Tzeporah BermanForestEthics
info@forestethics.org
Dear Tzeporah Berman:
As you will recall, shortly after Colleen McCrory passed away, you telephoned me and suggested that preserving the Incomappleux be designated as a way to honour her. I told you very clearly that the Valhalla Wilderness Society, as well as Colleen’s family, had already designated preservation of the whole Selkirk Mountain Caribou Park Proposal as a way to honour Colleen. I pointed out that the upper Incomappleux Valley, as priceless as it is, is only a small part of the park proposal that Colleen and VWS had made public only two months before her death. I also requested that ForestEthics refrain from speaking for what would honour Colleen. You agreed.
I forwarded you a copy of VWS’s letter to Premier Gordon Campbell designating protection of the Selkirk Mountain Caribou Park Proposal as an action he can take if he wants to put his tribute to Colleen in words. You sent back a reply: “Thanks Anne really great letter.”
So it was with considerable shock that I recently read Candace Batycki, your colleague at ForestEthics, quoted in The Province newspaper (September 18, 2007) as saying that preserving the Incomappleux is a way to honour Colleen. You were also quoted in that same letter. The park proposal was not even mentioned.
I had even told the author of the article and the editor of Sunday Magazine that the park proposal had been designated as a way to honour Colleen or further her work, and I was very careful to distinguish that from saving only the Incomappleux. I also explained to them that ForestEthics working for the Incomappleux versus Valhalla working for a large park proposal represented major, long-time differences in conservation methods used by the two groups.
I do not know why the author or the editor let ForestEthics tell the public what would honour Colleen, rather than her family and colleagues with which she had worked all her activist life. But I am writing to tell you once again that protecting only the Incomappleux is NOT a way to honour Colleen. Creating a park that would exclude the surrounding critical habitat of the mountain caribou, and of many other old-growth dependent species, would gravely DISHONOUR everything Colleen worked for over the last nine years.
We are glad that ForestEthics is going to inform the paper consumers in its market campaign if Pope & Talbot tries to log the Incomappleux. But have you told your paper consumers that the upper Incomappleux Valley is only 9,600 hectares and contains only about 1,000 hectares of commercially viable forest? The rest is on slopes too steep for loggers or mountain caribou. Have you told them that the Central Selkirk mountain caribou has hardly any habitat protected in parks in this region? That the upper Incomappleux Valley is no longer used by caribou because the lower two-thirds of the valley was so brutally logged? That the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Purcell Alliance for Wilderness and the Valhalla Wilderness Society all have large park proposals that include the Incomappleux?
Why protecting the Incomappleux alone is not enough
The Valhalla Wilderness Society has been working to protect the upper Incomappleux Valley for six years now, and over that time Colleen McCrory and other directors at VWS conscientiously refrained from proposing it as a park in itself. While this priceless piece of primeval forest was protected one way or the other by logging deferrals, blockade and rock slides, VWS was studying the broader ecosystem and trying to pinpoint the areas needed by the Central Selkirk mountain caribou.
History shows that when a park is created, usually a government will not consider another park in that area for many years or even decades. It has been 14 years since the CORE regional land use planning processes created the last new parks in this region. When it did so, the government tossed out much old-growth forest in critical mountain caribou habitat proposed for protection by VWS and other groups. So our current park system in this region is just a skeleton, mostly made of rocky mountain peaks, glaciers, alpine meadows and high elevation forest. As you know, large intact areas of old-growth forest are critical for the survival of the mountain caribou. These areas must include lush valley-bottom Interior Cedar-Hemlock forest, also known as inland temperate rainforest. Such areas have been systematically excluded from parks for years, so they can be logged.
Despite persistent warnings that the mountain caribou is sliding towards extinction, over those 14 years the government has used the CORE parks to claim that it has done its duty in protecting the environment. Currently, the governments of Canada and BC are in the final phases of a process to recover the mountain caribou population under the Species at Risk Act. This process has been going on for about four years without protecting one new patch of forest in this region. Even now, in its draft recovery strategy, the BC government has not proposed one new park. Instead we have a nightmare tangle of “guidelines” which the government proposes to strengthen and expand. In the past the government has played many games with this kind of protection that amount to nothing more than deceiving hocus-pocus while prime caribou forest continues to be clearcut.
