Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I get what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’s as clear cut (lol) as you think it is. There is definitely some flavour of selfishness to it. Like the whole “go do it over there, not over here”/“it’s fine that I use this area for what I want but they shouldn’t change it because they want something different” thing is weird to me.
I don’t think it’s disingenuous just because some people don’t like to be called NIMBY. I’m fine for people to reject this on actual grounds (like you already did, like I said), but it’s the whole “do it somewhere I don’t have to look at it” thing that’s really stupid to me. That’s just NIMBY stuff.
|
There are 367,000,000 hectares of forest in Canada. I don't think it's crazy to NIMBY these 738 hectares for a flimsy reason like leisure & recreation - which for thousands of locals may also rank in their personal top 5 or 10 reasons for working and generally existing. Totally reasonable thing to be selfish for.
Are there some different impacts from doing this 'elsewhere' (ie. more remote)? Of course. It's a fair position to oppose clear-cutting anywhere and everywhere. It's also reasonable to accept some degree of inevitability for this type of resource extraction and fight for it to not happen where it will be personally detrimental...