For the record, I am opposed to any clear cut logging, regardless of location. There are much better ways to manage forest resources.
But when part of the argument against is "we are not opposed to logging, but not here", it sounds very 'not in my back yard'. I only say this because I work in the residential development industry and we hear this all the time from opposing points of view; "I'm not opposed to affordable housing, but I support it elsewhere" or "I'm not opposed to increased density, just not next door, it should be somewhere else". See the current re-zoning discussions for recent examples.
I am not saying this to start a flame war, but in my experience in my field, this approach doesn't get very far for sympathy from the people making the decisions. The language is difficult to digest and comes across as "may way or else".
Instead, perhaps you could support alternative strategies to harvesting the resources needed, rather than a clear cut method. If you're not opposed to logging, maybe you would support select harvesting or some other more sensitive forest management?
If you want your voice to be heard, trying to work with the opposition tends to work better than simply opposing them.
Just my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.
|