Colleen and VWS refrained from proposing only the Incomappleux for a park because we knew that any new park in this area would be fatal for years to come. Although the Incomappleux offers nothing for the mountain caribou, it connects to important mountain caribou habitat in its tributaries and adjoining valleys. To save the Incomappleux and leave these areas out of protection would be like writing the death sentence of the Central Selkirk mountain caribou herd. And what about all the other species such as the lichens — perhaps even species we don’t know about yet?
Context of the Selkirk Mountain Caribou Park Proposal
Remember back in 2004 when ForestEthics signed an agreement at the Central Coast land use planning table to protect 21.2% of the planning area? Some people were upset because the 17-member government-industry-environmental scientific team had recommended that 44-50% must be protected to maintain large wildlife such as grizzly bears and salmon. Fortunately, some First Nations came forward with land use plans that met these scientists’ recommendations on their traditional territory. Overall, today the Great Bear Rainforest now has 32% protected.
Well, we also have grizzly bears and salmon, as well as the endangered mountain caribou in the Inland Rainforest Region. A Conservation Area Design by the Craighead Environmental Research Institute has also recommended that 50% of the region must be fully protected to save our large wildlife and salmon. But today, only 16% of the land base is protected. Worse, only a very small percentage of that is low- or mid-elevation forest.
As you know, two-thirds of the Great Bear Rainforest were left open to logging, but at least most of that forest is still there for future protection. In the Inland Rainforest, that is not so. The Inland Rainforest Region has been logged at the rate of 47,679 hectares a year for over 40 years. Only about 20% of the region has intact old-growth forest left, and most of that is high elevation or on steep slopes unusable for wildlife.
Today, vast river valleys such as the Duncan, the Adams, and two-thirds of the Incomappleux have been stripped-mined of their old-growth forest at the lower elevations. Grizzly bears that have homes in the alpine come down to the river valleys twice a year for the first green of spring and autumn fish run. They are hunted while they are trying to get their autumn fish to fatten up for hibernation. They have increasingly little cover to protect them from hunters and poachers. Recently in our area, a poacher just wantonly shot a female grizzly as it was fishing and left it to rot.
A whole ecosystem type composed of lower-elevation, old-growth Interior Cedar-Hemlock forest on slopes gentle enough to grow big trees and support wildlife, is being wiped out, and this process is frighteningly close to completion in the southern part of the Inland Rainforest Region. Colleen spent the last nine years of her life networking and fund-raising to bring together maps, scientific studies, and field surveys to help locate the old-growth forest that’s left after all those years of logging. This included botanical surveys in the upper Incomappleux and other areas.
It is true that the Incomappleux is a priceless, living museum of the primeval inland rainforest. The botanical surveys commissioned by VWS have yielded spectacular results: many rare plants, mushrooms and lichens not previously known to have lived in these forests, as well as 9 species new-to-science, with many more expected to be found. But its great significance to conservation is not only within its own borders, but also in its ability to show us what we are losing in other old-growth cedar-hemlock forests that are slated for logging. They may not be as glamorous, as old; they may not harbour trees as large, or have half as many lichen species. But the fact is, we don’t know what they have. And the Conservation Data Center lists about 200 species at risk in Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests, and that doesn’t count all the species not previously known to have lived here, or to even exist, until the last few years. Research in the Incomappleux has helped to revise fundamental scientific understandings about biodiversity in our Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests. Research commissioned by VWS well north of the Incomappleux is now confirming but continuing to expand these new understandings.
At VWS, we were really pained to see our hard-earned botanical research used to support a campaign approach that would apparently protect only the upper Incomappleux. The Incomappleux is not just something in itself, it is representative of something much larger than itself. The sheer visual spectacle of that majestic forest in the Incomappleux sitting at the head of a vast plain of clearcuts, has staggering implications for other old-growth stands about to be logged. It is precisely these implications that FE’s approach is throwing away in quest of a quick fix for a glamorous but tiny area..
Only two months before she died, Colleen and other VWS directors identified a 250,000-hectare area that is the critical habitat of the Central Selkirk mountain caribou subpopulation. This year’s field trips indicate that that will have to be pared down because much more has been lost to recent forest fires and clearcuts than we had been able to see on maps. Seeing all of the proposal area on the ground has been difficult due to steep, mountainous terrain with no trails. But, as it stands now, upper Incomappleux is only 1/25 the size of our park proposal. If it seems that that would take too much away from the logging industry, just ask yourself why Pope & Talbot is on the verge of bankruptcy and trying to sell off its assets. Most of the available, high quality forest has already been logged and what remains requires longer and longer hauls to the mill.
