Logging halt talks threaten turmoil Dear Sir: Justin Rigsby went into the Greenpeace “Great Bear Rainforest” moratorium al preat ~ ‘length, so I will not repeat his great wisdom. . He, and 1, and many other local people sit on the Kalum Land and Resource Management plan (LRMP). ’ We do not always agree. In fact there have been some very nasty fights,and I am sorry lo say that I have started my share. ' But the important thing is that we sit at the same table, we share our views, do our battles, Make our points, and then finally get to a posi- lion we can agree on. All the LRMP decisions are on land. use, which valleys to log, which places have higher tourist values, where protected areas should be, protection of ungulate winter range — those sorts of things. , The only people missing from the LRMP table in Kalum and North Coast are Greenpeace, the Sierra club, and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. They left the process after the first few meetings (down south, they never appeared here). Justin and 1 have been at the table for four years, others have been there even longer, all time donated,and will finish this June, This document will be the consensus of opi- nion of land use planning for this area — logging, tourism, protected areas, fishinp, marine areas, everything. And now the “Great Bear Rainforest” peuple are doing another, completely unauthorized plan that will overlay all our work, and add over 100 new valleys off limits, not only to logging, but ta any road building, for mines or any other uses. _The Kalum LRMP at present sets aside 18 percent of the land base for purposes other than commercial activity. That’s 6 percent above the target of the pro- vince. Add to that this new initiative and the number will be 25 or 30) percent. That represents a 30 percent loss of jobs and income for this area, The recommendations of the LRMP must be used for future planning, not sume direction dic- tated by offshore organizations with no interest in this province. Worse than all, there’s the uncertainty that this 18 month moratorium will cause. Surely we Be tee atta cit gee MN hep aisle: ye .can all temémber the havoc wrought in the past ‘three years after thie uncertainty of the collapse of George Petty’s Repap B.C. ' This new uncertainty will negatively affect all our investments and our working lives. It will ‘provide, for this town, three more years of tur- -moil we have just been through. Every one must stand opposed to this new deal, and stand behind the LRMP (with what warts there may be), And not just stand behind it, but tell every- body that you do. That statement applies most to all the municipal politicians. Write the Minister of Forests. If no one speaks against this new proposal, people will think we agree with its direction, and its direction will destroy our communities, and waste all the local planning done by local people for our communities. Les Watmough Terrace B.C, One legal wrong _- leads to another Dear Sir: Politicians tend to forget they have an obliga- tion to Canada’s citizens and not to themselves, They are supposed to protect the rights and ‘the property of Canada’s citizens; and thal only “by” the constitution, and “to the jurisdictional extents granted” by this constitution, do they have this right. ' Trudeau’s Charter directly and successfully attacks the sovercignty provisions granted to the provinces by the Constitution, aided and abetted by the provincial politicians who sold out for the . promise of thirty pieces of silver in annual trans- fer payments. _ The Constitution clearly states that any law that is inconsistent with its provisions, is to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. The charter cannot be legally recognized until it has received a majority vote by the citizens of ‘Canada in a referendum. Also, as it seriously ‘contravenes sections of the original constitution, ‘those contraventions, until ratified by a referen- dum, must be considered to be illegal. This illegality is far reaching and furthermore it contaminated many of the following decisions ,made by both levels of government, such as the recognition that “aboriginal seif-government is an inherent right not a right contingent! on the sanctioning vote of provincial and federal parlia- ments,” as agreed to at the first ministers confer- ence of October 1987. What Trudeau’s Charter does also, is to politi- cize the Supreme Court of Canada, where their rulings are now based upon federal policy and not solely upon law. In order for them to agree with promoting Ot- tawa’s policy towards aboriginals, they even re- sorted to re-defining the rules of evidence so as to allow the inclusion of unsubstantiated hearsay as evidence in order to justify the appeal reversal in the decision on Delgamuukw v. B.C. This'same Supreme Court is now being used to rule on the constitutionality of the Nisga’a treaty. If the treaty is found to make any changes in the relationship of the citizens of British Colum- ts CORRES PONDENCE FOR THE TERRACE STANDARD The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - A5 The Mail Bag © RICHARD LINDSTROM, of the Skeena Timber Trust, says it's time to consider radical new alternatives to the status quo in forest management. It's still not too late for Dear Sir: It would appear that a major blow has been struck