Logging controversy is about many things

It’s hard to imagine your editorial missing a broader barn side

Editor, The Times:

Re: ‘Compromise needed for Upper Clearwater logging controversy” in June 5 issue of the Times.

Hahaha Keith … I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1 when I read your editorial last week.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. And whether it’s Peter or his cousin Benjamin, last week’s editorial ‘compromise’ to concerns over Canfor’s plans for Upper Clearwater – that the area be added to the Community Forest – still leaves a rabbit guarding the lettuce patch.

Keith, your comments last week leave me wondering why you’d want to throw gasoline on an issue that’s trying hard to resolve itself democratically and to the best interests of all.

Just so you know: the vast majority of Upper Clearwater residents aren’t asking for suggestions on how to log the valley. What we’re calling for is simply a public input process that addresses the many social, economic and environmental values at stake in a way that respects the interests of a wide range of perspectives – not simply fibre.

With two exceptions, your points are so far wrong that there’s no point responding to them.

If it can burn – log it? What exactly was your point here Keith – that because a forest could burn some day, we might as well log it today? Surely you’re joking, right? Apply your ‘log-it-before-it-burns’ logic to the North Thompson, and you’re looking at one giant clearcut from Little Fort to Blue River. Maybe you should try suggesting that in next week’s editorial and see how valley residents feel. Why would you imagine the residents of Upper Clearwater would feel any different?

And second, your point about funding – there’s no money for trail building – is simply bewildering. Are you saying that because there is never any money for anything until it’s realized, we therefore shouldn’t dream? Everything has to start somewhere Keith; that’s how it works.

I’d say it’s pretty clear that winning international recognition for the Clearwater Valley as a UNESCO Geopark will give our community more free advertising than we could ever pay for. If Canfor’s vision for this valley competes with this initiative, then why on earth would anybody not want to think about the matter before moving ahead. That’s all we’re asking for.

It’s hard to imagine your editorial missing a broader barn side – but miss you did. Just so you know Keith, this issue is about many things – a public conversation, our community and our community’s children, government obligations to public land use contracts, residential concerns, hydrology, present and future economics, Mountain Caribou, park values, and Clearwater’s connection to Wells Gray – yet quite miraculously you failed to touch on any of them.

I can only assume you must have been writing with a migraine. Next time, my friend, please try Tylenol. Two tablets with a glass of water could save a lot of headaches down the line.

Erik Milton


Upper Clearwater, B.C.