Valhalla’s communication with The Province about the article
It was with considerable pain that VWS directors saw that this newspaper article representing the environmental issues in the Incomappleux as a standoff between Pope & Talbot and ForestEthics was enriched with the Valhalla Wilderness Society’s photographs, taken by Craig Pettitt. It is true the VWS gave The Province permission to use those photos for its article. But in doing so, we carefully communicated to the author and editor the issues raised by saving only the Incomappleux versus a broader, ecosystem approach. I personally told the author about the park proposals of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Purcell Alliance for Wilderness and the Valhalla Wilderness in that area.
I told both the author and the editor about the Declaration on the Inland Rainforest Region signed by 19 environmental groups, including almost all of the grassroots environmental groups in the Inland Rainforest Region. As you know, the Declaration calls for no more logging in old-growth forest 140 years or over throughout the region. ForestEthics came to the meetings where the agreement was worked out, but refused to sign because it did not support that particular item. (Yet over 50 scientists have signed a petition to the BC government calling for no logging of old-growth caribou forest throughout this same region. The petition also calls for the creation of fully protected, permanent parks and conservation zones.)
The Valhalla Wilderness Society and Craig Pettitt would never have released our photographs to accompany the article if we had known that no mention would be made of any of this information. VWS was denied permission to see the article before it went to print. We do not know who or what is responsible for this situation; perhaps it was ForestEthics, or perhaps it was The Province. But we notice that the article is now on your website. This is a matter of considerable upset to Valhalla directors, since it will continue to reach more and more people with a false version of what would commemorate Colleen’s passing.
Previous relations between Colleen, VWS and ForestEthics
The larger issue is whether ForestEthics should be speaking for what Colleen would want anywhere, at any time. These circumstances force us to have to say publicly that for years VWS and Colleen tried to work with ForestEthics, only to have working relations repeatedly shattered. We have often tried to look at it as a matter of different conservation methods that are incompatible.
As just one of several examples, ForestEthics works by holding private negotiations with logging companies. Colleen and VWS have always felt that the public owns the forest, and that matters related to public resources should be at all times open to the scrutiny of the public. We also believed that environmental groups making private agreements with industry and government have been ruinous to unity within the environmental movement. Anyone who has ever belonged to a labour union will appreciate that unity isn’t very well possible if different members of the union are making their own private agreements with management.
In two different instances, in the Slocan Valley and in the Great Bear Rainforest, Colleen and I put in huge amounts of time and energy to network protocol agreements between multiple environmental groups with ForestEthics, to bridge the gap of distrust caused by FE’s private negotiations. In both cases, word leaked out that FE had made private agreements with logging companies that violated these environmental group protocol agreements. The result of this was not only to squander huge amounts of time put in by VWS to network a unified front, but also to cause equally huge conflict amongst numerous groups. Of all the organizations opposing FE, I believe that the Valhalla Wilderness Society has been one of the more polite and long-suffering ones.
For instance in recent years VWS invited FE to networking sessions on conservation in the inland rainforest region. These sessions led to the Declaration calling for an end to logging old-growth forest 140 years or over. FE refused to support this and was outvoted by a substantial majority. The Declaration also calls for decisions to be made on new forest protection by transparent public process.
At a subsequent meeting, 27 groups and activists, including ForestEthics, gathered in New Denver to network on inland rainforest issues. There FE made a strong effort to get the table to modify the clause calling for no logging of old-growth, and was once again outvoted by a wide majority. A majority also said that they did not want private negotiations with industry on inland rainforest conservation matters. In fact, they directed Colleen and another person to draft a letter to ForestEthics stating that clearly. It never happened because Colleen was so busy.
Despite all this opposition on issues, when Colleen died she was certainly on speaking terms with FE. The Valhalla Wilderness Society was interested in finding whatever common ground could in our projects, but let me make clear, but as you are aware, that was simply the business dealings of parties that remained at arm’s length. The central difficulty was a fundamental incompatibility in working methods, and in the fact that our organizations differ so much in the question of “How much is enough?”
In view of the actual facts recited in this letter, we ask you to remove The Province article from your website. The Society also wishes to notify all parties responsible for The Province article that permission to use any photographs by VWS or Craig Pettitt in the future, or photos by any other person posted on our ftp site or website, is denied.
