Ray Dahn
After reading and working with this paper, I have a feeling that it lacks direction and emphasis on action to take as specific points are only presented in generalities. I expected that the Committee would have distilled and identified specific areas of action that have been raised during this public consultation. As an example, in the Section “Reduction of Impacts” it is stated that DNR should be setting examples of how to do this on Crown land and that they should develop incentives for private landowners to adapt similar techniques. Nowhere here or in the section “What We Heard About Forests” are listed specific action plans that have been offered by the public to meet these goals.
I was pleased that reference was directed to the Genuine Progress Index which I support as a model for economic measurement. However, I feel the portion of GPI Atlantic’s report on Harvest Methods should be referenced in the Clear-cutting Section. This GPI discussion and its presented data is a needed addition to the clear-cutting section. It concludes with:
`”In short, forest use based on clearcutting as the dominant harvesting method of choice, cannot sustain natural forest ecosystems nor contribute to stable employment or long-term community vitality.”
In my opinion, there is another important reference which is definitely lacking in the Working Paper. This is in the section “What We Heard About Uranium”. From the industry perspective, it is stated that the 1985 McCleave report ruled that uranium exploration and mining can be done in a safe and responsible manner. In my opinion, the important and convincing rebuttal on pages 8-12 in Elizabeth May’s Submission to Voluntary Planning-Public Consultation on Natural Resources July 31, 2008 must be summarized and included in the discussion of this section.