Post Number: 12
|Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 2:56 pm: ||
Alscool’s request for info on Pilgrim Creek got me thinking about this issue.
It’s my belief that there should be some routes for which there is NO documentation. Once a route description, trip report or photographs are published, whether in a book or on the web, the ability to personally ‘discover’ the route is lost. There’s something to be said for staring at a map for hours, plotting mileage and gradient, wondering about possibilities, relying on experience and ‘bush logic’ to arrive at a final strategy; the route to take, how to budget time, anticipating camping spots, etc., and then putting it all into action. When traveling such a route solo, which is how I do the majority of my tripping, awareness is heightened to the nth degree. It’s not at all the same as following a guide that tells me how far to the next portage, how long it is, if it has hills or swampy spots or what, where the pretty spots are, where I might encounter difficulty, where a campsite is and what it looks like, how to get to the top of that scenic cliff, where and when I should go for a dump… There are no signs telling me where to camp or portage; hell, many times there aren’t even any trails to follow. When the trip is all over, a route completed without prior information is so much more satisfying.
There are still a few routes like this left in the Temagami area, and it would be sooo nice to keep them that way. This way someone else can have an experience similar to the one I had; ‘discovering’ undocumented waterfalls, cliffs, rapids, caves, scenic viewpoints, for the first time rather than following someone else’s directions and impressions and comparing their accounts to the real thing.
When I heard Hap had published the Pilgrim Creek route in his new book my heart sank. Fortunately, the published description lacks the minute detail he normally supplies, going with a more general overview that, in my opinion, is quite sufficient for the type of canoeist that would be attracted to this type of route.
Simply knowing a route has been canoed in the past should be enough information for some routes. I recently made an inquiry to one of the ZECs in Quebec for details about a couple of rivers and received what I considered the perfect reply, “I did those rivers myself. I suggest that you try them during spring when water level is high. I went in August and we had to walk beside the canoe a few times....”; confirmation enough to know the routes are do-able is all I need. I don’t need to know much more than that. More info just serves to filter the experience.
I know I’m going to get the argument that we have to get as many people as possible going down all these routes to make the case for protection, and in a few cases that is true, and indeed the Pilgrim may turn out to be one of those in the near future. But until then, could we keep the details to ourselves, and let more exploratory-minded canoeists have some fun with it?
I’d be interested to know if there’s any support out there for this viewpoint. Could there be a category of canoe routes that people can agree to leave un-written? Let me know…
Post Number: 64
|Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 8:50 am: ||
This is a very interesting topic DB, one that has had me scratching my head for quite a while as well. I'm not sure we should be talking about it at all, but then - how long until there is nothing left at all to talk about...?
This is at the essence of what we tried to propose for creating nastawgan buffers around the routes documented by C. Macdonald. Routes accepted by the MNR as values and acknowledged within the TLUP but not formally or significantly preserved. This could have adressed many outstanding issues in the backcountry as well and given the MNR a basis for proper managment of backcountry resoures - IMO.
There are numerous routes that I want to get to - to see whats there, what might be left and what is lost. I was hoping to do some explorations this season, but alas it is yet to be. This is what draws me to Temagami and I too can get lost in a map for hours - thinking about what pleasure and tortures lie in wait...
While I do agree that there could be a category of un-written routes, how do we go about unsuring that they might be preserved without properly establishing and promoting them? How long can this level of adventure endure and should we just let events evolve as they may and grab those moment for ourselves?
As you have indicated, there are routes that are becoming compromised and the essence of adventure lost - is this inevitiable, one way or another?
How do we manage this apparent Paradox?
Post Number: 726
|Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 11:19 am: ||
I started guiding at Camp Wabikon in 1970. In those days, there were still some trappers around keeping some routes open and most of the canoeists in the area were the local youth camps. You could always find someone who had the knowledge you were looking for. And there were far fewer recreationists (motorized and non) in the bush. But things quickly changed over the coming years and everyone started to keep knowledge to themselves to "protect" the routes from other recreationists. Clearcutting and all-season roads had not yet become the threat they are today.
By the 1980s canoeing traffic had taken off (helped by Hap's book) and roads were spreading like cancer. When Hap's book first came out, I felt it was a disaster for the area, and my seclusion. I was right on both, but the real disaster I was ignoring. That was modern logging. The entire area outside of the parks and conservation reserves has been allocated for cutting, or as they say, harvesting -- because it is treated as a tree farm.
