Quote:
Originally Posted by moncton golden flames
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.
|
So, here's the map.
All the blue, black and green lines are trails. Why not here? Well, it's the main recreation area where all the trails are! Do you have any idea how much work and money it takes to make and maintain trails? You can't just take all of this recreation and move it elsewhere. So then you have to wonder what our priorities are. Why here, and not somewhere else? Why destroy something so many actively use? Money? Ya, ####ing great.
The area is also the headwaters of a river that leads to the Elbow into Calgary. Clear cutting vastly reduces the ability of the land to absorb and slow storm waters. So by logging here in particular, they put Calgary at greater risk, and potentially millions or billions in costs from damages. Would it all be attributable to this cut? No, but every bit contributes, and on one hand we spend hundreds of millions to build dry dams, and on the other we make it far more likely to be needed. Is the value of this timber that great? More importantly, do WE see enough of that benefit to override this risk and costs? I'm gonna guess, no, of ####ing course not.
It's easy enough to say this is all nimbyism, but when you actually look at the issues, you'd have to be a fool to not step back and wonder WTF is in it for Albertans and what the net benefit actually is, and who gets it. If it was true nimbyism, they would have this kind of objection for every area they log. But they don't, which should be an indication that people protesting are reasonable, and they might just maybe have a point about this one.