Trouble In River Cities...The Kootenay Land Use Plan

We present the full text of our comments on the Land Use Planning Implementation Strategy, as provided to our government entities in this region in December 1996.

Please recognize that the problems and/or concerns in our region are not created by our varied Ministry or Government employees - the problems are the result of political intervention, and should be addressed accordingly.

The flaws in this process lie with the elected, and/or soon to be elected of the day - regardless of the parties they represent. If we leave land use issues such as these in the hands of politicians - be it local, municipal, regional, provincial or federal, we jeopardize the future of the resources based on political whims and intervention.

If we were devoted to the concepts of sustainable resource management, we would not allow this to happen. Our greatest responsibility lies in ensuring the future of the resource - and the futures of our children. This does not occur in political intervention which dictates land use policy.

Thanks for listening to our concerns - here is our submission to government agencies on our regional land use plan, based on government direction that the plan must accommodate 5 million cubic meters of extractive timber in our region, without regard to what the land is capable of.

Our Submission of comments on the Regional Plan

Kootenay Inter-Agency Management Committee - Nelson, BC

Dear IAMC Representatives,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. I felt it important to provide as many constructive comments as possible. That is not an easy task.

As a former participant with the CORE table, and the subsequent initiatives which have brought us to this point in time, I believe the ideals and conceptual approaches of the table have been recognized. Elected government has prevented you from appropriately implementing them. I do not hold the technical team, or the IAMC responsible for this.

Elected government direction and intervention have not provided sustainability in the implementation of these initiatives and aspects of the regional land use plan. We are sentencing the communities of our region to short term gains once again, without regard to long term viability.

You have done the best you could under the restrictions placed upon you by our elected officials. It is evident that elected Government is once again willing to forfeit long term viability of our communities for short term timber supply.

The tourism industry will suffer the consequences, as will the communities in our region. It is unfortunate that we are unable to implement the long term benefits of the government plan. I am ashamed that our elected government representatives show so little understanding of these critical issues.

I believe that until government, both current and future, stands behind the many promises to provide balance to land use in our region, our efforts will be without significant benefit to the social fabric of our communities, our environmental integrity, or long term economic stability.

We have yet to attain the Sustainability Act which elected government has promised us so many times, most recently on the eve of the past election. This component of ensuring a future for the resource, rather than the short term benefit to one economic stakeholder, is essential.

I support First Nations in their efforts for recognition of their rights, and recognize their current inability in this region to deal with the issues placed on their table. It is a sentiment the tourism industry shares. I believe that government direction in this plan violates the stewardship of these resources sought by First Nations. We should be ashamed.

Aspects of this plan jeopardize the resource we have all endeavoured, with blood, sweat and tears, to save for future generations. I am not prepared, after all of this effort, to abandon this process seeking the long term health of the resource, and balance of social, economic, and environmental issues.

The implementation of the Regional Plan show clear "government direction" of once again writing blank cheques on annual allowable cuts which are not there - the wood supply in our forests will not continue to support this misdirection.

The annual allowable cut reductions, required out of necessity, and lack of supply and growth, have been blurred, by providing higher levels of "operable forests," generic decisions on AAC reductions, and by relaxing Forest Practices Code at the discretion of District Forest Managers. Loss of supply is attributed to the needs of other stakeholders, rather than the true issue - we have over cut for far too long-it is about to catch up with us.

When I asked a Ministry of Forests representative in this region, at a public meeting, about the maintenance of an unsustainable Annual Allowable Cut by raising the operability line, I also asked a pointed question. Operability lines were partially established based on the potential for forest regrowth - if we raise the operability lines, how can we be assured that the forest will grow back in these high elevation areas, and, if so, at what rate of growth, recognizing that higher altitudes provide a much slower rate of forest regeneration?

The response was admirable - It has to grow back - it is the law that licensees, and the Ministry of Forests, make these forests grow back.

I have now learned that the licensees and the MOF are assumed to have more power than God, or Mother Nature, or whatever higher power it is which has so kindly provided this resource to us. I have also learned that, in some areas of our region, the Ministry of Forests exercises their powers as almighty, as well, at the discretion of the District Forest Manager.

