Comments on Tsain-Ko's Public Response Letter

I would just like to make a few initial comments on Tsain-Ko's FSP Public Response Letter. I notice in the timeline at the beginning of the letter Mr. Forester fails to mention that the Forest Stewardship Plan and maps were initially placed in the Sechelt Public Library which is an hour drive from the communities affected by the logging. Some library staff had no idea the documents were there and those that did pointed to a corner table where the maps were rolled up in a bundle. It was due to the initiative of the staff at the Egmont Museum that these documents finally became accessible to all community members. Because of this oversight, the period for public comment was extended.

The FSP document itself is a technical document and makes no sense to a lay person. This, of course, is no fault of Tsain-Ko and its management staff. It is the provincial government which bears responsibility for not requiring a document easily understandable by the public.

I would like to jump to the end of the letter to 'Comparisons with the "Courtnall" property.' The community was well aware that the Private Managed Forest Land Act governed those lands and that those laws differed substantially from the laws governing crown tenure. There was no animosity but frustration that we had to deal with more logging so soon after PNR had finished its fine forest management job across the Skookumchuck Narrows. Now, the community had more logging coming in from the backside. Did Tsain-Ko expect to be greeted with open arms? If the shishalh Nation or some of its members took this frustration personally then they should not be in the logging business. Perhaps the fault lies with Mr. Warren Hansen of Chartwell Consultants. He of all people as a former employee of Canfor knew what reaction to expect from the community since under Canfor he had presented those same cutblocks to us a few years back. Those logging plans weren't welcomed then; did he think they would be welcomed now?