Let me repeat that. The area is a tree farm. And it will be harvested by whole-tree fellers and bunchers and accessed by all-season roads. Your route will be visited and destroyed if nothing is done to stop it, or control it. Hap's book opened routes and made people aware of them and take responsibility for them. Period. He was right, and my initial anger naive. If you hide your route, it will never be protected. Promote it, or lose it.
Post Number: 728
|Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 12:40 pm: ||
And IMHO, if you want that adventure and excitement of finding your own way, it can still be done. Just don't read Hap's book or look up the detail somewhere.
Post Number: 6
|Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 4:18 pm: ||
Hap's book opened routes and made people aware of them and take responsibility for them. Period. He was right, and my initial anger naive. If you hide your route, it will never be protected. Promote it, or lose it.
Brian is right - the only strategy for preserving a route and its beauty is to get other folks on your side - folks with similar values and the promise that they will make a stand when necessary.
(Message edited by erhard on July 31, 2007)
Post Number: 76
|Posted on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 9:32 pm: ||
What a great topic.
I wish travelling the way DB proposes were possible still. But Brian is very right. Use it and promote it, or lose it. In many ways the old routes, the old Temagami, is completely lost. Temagami is the most regulated and planned for piece of wilderness in Ontario. The nostalgia that DB pines for is gone.
But is there a middle-road solution?
DB, it is incumbent on people like you to speak personally with the planners at the North Bay MNR office. It is imperative that you let them know EXACTLY where the portages, campsites, etc. are on routes like this. You don't have to write a book about it, or post it on the internet, but you MUST tell the MNR where the route is. How many times have I heard, "But we didn't know there was a route there...."?
Do not for a moment think that telling the MNR about the route will compromise it's character. Not telling them about it will lead to the erosion of that character.
BTW, the MNR is musing about different levels of protection for different routes in the next Forest Management Plan. The more a route gets used, the more protection it gets?
Post Number: 13
|Posted on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 9:36 am: ||
OK, that's the preservation argument I was expecting. I have to agree with you all. There comes a point when publicizing the route is the smart thing to do. But does that mean publicizing the location and length of every portage and campsite and feature along a creek like the Pilgrim? Surely the description in Hap’s book is adequate. He has most of the campsites and potential hazards positioned correctly, but omits much of the fine detail his accounts normally contain. Perhaps just putting the word out a certain route is viable should be enough, no? Of course, Curly's comment about informing MNR goes without saying.
Now, how about non-documented routes that lie in existing protected areas (parks, conservation reserves, etc.)? In this case there’s no need to publicize for protection. What about these routes? Could these be left unmarked and with vague descriptions for those with an exploratory bent?
As for Brian’s suggestion that I ignore Hap’s book, that’d work if I wasn’t such information junky and hadn’t been looking at it all these years and now have the damn thing pretty well memorized!
Post Number: 729
|Posted on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 10:22 am: ||
Curly is right that you have to tell MNR, but MNR is a bureaucracy (and not a very good one either) and simply telling someone there, or putting it in writing is not sufficient. Paperwork doesn't get filed properly, conversations not written down, no one ever gets assigned to update those routes on the correct maps, the correct maps are not given to the timber planners, or someone decides to conveniently ignore its existence (e.g the Nastawgan map). Or on and on.
Protecting a less-known route usually needs an advocate or advocates, like Curly, and that's where also making a route publicly known becomes vital.
Post Number: 7
|Posted on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 10:23 am: ||
But does that mean publicizing the location and length of every portage and campsite and feature along a creek like the Pilgrim?
Putting that precise info to the MNR is crucial. And do check back that the information becomes part of the next round of FMP documentation - sometimes it ends up in an MNR staffer's drawer and never makes it to the ony data base that counts. The reason for such precise info is that things are changing: snow mobilers getting "their" "trails - actually they are roads" entered and so are ATVers, and the logging operations cause all kinds of changes that get permission by showing no conflict as defined using the official data base. You leave the portage off, and all of a sudden you discover someoen else has established rights that muck up the long-existing route.
Also, I do worry less about parks and if I have to make trade-offs in documenting routes, they come last. For one, the parks folks are making an inventory of assets when a new park is established (you better check in their docs that they at least mention the route) and those folks have more of a conservation mindset than the MNR forestry staff.
Post Number: 77
|Posted on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 8:01 pm: ||
I agree, if you have a 'secret' route in a park or CR, keep it secret. It's not going anywhere. I have a few myself.
