest multinationals and partnerships with large logging contractors speaks of using Iisaak as a front to deflect criticism whereas a non-intrusive select logging plan could be accomplished by Iisaak in a sustainable method.


That's an another angle to look into, which other companies may be behind it (one good possibility is Interfor) but from what I've seen online most of the cutting Is going to be done by Iisaak using selective means.

Since the prior agreement looks to me more open than either side seems to be admitting so far, another question I'd like to see answered is what the status of the central blocks slated to be logged are, as well as how important they are to the viability of the forests on either side -bears and other large species need it as a corridor, salmon need it to protect nearby spawning grounds?

Those are the kind of things I'd like to see looked at again, as not sure if the board members overseeing it would still be as ecologically oriented under this government.


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)