|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Fairbout Penninsula Eagle Lake
There has been a concerted effort for the last few years from groups of concerned people trying to save the Fairbout penninsula on Eagle Lake from being logged. I personally have not been on the penninsula, but my wife has been, she confirms that it is a special place. Included is a recent CBC interview https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1372463683929
Logging is a necessity, it is part of Canada's heritage, logging, tourism and the Government (sadly) drive the local economy. Without logging most of the lakes we can now access by vehicle would not be available, it has opened up endless fishing opportunites. Unfortunately recently the rules have been changed, everywhere we look are new logging slashes, even near public roads, the speed of logging is being ramped up. The rules now allow cutting to be done right up to the shoreline on lakes with no cabins or boat caches and only a short distance from those that do. Gone are the days when cutting was done to keep line of site distance between the lake and the cut (you could not see the cut from your boat). I attended a one on one meeting (along with a tourist operater) this spring with a forester from the local wood mill about a logging situation we were concerned about on a pristine trout lake. The forester told us the mill was no longer going to cave-in to anyone's wishes about logging, his exact words were "we are going to take it all". That has since been resolved to a degree, because of an arbitration threat, but has not completely gone away. My whole point of this thread is to make you aware of what is now going on, not only about the concern of logging the Fairbout penninsula, Eagle Lake, but also of what could possibly happen in the near future on any of the lakes we fish. Polution of the lakes from logging too close, loss of wildlife habitat and having to look at a cut/slash from our boat while fishing is not what most of us want. Don't be bashful, let the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources know what you think. |
Sponsored Links | ||
Advertisement | ||
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
They will use the California fires as a reason to cut. (to control the amount of fuel to burn during a wildfire) I never like to see tree's cut, it takes to long to grow them back.
Good luck, I hope they can come to a resolution for all involved.
__________________
Is life without laughter worth living? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
It is seemingly very difficult to strike a good balance between preserving the natural setting and providing jobs and necessary forest products for public consumption. Pristine areas are hard to bring back, but not necessarily impossible. Driving by polluted waterways created by paper mills are horrible to observe, yet the need to preserve jobs being provided seems to be a determining factor by the powers that be in assigning value points. There is something special, certainly God-like, about "virgin" forest areas, so this definitely is a serious consideration. Of surprise to many folks may be the realization that most present accessible forest land (mountain side timber excluded) has been cut, maybe as much as 100-150 or more years ago, so what we're seeing most places may be the growth after the cut. It takes a long time to reforest, areas on LOW today do not look that much different than when I was a kid back in the 1940's.
Bill |
Sponsored Links | ||
Advertisement | ||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|