But outside of the parks, it's a different story. There, we need to be rehabilitating and promoting the routes. Not create new routes, mind you, but fix up the old ones.
Post Number: 78
|Posted on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 8:08 pm: ||
And yes, that means documenting every campsite and portage on routes like Pilgrim Creek.
That's what the Nastawgan Network and Friends of Temagami did with the Breeze Lake route. Took an old route that hardly anyone knew about, fixed it up, told everyone about it, and in the process won it protection from the chainsaws. Low and behold, some people are actually paddling it and enjoying themselves, but it's hardly a stampede.
Some of the youth camps have a bad habit of keeping routes secret (as though no one else knows about them, another myth). They're stuck in the mindset Brian describes above. "If I don't tell anyone, I'll have it all to myself." Yeah, just you and the loggers, prospectors, trappers, ATVers, snowmobilers, and RV yahoos. But at least there won't be any other canoeists around!
Post Number: 24
|Posted on Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 10:45 am: ||
Very interesting comments on this hiding the portage, or not stuff. erhard...you say "their" snowmobile and etc.trails. Well! I guess the only thing that matters is "their" canoe routes and etc. I consider LE park and other CR's as areas where one can paddle to their hearts content with relative peace. If you want to "cross the border" say...into a whole different country outside the park and CR boundary, you would have to be a yahoo(Curly) not to expect thngs are gonna be different. And, where is this new park you mention coming from. Never heard that one yet.
The Nastawgan has a seat on the LCC where they have an opportunity to review and make recommendations to the new FMP, and they had it in the last FMP as well by the way. friends has a seat on this committee too. So, it seems there is lots of representation from the conoeing recreationalists. But, there are other users of the land as well. Trappers need to harvest furs (kinda like tree farms I guess), and they use a snowmobile or ATV when appropriate. I respect my land, and I always will. Sure, things are not always perfect, but what is. We can't have it all to ourselves all the time. Life would be pretty boring if we had to live like that. I see this land every day, and I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the area. Nothing has freaked me out just yet.
I enjoy going to Toronto once in a while, one of my favorite things to do is go to the MEC and, listen to some dumbass kid rant about Protecting Temagami. The funnything thing is they may have been here once, or not at all. You can have the park when you need it, but when you don't, Like when its all frozen ( that would be "at least when there won't be any canoeists around"). You are not going to dictate who can and can't be here. It's kinda leanin towards a state of communism bud. Lady Evelyn Provincial Communist Park. Rah Rah.
Post Number: 65
|Posted on Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 11:17 pm: ||
I too have heard that young voice - speaking out about things and places they might not really understand and perhaps not showing proper respect for those with different backgrounds and perspectives.
Similarly, I have also heard older voices and they have not always seemed wise or patient and perhaps they seek a place to lay their anguish and resentment for many changes that have taken place.
The Land does not exist in a vacuum and change is ever present, though it seems that at times things move more swiftly and the changes are more abrupt and harsh - difficult to accept.
I have always had trouble seeing The Land in terms of Parks, CRs, CLs, forest districts, Townships - whatever. I look at the land in terms of topography and drainage, landform and habitat. How did people once travel from here to there and how can I today - or why should I? Where does adventure still lie?
Temagami is unique for myriad reasons, but one that still stands out is that there is still the potential for exploration and adventure in the traditional sense of travel upon The Land. It is remarkable in many ways that this potential yet remains at all, especially when you consider this region's proximity to the large urban areas of North America.
Yet this IS fading - more roads and cuts, more trails for machines, more competition for access and use, more confrontation amongst "user groups," the continual lack of a coheirant and comprhensive management scheme to deal with us all.
Pilgrim Creek is a prime example and one that I used in fact when speaking to the MNR about all of this. A trip upon this route may pass through Park, CR, SMA and IMA. This route has been recognized within all relevant documention concerning protection and therefore should need no further acknowledgement or documentation of its existance or use. However, we do know for a fact that the essence of what makes this route wild and unique is being eroded. Just as changes elsewhere are slowly eroding the unique wilderness areas of Temagami. Yes - they are still there for the most part, but change IS taking its toll and you don't have to be an old-salt to be jaded and resent what change may bring and pine for those Old Days.
Post Number: 8
|Posted on Friday, August 3, 2007 - 8:31 am: ||
Ojig - the maker?
erhard...you say "their" snowmobile and etc.trails. Well! I guess the only thing that matters is "their" canoe routes and etc.