Regretfully,
Anne Sherrod
Chair
Valhalla Wilderness Society
info@forestethics.org
Dear Tzeporah Berman:
As you will recall, shortly after Colleen McCrory passed away, you telephoned me and suggested that preserving the Incomappleux be designated as a way to honour her. I told you very clearly that the Valhalla Wilderness Society, as well as Colleen’s family, had already designated preservation of the whole Selkirk Mountain Caribou Park Proposal as a way to honour Colleen. I pointed out that the upper Incomappleux Valley, as priceless as it is, is only a small part of the park proposal that Colleen and VWS had made public only two months before her death. I also requested that ForestEthics refrain from speaking for what would honour Colleen. You agreed.
I forwarded you a copy of VWS’s letter to Premier Gordon Campbell designating protection of the Selkirk Mountain Caribou Park Proposal as an action he can take if he wants to put his tribute to Colleen in words. You sent back a reply: “Thanks Anne really great letter.”
So it was with considerable shock that I recently read Candace Batycki, your colleague at ForestEthics, quoted in The Province newspaper (September 18, 2007) as saying that preserving the Incomappleux is a way to honour Colleen. You were also quoted in that same letter. The park proposal was not even mentioned.
I had even told the author of the article and the editor of Sunday Magazine that the park proposal had been designated as a way to honour Colleen or further her work, and I was very careful to distinguish that from saving only the Incomappleux. I also explained to them that ForestEthics working for the Incomappleux versus Valhalla working for a large park proposal represented major, long-time differences in conservation methods used by the two groups.
I do not know why the author or the editor let ForestEthics tell the public what would honour Colleen, rather than her family and colleagues with which she had worked all her activist life. But I am writing to tell you once again that protecting only the Incomappleux is NOT a way to honour Colleen. Creating a park that would exclude the surrounding critical habitat of the mountain caribou, and of many other old-growth dependent species, would gravely DISHONOUR everything Colleen worked for over the last nine years.
We are glad that ForestEthics is going to inform the paper consumers in its market campaign if Pope & Talbot tries to log the Incomappleux. But have you told your paper consumers that the upper Incomappleux Valley is only 9,600 hectares and contains only about 1,000 hectares of commercially viable forest? The rest is on slopes too steep for loggers or mountain caribou. Have you told them that the Central Selkirk mountain caribou has hardly any habitat protected in parks in this region? That the upper Incomappleux Valley is no longer used by caribou because the lower two-thirds of the valley was so brutally logged? That the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Purcell Alliance for Wilderness and the Valhalla Wilderness Society all have large park proposals that include the Incomappleux?
Why protecting the Incomappleux alone is not enough
The Valhalla Wilderness Society has been working to protect the upper Incomappleux Valley for six years now, and over that time Colleen McCrory and other directors at VWS conscientiously refrained from proposing it as a park in itself. While this priceless piece of primeval forest was protected one way or the other by logging deferrals, blockade and rock slides, VWS was studying the broader ecosystem and trying to pinpoint the areas needed by the Central Selkirk mountain caribou.
History shows that when a park is created, usually a government will not consider another park in that area for many years or even decades. It has been 14 years since the CORE regional land use planning processes created the last new parks in this region. When it did so, the government tossed out much old-growth forest in critical mountain caribou habitat proposed for protection by VWS and other groups. So our current park system in this region is just a skeleton, mostly made of rocky mountain peaks, glaciers, alpine meadows and high elevation forest. As you know, large intact areas of old-growth forest are critical for the survival of the mountain caribou. These areas must include lush valley-bottom Interior Cedar-Hemlock forest, also known as inland temperate rainforest. Such areas have been systematically excluded from parks for years, so they can be logged.
Despite persistent warnings that the mountain caribou is sliding towards extinction, over those 14 years the government has used the CORE parks to claim that it has done its duty in protecting the environment. Currently, the governments of Canada and BC are in the final phases of a process to recover the mountain caribou population under the Species at Risk Act. This process has been going on for about four years without protecting one new patch of forest in this region. Even now, in its draft recovery strategy, the BC government has not proposed one new park. Instead we have a nightmare tangle of “guidelines” which the government proposes to strengthen and expand. In the past the government has played many games with this kind of protection that amount to nothing more than deceiving hocus-pocus while prime caribou forest continues to be clearcut.
Colleen and VWS refrained from proposing only the Incomappleux for a park because we knew that any new park in this area would be fatal for years to come. Although the Incomappleux offers nothing for the mountain caribou, it connects to important mountain caribou habitat in its tributaries and adjoining valleys. To save the Incomappleux and leave these areas out of protection would be like writing the death sentence of the Central Selkirk mountain caribou herd. And what about all the other species such as the lichens — perhaps even species we don’t know about yet?