to the heart of the forest industry. The almighty consumer, in this case the Eur- opean wood products market, with considerable pressure from some powerful environmental groups, has brought the industry temporarily to its knees, Not a fatal blow, but with enough impact that it screams for change in the forest. Remember, the customer is always right. This is an unfortunate occurrence but certainly industry officials could not be so naive to say that they did not see this coming. We in this area are so dependent and in- grained in the present clear-cut system that we literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Why do we insist on putting all our cggs in one basket? , Surely we can ali remember what happened here just a few short years ago when a market downturn almost crealed a few new ghost towns along the Skeena. New diversification in both the forest itself and in the secondary manufacturing aspect must be realized now, net just talked about. our industry to adapt Two men harvesting 400 metres a day with a arappleyarder is hardly conducive to saving the “Great Bear Rainforest” nor is the practice of in- stalling “value added” facilities for the sheer purpose of adding timber quota to an already un- sustainable level. Perhaps we should return to the family style logging or sawmilling that we practiced al the turn of the 19th century. Jobs per cubic metre have never been higher. How about woodlots of a community forest where the holders are local and personally responsible for the management of their own forest and all things in it, and held abruptly accountable for all infractions leasing to the detriment of the forest ecology. There are better ways of doing things, The technology is already here. Somebody else is telling us to use it. Do we continue as we are and hope for the best or do we change with the times and become current and competitive? It is not too late to save our livelihoods and the time for a world class solution is now. It is lime for our forest policy and practices to change. Call Victoria. Richard Lindstrom Terrace B.C. bia to their constitution, there is a law passed by Victoria (made after the Charlottetown amend- ments were defeated by referendum) that obli- gates this province to hold a referendum on the acceptance of these constitutional changes — re- gardless of what was previously passed in the B.C. iegislature or by Parliament. The Nisga’a Final Treaty Agreement guaran- tees to Nisga’a, on the basis of race or ethnic or- igin, undefined self-government, an ownership of surface and sub-surface resources that is outside of provincial law, and a percentage share of arca salmon stocks and wildlife (the latter contained in an expanded area over 10 times the size of the actual land involved in the treaty). All of which, contravene the constitution of Canada, as tt legally exists without amendment. A Bourdon Terrace B.C. Hearing needed into muzzling of scientists Dear Sir: There should be a public hearing into the B.C. government's muzzling of wildlife branch biolo- gist Dionys DeLecuw’s recent report on grizzly bear hunting, The government’s actions are a violation of Mr. DeLeeuw’s democratic rights as a biologist to produce scientific reports for review. He mere- ly circulated it for internal review. This is just onc example of government inter- ference. As a former member of the B.C. Minister of Environment’s Grizzly Bear Scientific Advi- sory Panel, government altempted to conceal and suppress sensilive information about grizzly bears in nearly ever quarter. For example: M@ Mr. DeLeeuw produced an earliér. report which never reached the Science Patiel becatise it was pulled by a senior bureaucrat. @ At least two of the government biologists who sit on the panel were reprimanded for sign- ing a report card which gave the Minister of En- vironment largely failing grades for the govern- ment’s dismal record in implementing the 1995 Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy. @ Another government biologist was repri- manded for releasing to the Science Panel infor- mation on grizzly hunting areas that were in dif- ficulty. The aforementioned instances of high-level government interference are a negation of the process of scientific inquiry. It is only through open debate and the examination of all evidence that valid decisions can be made, This government’s suppression of the free ex- change of scientific information about grizzly bears, within both the wildlife branch and the Grizzly Bear Scientific Advisory Panel, is a tra- vesty. Wayne McCrory New Denver B.C. Teachers union root of many problems Dear Sir: ] wish to respond to Mr. Rowe’s letter to the Mailbag in the April 12 edition. I feel two of my points contained in the April 5 edition may have been interpreted incorrectly. Firstly, teachers and support workers are dedi- cated, skillful and hard working. My experience through my children has pro- ven this to be true. My concern is the negotiated contracts for these workers have exceeded their purpose in protecting the worker, but rather providing union members with wages, benefits and job security that is not practical in B.C.’s current economic stale, ; *. The union’s unrealistic demands to govern- ment, that cannot be met, result in strike action, impacting parents by making it difficult for them to