Lowering standards within Forest Practices Code only ensures that the end of our supply comes sooner, rather than later. To falsify the operable forest capabilities by moving the lines higher on the mountainsides, or relax green-up standards provides no resolution - it only defers the inevitable.

There is not enough wood left to supply these annual allowable cuts, as I am certain the 20-year analysis has shown.

We are borrowing from areas in high altitudes with slower regeneration, as well as borrowing from community watersheds, and the few remaining old growth forests which we have no right to touch, particularly in Caribou habitats.

We are also borrowing these wood supplies from the tourism industry, the commercial recreation sector, and other economic and social stakeholders. This is another "loan" which we cannot pay back in the next few generations. We have created this deficit in my lifetime - I had hoped we would repay it during my lifetime, as well.

We must insist that tourism uses, environmental integrity, and the cultural security of these forested crown lands are maintained and enhanced - so that we have a resource to pass along to future generations. The "12 percent protected" goal is nothing when we have little or no regard of the other 88 percent of the land base. Wildlife, humans, and biodiversity do not understand that they must restrict themselves to 12 percent of our land base.

Some residents and communities continue to believe that there is no value to our wildlife, and ensuring that red and blue listed species have a future. Clean drinking water has no value, either, when compared to the financial interest of a select few. It seems in some areas that the forests have no value except as cubic metres. Old growth has no value recognized until it is extracted.

The global village values these resources. If we must attach a price, then attach this price: These precious commodities can be sold millions of times over, as they stand right now, in the tourism industry - the forest industry can only sell it once in 200 or 300 years. Which economic stakeholder provides long term stability? Which ensures the few remaining old growth stands in this region as global treasures for future generations?

Are we prepared to permit these communities to destroy this resource because they lack awareness of the values of these special features, and only value money today?

Tourism is an economic voice that can provide a stable future for our environment, our parks, our forested lands, and our culture. We can no longer allow forestry to dominate the bulk of Crown lands, and predicate the future of our forests, wildlife, and water supplies - with no disrespect intended toward our agency representatives, elected officials have ensured that worthy stewardship of this dwindling resource is not possible.

The Tourism Industry, and our economic viability must be maintained within the structure of Environment, Lands, and Parks, and recognized for our value in this region - on both forested lands, as well as protected areas. If we were forward thinking, we would also add responsibility for Cultural Heritage products to this Ministry.

Someone told me once that every single Ministry at our table has a responsibility to ensure the long term viability of these resources. The highest and best use of these resources. We do not need more unsustainable resource practices. We have been quite adept at this in the past, and cannot continue these actions, generally advocated by the soon to be elected, or elected of the day, as well as shareholders who seek short term profits.

I will not stand quietly while we take away the future of our children, or stand by and watch as this magnificent tourism resource dies. I refuse to allow our elected officials to abuse this resource, in the name of their popularity or short term gains.

I have a homepage on the Internet, which some of you are familiar with, located at www.geocities.com/RainForest/2634/ - I have linked with the UNEP sites on sustainable tourism, with their permission, among many others, on a global basis. There are concerned agencies and organizations who will help us to do the right thing, if we are unable to achieve this within this region, and this province.

I would rather we come to regional solutions, and overcome the politics and "government direction" which are currently hampering this process. I believe in working with our exceptional regional operatives and ministries, and have more faith in the people around the IAMC table than I will ever have in political process. Please stand up against this oppression, and these unsustainable practices, as holders of our public trust.

The term of service which my company has volunteered on behalf of our region, and our industry, has been worth approximately a quarter of a million dollars in consulting fees and expenses - directly donated by my company, to benefit our industry, our region, and this province. I never accepted a dollar of funding from our government through the CORE process. All accommodation, meals, and expenses, as well as time allocated, were donated to the region.

I do not state this for any other purpose but to show my true dedication to this process, and the potential outcomes. I have nothing to gain. I hold no tenure. I have seen, and received the abuse an industry, or an activist can face when it challenges those who currently rule our forests. This is wrong.

These efforts and actions were advanced by an ecological conscience. I truly believed, and, (perhaps naively), still believe, that these initiatives can make a difference - if we choose to take action - now - before it is too late. Thank you for your efforts.