Context of the Selkirk Mountain Caribou Park Proposal
Remember back in 2004 when ForestEthics signed an agreement at the Central Coast land use planning table to protect 21.2% of the planning area? Some people were upset because the 17-member government-industry-environmental scientific team had recommended that 44-50% must be protected to maintain large wildlife such as grizzly bears and salmon. Fortunately, some First Nations came forward with land use plans that met these scientists’ recommendations on their traditional territory. Overall, today the Great Bear Rainforest now has 32% protected.
Well, we also have grizzly bears and salmon, as well as the endangered mountain caribou in the Inland Rainforest Region. A Conservation Area Design by the Craighead Environmental Research Institute has also recommended that 50% of the region must be fully protected to save our large wildlife and salmon. But today, only 16% of the land base is protected. Worse, only a very small percentage of that is low- or mid-elevation forest.
As you know, two-thirds of the Great Bear Rainforest were left open to logging, but at least most of that forest is still there for future protection. In the Inland Rainforest, that is not so. The Inland Rainforest Region has been logged at the rate of 47,679 hectares a year for over 40 years. Only about 20% of the region has intact old-growth forest left, and most of that is high elevation or on steep slopes unusable for wildlife.
Today, vast river valleys such as the Duncan, the Adams, and two-thirds of the Incomappleux have been stripped-mined of their old-growth forest at the lower elevations. Grizzly bears that have homes in the alpine come down to the river valleys twice a year for the first green of spring and autumn fish run. They are hunted while they are trying to get their autumn fish to fatten up for hibernation. They have increasingly little cover to protect them from hunters and poachers. Recently in our area, a poacher just wantonly shot a female grizzly as it was fishing and left it to rot.
A whole ecosystem type composed of lower-elevation, old-growth Interior Cedar-Hemlock forest on slopes gentle enough to grow big trees and support wildlife, is being wiped out, and this process is frighteningly close to completion in the southern part of the Inland Rainforest Region. Colleen spent the last nine years of her life networking and fund-raising to bring together maps, scientific studies, and field surveys to help locate the old-growth forest that’s left after all those years of logging. This included botanical surveys in the upper Incomappleux and other areas.
It is true that the Incomappleux is a priceless, living museum of the primeval inland rainforest. The botanical surveys commissioned by VWS have yielded spectacular results: many rare plants, mushrooms and lichens not previously known to have lived in these forests, as well as 9 species new-to-science, with many more expected to be found. But its great significance to conservation is not only within its own borders, but also in its ability to show us what we are losing in other old-growth cedar-hemlock forests that are slated for logging. They may not be as glamorous, as old; they may not harbour trees as large, or have half as many lichen species. But the fact is, we don’t know what they have. And the Conservation Data Center lists about 200 species at risk in Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests, and that doesn’t count all the species not previously known to have lived here, or to even exist, until the last few years. Research in the Incomappleux has helped to revise fundamental scientific understandings about biodiversity in our Interior Cedar-Hemlock forests. Research commissioned by VWS well north of the Incomappleux is now confirming but continuing to expand these new understandings.
At VWS, we were really pained to see our hard-earned botanical research used to support a campaign approach that would apparently protect only the upper Incomappleux. The Incomappleux is not just something in itself, it is representative of something much larger than itself. The sheer visual spectacle of that majestic forest in the Incomappleux sitting at the head of a vast plain of clearcuts, has staggering implications for other old-growth stands about to be logged. It is precisely these implications that FE’s approach is throwing away in quest of a quick fix for a glamorous but tiny area..
Only two months before she died, Colleen and other VWS directors identified a 250,000-hectare area that is the critical habitat of the Central Selkirk mountain caribou subpopulation. This year’s field trips indicate that that will have to be pared down because much more has been lost to recent forest fires and clearcuts than we had been able to see on maps. Seeing all of the proposal area on the ground has been difficult due to steep, mountainous terrain with no trails. But, as it stands now, upper Incomappleux is only 1/25 the size of our park proposal. If it seems that that would take too much away from the logging industry, just ask yourself why Pope & Talbot is on the verge of bankruptcy and trying to sell off its assets. Most of the available, high quality forest has already been logged and what remains requires longer and longer hauls to the mill.
Valhalla’s communication with The Province about the article
It was with considerable pain that VWS directors saw that this newspaper article representing the environmental issues in the Incomappleux as a standoff between Pope & Talbot and ForestEthics was enriched with the Valhalla Wilderness Society’s photographs, taken by Craig Pettitt. It is true the VWS gave The Province permission to use those photos for its article. But in doing so, we carefully communicated to the author and editor the issues raised by saving only the Incomappleux versus a broader, ecosystem approach. I personally told the author about the park proposals of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Purcell Alliance for Wilderness and the Valhalla Wilderness in that area.
