Brian Wentzell
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I attended the Blockhouse and Halifax sessions that you conducted on this matter. I also filed an e-mail with my session comments. I have read your draft report with interest but it leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling that it does not reflect the true passions and concerns that I heard in the sessions that I attended. From the reports of others it appears that these sessions were better attended and quite reflective of what was said through out the province.
While the written word is often misunderstood, the passion of the spoken word is usually helpful to understand the meaning and intent of the speaker. In this case the interim report fails to convey the passion of many speakers and therefore the report, and in particular its summary pages, have lost much of the meaning of the words spoken.
You are not commissioned to write a novel but you have been empowered to determine the values that the people of Nova Scotia have expressed with respect to the future of forests and forestry, parks, mining and bio-diversity. In addition you heard the views of people concerned with the coastal areas of the province and marine habitat and you have recorded them in the draft report.
The passionate views of environmentalists, rural people, woodlot owners, urban residents, park users, mining and forest industry representatives, to name a few, were heard. These passions need to be conveyed to the Provincial Government in clear unambiguous terms. It is clear, from the continuing ATV saga, that the Provincial Government is only able to deal with simple expressions using simple language spoken by passionate people. Voluntary Planning must express itself in the same way for its message and the views of Nova Scotians to be heard.
The concept of "sustainability" is an excellent example. Nova Scotians want a forest and a forest industry that is truly sustainable in the near and long term future. Except in the minds of the forest industry, "clear cutting" is not seen to be an essential harvesting technique that will ensure the sustainability of the forests or a diverse forest industry. There were expressions that "clear cutting" should be used to replicate natural disasters but there are technical questions that need scientific study and comment to better understand the rights of the matter. People also clearly and passionately said that they had no faith in the ability of the Department of Natural Resources to manage the forests effectively or efficiently. Particular ire was expressed about the lack of enforcement of existing regulations. There were many useful suggestions concerning land use regulation, taxation policy, silviculture, riparian borders and other measures that could be used to sustain the forests and forestry industries.
"Diversity" was another term used in the hearings and the draft report. This term is not well understood and requires a clear definition. Is it bio-diversity or economic diversity or both that you are reporting upon? I would argue that I heard both concepts being spoken of.
The role of government was at the front on many speakers' minds. Planning, regulatory compliance, financial incentives, data collection and reporting, certification of Crown Lands, education of private woodlot owners, protection of wildlife and fish habitat, water quality, tree species, parks and wilderness areas, and other activities are all seen to be legitimate government activities. The Department of Natural resources is perceived as being under funded, under staffed and lethargic about executing its mandate. People were very passionate about this. This can be called "stewardship".
I could continue but I believe I have made my point. I hope that you rewrite the report to reflect the passions of those Nova Scotians who took the time to participate in the process. Do not let them down by dismissing their expressed values through the use of buzz words and lethargic adjectives and adverbs. Nova Scotians deserve better!
Sincerely,
Brian Wentzell