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

Hi SA:
Thanks for writing. I agree that selective logging can be profitable IF the focus isn't on shareholders but maintaining local employment over time. Our local band made a cool two million in one season contracting out, without making a mess of it, while the Menominee of Wisconson were considered to be using the most sustainable methods in North America till the government illegally forced them to pay taxes on it -still better than most others.

Jester has raised somemore interesting questions however, I'll defer to his experience in the industry, but it's not clear from that article whether these companies will be as bad as feared. I think the important thing to remember here is that the Liberal government pressured them to increase their annual cuts or face losing their licence. Taking advantage of the band's tax free status maybe part of what these companies are looking at(?)

Another angle I'm concerned about is the prospect of housing being built on the edge of the actual protected areas, the damn Liberals are using the line that 'parks are for people' and the damn media is swallowing it whole. Found a realty section online with Carmaneh holdings on it but no units listed -yet. Hmm.

[ 20 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


Clayoquot to be logged?! By: West Coast Greeny (40 replies) August 2, 2006 - 7:47pm
  • Re: 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)