A fallacy. It's about the Land or call it Nature or the Environment up there. And I will admit being snobbish about using the canoe to travel the area up there: it leaves not even a track and with a gentle paddler, it seems to fit in seamlessly. There's no better way to travel the land than by canoe - at least in summer...
The Nastawgan has a seat on the LCC where they have an opportunity to review and make recommendations to the new FMP, and they had it in the last FMP as well by the way. friends has a seat on this committee too. So, it seems there is lots of representation from the conoeing recreationalists. But, there are other users of the land as well. Trappers need to harvest furs (kinda like tree farms I guess), and they use a snowmobile or ATV when appropriate.
For work, sure I can live with "motorized" if it has to be, and society can set the rules when and where.
I respect my land, and I always will. Sure, things are not always perfect, but what is. We can't have it all to ourselves all the time. Life would be pretty boring if we had to live like that. I see this land every day, and I have a pretty good idea of what is going on in the area. Nothing has freaked me out just yet.
I am curious now: What would freak you out?
You can have the park when you need it, but when you don't, Like when its all frozen ( that would be "at least when there won't be any canoeists around"). You are not going to dictate who can and can't be here.
Maybe you don't know - winter camping is up and coming amongst tripping folks. CCR manages to get anywhere between 20 and 40 to come in via the Budd car and camp a few nights. There have been individual winter campers for many years, using the experience of folks like Craig Macdonald, Boris Swiderski and DAve HAdfield. The only thing that keeps them away are the jobs and family commitments in the city.
Did you say that someone dictates "who can and cannot be there"? Never heard that one before, everyone is welcome if I was to make the rules. But I sure would want a say on what they can and cannot do - e.g. bulldozer racing is out!.
Post Number: 180
|Posted on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:50 am: ||
Doublebend and all
Very astute comments being presented here, and my
primary comment is to thank Doublebend for his premise questions... even presuming they were rhetorical. It is this type of discussion that
enables the acceptance of reluctant realities.
Brian is right... promote it or lose it... and
it was especially refreshing to see someone comment so very honestly on the evolution of ones' own perspectives over time. I bumped into
Hap on Katherine last week, and our conversation
definately centred around how "we all" have evolved our perspectives over time. And, that
makes sense in any pursuit of progress. I'll take
a dynamic improvement over a static imperfection
any day. The real question is how to be both
dynamic and foster improvement, against increased
pressures (of numerous types).
Brian is right again... not published, means logged... not preserved. Doublebend, perhaps the
time is not so far away that a "quota usage" system becomes necessary to enable usage dilution. This system has enjoyed wonderful success in New Zealand, for example. While I would wish every potential user to enjoy the freedom to use at whim, the environment cannot
sustain unlimited usage, correct? I see this system gaining vogue, over time.
My personal dealings and negotiations and agreements with the OMNR and Ontario Parks have
been nothing if not "remarkably co-operative and
progressive" this season. Even though I have an
extensive MNR background, and familiarity with
the beauracratic vagaries of such entities, I was
massively encouraged by the "tone" I received.
I sincerely believe the MNR is "looking to" the
Nastawgan Network to formulate a formal declaration of values for preservation. I believe
they are anxious that we take an even greater role in identifying and documenting ALL canoe and
overland nastawgan. I believe that were we to
produce an "umlimited map" of waterway routes and
connections, those routes and connections could
be preserved. (And, no, I do not believe at all,
that the routes cannot be preserved without Park
Status. My discussions with MNR/OP/and TFAI have
all led me to conclude that each entity is in
favour of route preservation (moving forward) irrespective of Park Status. "Harmony" and mutual
respect for differing interests, seems the mood,
in my opinion.
Unfortunately, 2007 logging plans do not reflect
that sentiment... but, I have been told directly,
that 2008 concerns are not too late to address.
Loggers KNOW they affect Canoeists Values... they
seem, to me, open to discussions to mitigate these interferences as much as practicable. And,
both Parks and MNR want a broader NN role, IMO.
Post Number: 46
|Posted on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:15 pm: ||
It is an unfortunate reality that the recreational use of lands in Temagami (and really, all over this country) has been pushed aside in favour of "development" (read:logging). I wouldn't have such a huge problem with what is happening if only selective logging was allowed .... did you know that in the EU it's a 1 million euro fine PER HECTARE of clear cut land. And in Canada we have clear cuts that you can see from space.