I told both the author and the editor about the Declaration on the Inland Rainforest Region signed by 19 environmental groups, including almost all of the grassroots environmental groups in the Inland Rainforest Region. As you know, the Declaration calls for no more logging in old-growth forest 140 years or over throughout the region. ForestEthics came to the meetings where the agreement was worked out, but refused to sign because it did not support that particular item. (Yet over 50 scientists have signed a petition to the BC government calling for no logging of old-growth caribou forest throughout this same region. The petition also calls for the creation of fully protected, permanent parks and conservation zones.)
The Valhalla Wilderness Society and Craig Pettitt would never have released our photographs to accompany the article if we had known that no mention would be made of any of this information. VWS was denied permission to see the article before it went to print. We do not know who or what is responsible for this situation; perhaps it was ForestEthics, or perhaps it was The Province. But we notice that the article is now on your website. This is a matter of considerable upset to Valhalla directors, since it will continue to reach more and more people with a false version of what would commemorate Colleen’s passing.
Previous relations between Colleen, VWS and ForestEthics
The larger issue is whether ForestEthics should be speaking for what Colleen would want anywhere, at any time. These circumstances force us to have to say publicly that for years VWS and Colleen tried to work with ForestEthics, only to have working relations repeatedly shattered. We have often tried to look at it as a matter of different conservation methods that are incompatible.
As just one of several examples, ForestEthics works by holding private negotiations with logging companies. Colleen and VWS have always felt that the public owns the forest, and that matters related to public resources should be at all times open to the scrutiny of the public. We also believed that environmental groups making private agreements with industry and government have been ruinous to unity within the environmental movement. Anyone who has ever belonged to a labour union will appreciate that unity isn’t very well possible if different members of the union are making their own private agreements with management.
In two different instances, in the Slocan Valley and in the Great Bear Rainforest, Colleen and I put in huge amounts of time and energy to network protocol agreements between multiple environmental groups with ForestEthics, to bridge the gap of distrust caused by FE’s private negotiations. In both cases, word leaked out that FE had made private agreements with logging companies that violated these environmental group protocol agreements. The result of this was not only to squander huge amounts of time put in by VWS to network a unified front, but also to cause equally huge conflict amongst numerous groups. Of all the organizations opposing FE, I believe that the Valhalla Wilderness Society has been one of the more polite and long-suffering ones.
For instance in recent years VWS invited FE to networking sessions on conservation in the inland rainforest region. These sessions led to the Declaration calling for an end to logging old-growth forest 140 years or over. FE refused to support this and was outvoted by a substantial majority. The Declaration also calls for decisions to be made on new forest protection by transparent public process.
At a subsequent meeting, 27 groups and activists, including ForestEthics, gathered in New Denver to network on inland rainforest issues. There FE made a strong effort to get the table to modify the clause calling for no logging of old-growth, and was once again outvoted by a wide majority. A majority also said that they did not want private negotiations with industry on inland rainforest conservation matters. In fact, they directed Colleen and another person to draft a letter to ForestEthics stating that clearly. It never happened because Colleen was so busy.
Despite all this opposition on issues, when Colleen died she was certainly on speaking terms with FE. The Valhalla Wilderness Society was interested in finding whatever common ground could in our projects, but let me make clear, but as you are aware, that was simply the business dealings of parties that remained at arm’s length. The central difficulty was a fundamental incompatibility in working methods, and in the fact that our organizations differ so much in the question of “How much is enough?”
In view of the actual facts recited in this letter, we ask you to remove The Province article from your website. The Society also wishes to notify all parties responsible for The Province article that permission to use any photographs by VWS or Craig Pettitt in the future, or photos by any other person posted on our ftp site or website, is denied.
Regretfully,
Anne Sherrod
Chair
Valhalla Wilderness Society
3 comments:
viagra suppliers order viagra online viagra samples viagra pharmacy viagra online no prescription viagra price marijuana and viagra what is viagra viagra dosage viagra doseage free trial of viagra splitting viagra viagra paypal viagra sample
coloney biophysical processed gandhigram vinaigrette glamorgan laval stoked allows rankings jeopardize
lolikneri havaqatsu
geotorelxzp credit consolidation
credit card debt
Post a Comment