work at their jobs. I don’t believe Mr. Rowe’s comment that working conditions for teachers and: support workers. has deteriorated: significantly recently, unless he is speaking lo the issue of the lack of sufficient computers, books and other necessary teaching tools, Perhaps if the salaries and benefits were more on par with the private sector (not just for unions but-schoo!l board employees also), we would have enough money to purchase the tools neces- sary for a quality education. - “Secondly; my point with respect to special needs children was in relation to class size. Iam in full support of all children altending the same public education institution since it promotes ac- ceptance, equality and tolerance of all people. These are important tife lessons. But | don't think we need to reduce class sizes to 22 for K-3, because of the special needs children, since each special aceds child is provided with a full time aide. Perhaps Mr. Rowe's comment about changing socictal pressures and family structures, which he claims has resulted in higher expectations of schools, is the justification to continually reduce primary class size. I believe society has always expected child- Ten to receive a good education. I understand we are faced with a new econ- omy, faster paced environment and with informa- tion technology overload. But, efficiency and productivity are essential in these times of limited funding in both the pri- vate and public working sectors. If it is the discipline of children that is a con- cern, my response is that children have always misbehaved, some worse than others. Years aga, teachers had the authority to phy- sically discipline students. Now teachers attempt to talk it through, and if this doesn’t work, the child could be sent home. Teachers should use this option more often if they need to gain more control over their stu- dents. Yes, family structures have changed, but in my view for the better. There have always been dysfunctional fami- lies, i.e. alcoholism, physical/sexual/mental abuse, we just didn’t hear about it. Now children are growing up in safer, health- ier environments because parents have the abili- ty to remove the abused from the abuser. Finally, 1 would like to elaborate on the issue of the process involved in altempting to ascertain the right for my child to atlend her neighborhood school. Mr. Rowe is correct when he says there is more to the incident than has been revealed. The first step was to visit the school. The school told me the Collective Agreement states only 23 children per class this year and there is no room for flexibility. As Mr. Rowe suggested in his letter, F went to the School Board. They told me they would ask the union and would offer compensation sto;the teacher: whe would take the extra child. The union had a meeting to discuss the matler and chose to refuse the offer. From this, I can only guess the union leaders decided it either wasn't enough money, or as Mr. Rowe states in his letter “waiving its (the contract) provisions is a risky business and, if done too often, the con- tract soon becomes meaningless.” if we are ta follow the Collective Agreement diligently the solution would be to hire another full-time teacher to teach a split class of six? {there are currently up to three children on local school waiting lists for each grade) Or perhaps have three classes of 18 to allow for possible im- migration? The School Board is faced with maximizing available funds for education due to budget con- straints. But, who could possibly plan effectively with these kinds of restrictions legislated in a Collec- tive Agreement? This line of reasoning follows the suspicion | have about the union and all its power: their (the union leaders, not the teachers or support work- ers) priority is increased wages, benefits and sus- taining bargaining power, and not the children who should be attending school everyday in their own neighborhood. Debra Stokes Terrace B.C, Case of missing bike Dear Sir: To the person who took my son’s bike some- time between 9:30 p.m. Monday April 17 and 8:45 a.m. Tuesday April 18 from the low income family housing. I'm sure it was a big thrill for you to take that bike, but il was no thrill at all for the person you took tt from. The owner of that bike is a five-year-old little boy who was thrilled to receive it after his prand- father fixed it up especially for him. The first time he saw that bike he beamed with pride and giggled with joy. It was so won- derful for me, a single mom, to see him so happy. He’s only had that bike fur one month. My son took that bike everywhere he went even if his destination was only 10 feet away. Imagine how he felt last week when he heard his bike was gone. His tears of joy are now tears of sadness and they haven't stopped. All he wants is his bike back. Your actions do have consequences, and the consequences for this is that my son now has no bike and | cannot afford to replace it, It would mean a lot to the buth of us if you could return it. Teena Deyost Terr gio About the Mail Bag The Terrace Standard welcomes tetters to the editor, Our address is 3210 Clinton St., Terrace, 6.C., VEG 5R2, You can fax letters to us at 638-8432. And you can e-mail tet- ters to us at standard@kermoda.net. We need your name, address and phone num- ber for verification.