At this point I think that the only real way to preserve what exists in Temagami and other parts of the North is promotion. If the MNR and others don't know about routes, there is no impetus to preserve them, and therefore they disappear like so many others with the sound of a chainsaw. On my most recent trip I took a step off the beaten path and voyaged via an old Nastagwan route, which was obvious to have been used by someone recently. I can't say it was any different from some of the other portages that I did.
I work within a bureaucracy, and as slow and lead-headed as the system may seem, all you need is one cog in the system to turn your way and things will happen. My only piece of advice is to let your voice be heard.
Post Number: 58
|Posted on Thursday, August 9, 2007 - 9:13 pm: ||
I believe it to be reasonable to have undocumented routes. I also agree with the promote it or lose it theory under the current system.
Is it not time for Temagami stop being so fractured?
"I have always had trouble seeing the Land in terms of Parks, CR's, CL's, forest districts, Townships-whatever"
Absolutely true for me also. This area can be confusing.
It has been brought up around here before and I think it is seriously time to start considering Temagami to be included into our National Park system. Currently we have five National Parks in Ontario: Pukaskwa, Georgian Bay Islands, Bruce Peninsula, St. Lawrence Islands and Pelee Island National Parks... Temagami National Park. This would be the first inland Nat. Park for Ontario one that is rich in Cultural, Natural,and Historical significance.
At the current pace of development and even with a slowing or reduced development, wilderness will still disappear. We continue to have FMP's every 10 years or so and then we move on. Each time a little more lost, forever. All the while we were at the wheel. This is Bigger than all of our collective lifestyles, whether it may be canoeing, atv riding etc. it is about leaving wild forests and waterways to exist like the earth has set out for it, free for the most part from mans meddling (fire suppression?)
If this were to become a reality and I believe this not to be pie in the sky thinking, there will be no need to document every route, the land will be protected.
Post Number: 183
|Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 1:06 pm: ||
Not a single word you wrote, brushes a single one
hair against my grain. Count on MY commonality, and accord.
The vision of which you speak, I share... and, i am fully prepared to participate in precisely such and initiative.
My Scope includes temagami, chiniguchi, gogama,
chapleau, all south of Transcan... call it north
of the north bay-sudbury hwy 17, and south of hwy
101, including chapleau to almost wawa.
It ought be treated and managed as a Global
Historic Land Trust... excluding NOT ONE interest...
but as a symbol of Harmony-Among-Interests.
This, I could sink my teeth into, and mirror my
(PS... Your one expressed Query: FireSuppression.
That is an area of my expertise, and, necessary.
If it worth preserving initially, its worth
fighting, and dying if need be, to retain. IMO)
Post Number: 59
|Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 1:54 am: ||
doublebend , sorry for taking this thread off course but it was born from your words.
I realize that a National Park for Temagami is not something that will happen any time soon. The national park plan is over 60% complete in representing each of Canada's distinct natural regions. Currently a feasibility study is underway for the south Okanagan-Lower Similkameen for inclusion as the country's newest national park.
So here's thinking that Temagami is as significant as all of our national parks, worthy of consideration not just by emotion of the heart but for indigenious Anishinawbeg and their history, nastawgan travel routes, one of the world's premier canoeing area's - including 10 rivers and 200 natural, historic and archaelogical features including Ishpatina canyon-700'deep, Scarecrow cut 800'deep, original Aurora Trout Lakes, LE Lake Eskers, Old Growth White and Red pine forests, abundant wildlife and birdlife, mining and logging just to name a few.
In least, talking about national parks and there values we may one day be capable of following in there footsteps to resolving issues of our provincial parks such as Temagami. From National Parks Canada
"Parks Canada (can read Ontario Park's) is responsible for both protecting ecosystems of these magnificent areas and managing them for visitors to understand, and enjoy in a way that doesn't compromise their integrity"..."Understanding the importance of Canada's natural heritage to the world, and developing support for it's protection are critical to the long term health of national parks." (can read provincial parks)
Post Number: 60
|Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 2:02 am: ||
your words resonate with me in "excluding NOT ONE interest...but as a symbol of Harmony-Among-Iterests."
Post Number: 184
|Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 10:27 am: ||
Thank You for your kind words, and I just want to
reiterate that i am fully committed to just such
As a member of the Nastawgan Network, I must prequalify my following comments as stating that I AM a Member, but I do not wish to present my
comments as necessarily representing NN. I do feel some Members share elements of my beliefs,
but want to state that my beliefs are my own.
