A10 Terrace Review — _ Wednesday, July 10, 1991 Forestry paper gets by Tod Strachan Hazelton’s "Framework for Watershed Stewardship" has been endorsed "with qualifications” by the Regional District of Kitimat- Stikine board of directors, who. want to make a strong statement for a complete review of the forest industry in B.C. Not all directors agreed that endorsing the framework was the right thing to do, however. Pete Weeber, Les Watmough, Sandy Sandhals and Bob Cooper all felt they should receive the opinion of a professional forester first. The document was tabled at the board’s May meeting to allow directors - more time to evaluate it. The Framework for Watershed Stewardship is based on an earlier document, the Forest Industry Charter of Rights, produced by the Village of Hazelton. Both docu- ments were intended to provide guidelines for developing a respon- sible form of forest management that would enhance forests in both economic and ecological terms. The framework includes over 60 principals involving forest prac- tices, including the organization of the industry, public participation, the forest use planning process, considerations on water and air resources, amd biodiversity and habitat protection. Considered in brief are mining, parks and recreation, tourism, fish and wildlife, agriculture, transpor- tation, urban land use, energy, and archaeological and cultural sites. For these latter items, new legisla- tion is called for that would con- sider all other land uses before any new development occurred. When it came to endorsing the Framework for Watershed Stew- ardship, however, a number of differing views were presented. New Hazelton director Pete Weeber opposed. the document, saying it didn’t make any econ- omic sense. He explained that the Annual Allowable Cuts are based on a 100-year rotation within a Timber Supply Area. He claimed that by using this existing formula B.C. would never run out of a timber supply. The framework, said Weeber, called for clearcuts no larger than 10 hectares with a minimum one kilometre buffer between each clearcut. Using that formula, he. said, the industry would lose two crop rotations before they clearcut of the trees, he noted, would sim- ply dic of old age before they were logged. Weeber, in fact, estimated the harvest would be cut by about 50 percent; pulp mills and about 80 percent of the province's sawmills would be closed down. He said he had discussed this concept with Westar’s Hazelton foresters and they agreed. Village of Hazelton mayor Alice Maitland disagreed with Weeber. She pointed out that the Forest Industry Charter of Rights had been reviewed by hundreds of individuals, educators, pro- fessionals, | municipalities and regional districts, and one of the most constructive responses to it an entire licence area. A number came from Westar. "As it stands,” she told Weeber, "this was a very worthwhile pro- ject. It’s only a framework and if it sets out ideas too tough for the industry to survive, then they can be modified... But once the trees are gone, we can’t get them back." Maitland then noted that the groups from all over the province had responded to Hazelton’s call for critiques, but their closest neighbour, New Hazelton, had never bothered to responded. She added that many communities had asked for copies of the framework and were using parts of it to address concerns in their own particular areas. "The place to start is at home,” she told the board. "I think if this had come from Prince George or Kitimat, Pete Weeber would be one of the first to approve it." With this preliminary debate concluded, other directors began making a few comments of their own. Tom Goyert of Kitimat sug- gested the document could perhaps use a little more work, but sug- gested the board should endorse the framework proposal in order fo send a "strong message there is something wrong with the way our forests are managed now". Les Watmough liked the proposal in general, but disagreed that it should be blindly endorsed. He said they should get a professional forester to critique it first. And this diverted the discussion to a new topic of interest. Is their any value in paying for a professional cri- tique? Goyert pointed out that it was only a framework, and endorsing something wasn’t the same as adopting it. There was no need for a critique, he. claimed, But Kispiox director Fred Roisum agreed with Watmough, and Weeber made a motion asking that the board get a professional forester to do a two- day analysis before anything fur- ther was done. Kitimat’s Graham Anderson and Dan Pakula of Telegraph Creek spoke against the motion. Anderson pointed out that any recommendation from a forester might be influenced by their per- sonal view. He suggested that a professional critique would be a waste of time and money; that there wasn’t a great deal wrong with the proposal and they should simply endorse it. Then there were more objections to Weeber’s motion, Pakula pointed out they hired a pro- fessional forester examine their submission to the Forest Resources Commission, and when it came back they had critiqued and changed it themselves anyway. Chairman Jack Talstra suggested the board should simply receive the proposal and then "send it to the powers-that-be for consider- ation". And Nisga’a director Sam Munroe backed up Talstra. by saying, "Four consultants are not going to help." He then added: "I agree. Send it to them and let them take out the good parts. We could be on this for years... Like the marina.” Munroe also noted the serious- ness of the situation by pointing — out that in 1964 the industry was "double shifting". But now there’s hardly anyone working in the Nass Valley forest industry because "they took the cream of the crap". Pakula then told Weeber, "We can always endorse with qualifica- tions, It’s a very simple matter." But Weeber - suggested: "That's true up to a point. But if I’m a Buddhist, I’m not going to endorse qualified approval the Bible." Weeber then asked Talstra to call the question, found support in Watmough and Sand- hals, and lost. Pakula then made his motion, to endorse the docu- ment, and won. in Vancouver: PRINCIPAL SPONSORS, Terrace Travel Air B.C. Kalum Kabs Lid. Red Carpet Food Services PATRONS Dr. Zucchiatti, Dentist Don Diego’s Restaurant Impact Construction Ltd. Canada Safeway Slumber Lodge Motel Saan Stores Ltd. , We would like to give our 8 special thanks to the following principal sponsors and patrons that have graciously made a donation to the project to send Theatre Arts/Drama students to see the world famous production of Phantom of the Opera B.C. Government Lottery (in-province travel grants program) Terrace and District Teachers’ Association (TDTA) — A & W Restaurant, Skeena Mall Wilkinson Business Machines & Office ¢ Furniture CS. Wilkinson, Chartered Accountant Braid Insurance Agencies Ltd. Heather’s Balloon Magic and Flowerland FROM SKEENG sl oe g WLATHE ARTS Pay ee as etree EFFECTIVE JULY to NEW BUS FARES 0,191 FARES Adultt * with valid ID Adult $1.00 Senior’,Student* ./75 Child under 5 Free Senior*,Student’. ZONE 1 ZONE 2 $1.25 $1.00 Free TICKETS . Gook of 20) $19.00 $14.00 $24.00 $19.00 BC Transit 54 Bus tickets are available at City Rall City of Terrace. Regional District of Kitimat - Stikine