We all have had numerous "feeling-out-debates",
but my concepts are a bit revolutionary in Canada, though commonplace globally. In time, i shall have opportunity to promote a New Reality.
I have had numerous discussions with something in
the order of 19 Different "User Intersests" in
the Temagami and Temiskaming and Lower James Bay
regions. Historically, these Groups have had a
habit like "Every Cat and Eighteen Dogs".
Not a single User Group has, to date, afforded me
a Single Negative Comment. The Secret has been
ensuring each User Group to Abandon their Sole
Interest, under the promise that every other User
group would do precisely the same. That has ensured that (eg) Forestry would promise to allow
the other 18 Groups to Steward Forestry Interests
as a Feduciary Responsibility of Membership.
Likewise, Tourism would swear not to promote Tourism Interests, on promise that the other 18
would commit to stewarding Tourism interests on
their behalf... etc...
This is a model of Trust, and Faith, and Harmony.
And, it works. AND, by Design, it eliminates the
possibility of self-promotion, equally, for all.
How easily life works, when we have 18 others
guarding OUR interests.
Universally, EVERY discussion I have had has
resulted in "I'm IN... What a Beautiful Concept".
You wouldnt believe the co-operation I've been
afforded, and the hope we have all shared.
Things do take time...
but, its amazing how far you can haul any canoe
when you have 19 people pulling in the same direction.
Post Number: 20
|Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 7:54 am: ||
hey briamn who owned wabikon when you worked their i worked there for 4 summers for bud and gord wolf, i think it was 76-80, were you at the reunion they had at sky dome
Post Number: 6
|Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 - 6:07 pm: ||
I agree with doublebend, that adventure into the unknown, by canoe, is one of the finest things a person can experience. I do notice that some little shortcuts, or possible pieces to routes, are left out of Hap's routes that I've seen on this site. That is a good thing.
Now that there is no longer plenty of bush, careful management is needed, with scenic and sensitive land protected, and of course no-cut buffers along all lakes and waterways. Perhaps California has the best model for compromise.
(They have by far the biggest clearcuts, the best, biggest, and most trees, the largest numbers of people/interests using the mountains, and a great deal of eco-tourism, recreation, and environmentalist power. In my years there, the hippies, loggers, and Indians, all had some respect for each other, and didn't get along to badly. [none of us could make much sense of city people, however])
They sped the process of recovery by strict replanting requirements. This did add incrementally to the cost of wood production, but also encouraged selective cutting.
Regrowth in the North, is far slower than in the West, and demands more serious attention to positive human intervention. If it is to be surrounded and farmed, one can create a dustbowl, or a sustainable yield. Both have occured at various times and places in the U.S.; the research is there, so take your pick. The MNR needs to look to the future, work for the good of the people, not for short term profit moguls, and preserve priceless heritage and values, as well as ongoing emploment levels.
Clearcutting should probably be outlawed, as was finally done on national forest land (U.S.'crown land')in the west; but until that can politically happen, they should be replanted, providing even more employment. (Corporations shouldn't need to fight that much - they add the baby trees to the bottom line as inventory, [replacing the inventory they just liquidated]. This looks like huge money on paper, so it makes them very happy - having one more way to mislead the investor.
Cutting right down to the water causes erosion, kills fish, destroys scenic and recreational value, and is needless for adequate production. Buffers need to be "large enough" to protect surrounding uses and interests.
Sundown, I would love to see some serious protection for the land and water from highway 17 to highway 101. "In Wildness is the Preservation of the World."
Post Number: 203
|Posted on Monday, September 24, 2007 - 11:13 pm: ||
The TFAI operate Temiskaming Forestry Cutting
under OMNR, and actually, comparatively, have
a great record compared to many other regions.
I am presently speaking to them about supplying
them seedlings... Roula and I have 2,000,000
being seeded here in the spring, and hopefully,
TFAI will plant them. You "start with filling
the clearcuts... you work towards limiting them".
The TFAI has offerred to sit down with me and discuss expanded buffers in areas I identify as
especially sensistive... which is a great thing.
OMNR Current Buffer Policy is Zero to 200 metres.
The TFAI is willing to dicuss additional buffering to identified sensitive values/risks.
Its a long process... but ITS COMING ALONG.
HWY 17 to HWY 101 to HWY 144 to PQ Border is my
traditional home turf.
I'm staying active there every way I know how.