The writing is on the wall:

ARTICLES:
1. North Central Land Use Draft Plan Submission (March 17, 2006) by Cliff Speer [READ MORE]
2. The Churchill River: Problems in Paradise by Alan Appleby [READ MORE]
3. Northern Wilderness at Risk: A Wake-up Call For All Canoeists by Dave Bober [READ MORE]
4. Healthy Forests are Good for Canoeists Too by Cliff Speer [READ MORE]
5. North Central Regional Planning Board Update (NOV 2001) by Dave Bober [READ MORE]

Government Releases its North Central Plan to the Public - 2006

In January 2006, Saskatchewan Environment released its draft land use plan for public feedback. The document pays lip service to a lot of ecological platitudes, but has little substance. Of more important note to canoeists is the glaring lack of meaningful protection for the Churchill River and its major tributaries. The north central region takes in La Ronge and the better part of the most popular canoeing area of the Churchill watershed. The majority of the planning area has been zoned for intensive industrial development (logging & mining). The following is the CanoeSki response to the draft document:

North Central Land Use Draft Plan Submission March 17, 2006

Draft Plan Critique
This submission is a cursory critique of some aspects of the draft plan. It is not an analysis of the good and bad to produce a balanced assessment of its merit or lack thereof. That would be difficult because a lot of information needed for such an analysis is missing, and much of the remainder consists of "motherhood" statements on environmental matters. But the draft document does raise questions, leads one to read between the lines, and look for answers to fill in the gaps.

Overall Impression of the Plan
I have read over the entire draft plan and my immediate impression of this document is that it is more a statement of principles than a planning document. It frequently uses terms such as "encourage" and "promote" in reference to principles of environmental responsibility. I did not find much in the draft to indicate how these lofty principles would work in actual practice.

The draft plan contains repeated acknowledgements of the importance of an ecosystem based approach to land use planning. This principle is stated and re-stated in various ways at many points in the document. This is good. However, I am unable to find much "meat" in the document that I could sink my teeth into to get a good taste of what this ecosystem based model is all about and how it really applies to the issues that the document raises. This may point to a deficiency in the way the information was presented or it may point to an actual deficiency in the plan. At the very least, the document should have provided a few detailed examples of how the ecosystem based model would be applied to specific planning issues and the working scenarios that the plan developers would envision occurring as the model was applied. The draft states that it does not address on-the-ground "operational" issues. To me, this sounds like an excuse to avoid making commitments or being held accountable for specific actions.

Overall, I was left with more questions than answers about what real difference this plan will make to the way "business" is to be conducted on northern lands in the future. For example, the recent tragic death of a geophysical survey crew member by a wolf attack at Points North has revealed the disruption of the ecosystem by improperly operated garbage dumps in the area. Apparently, regulations already exist for the design and operation of such remote dump sites, including those near mine sites in the north central region, but operators and regulators are ignoring them. This seems to qualify as a land use issue. How would the new plan solve such an ecosystem problem? Would it simply "promote" the existing guidelines and "encourage" the offending parties to comply and then allow the status quo to continue?

Language of the Plan
Generally the language used in the plan is of the "bureaucratic style", i.e., it consists of politically correct terminology, lots of "waffle words" and vague, non-committal verbiage. There are countless references, especially in the strategy statements, to "encourage, support, promote and develop" various outcomes. This wishy-washy language is problematic for the critical reader trying to grapple with concrete reality, a reality which by and large is lacking in this plan. I expect a plan to be a blueprint for concrete action and on this score the plan falls short.

Forest Management Agreement
The draft document indicates several times that a land use plan is required in order to move forward with a forest management agreement for the La Ronge Band. The question arises about the seemingly single-minded focus and apparent urgency for an FMA in the north central region at this time. The forest industry is on the skids; international markets for forest products are dwindling; the soft wood lumber dispute with the U.S. is continuing to drag on interminably; pulp mills are shutting down country wide; Weyerhaeuser is dumping its pulp mill in P.A.; the Meadow Lake Mill is in receivership (with an $800,000 loss to provincial taxpayers) and even Mr. Zelensky, the La Ronge Band's logging partner, was on the news recently announcing likely layoffs on account of world market conditions. With all this in the wings, why would anyone want to rev up this industry in a region with such marginal forest resources as the north central region represents.

There are several references in the draft about gaps in information needed for the plan. Why not take the time during the planning phase and put resources into hiring the necessary experts, elders and scientists, etc., to do the surveys and gather the missing information so that everyone at the planning table would be properly equipped to design a comprehensive plan? Apparently, this lack of adequate baseline information for decision making was a major stumbling block for a significant number of the Regional Advisory Board members and eventually resulted in a subgroup forming to gather some of the missing information when the government ignored their concerns.

Tourism in Northern Saskatchewan
With the forest industry in decline worldwide, it would seem to make sense for a land use plan to focus on sustainable development with more promising economic options. One of those options would obviously be tourism. The natural tourism resources in the north central region are one of its most valuable assets and likely are the envy of many other regions of the world.

With that in mind, where does one begin looking for the topic of tourism in the draft plan? It's not in the Table of Contents. I vaguely recall reading something about tourism briefly somewhere in the document, but I wouldn't be able to pinpoint where it was. It really ought to be front and centre in such a plan. Furthermore, non-traditional forms of tourism should be explored in depth for their economic potential in the region.

Saskatchewan has long had a tradition of catering to hunting and fishing tourists. Even the late Johnny Cash used to visit Red's Camps and American dollars have kept northern camps thriving for years. But the greater potential for non-consumptive tourism has scarcely been tapped in the north, or in the south, for that matter. It seems that over the years, the government has mistakenly assumed that tourism in general will generate buyers magically without major marketing investment. Perhaps this helps to explain the almost non-existent profile of tourism in this plan.

Real investment in northern tourism would have long term sustainable economic returns, but will take a lot more work and "strategic" planning than cutting down a few trees or opening another mine. And it will require a land use plan that guarantees that the requisite natural resources for this kind of economic development have not been contaminated or decimated by industrial development. I am not convinced that this plan will provide that guarantee.

Land Use Planning Process
The draft refers to problems encountered at the Regional Advisory Board meetings that finally resulted in the meetings being disbanded and the forming of a subgroup, Uskiy Puhco which carried on conducting its own research via the Silva Forest Foundation. It claims that the group's 273 page report was incorporated into the draft plan. According to the group members, their 4 years of research into ecosystem based land management was never discussed at a RAB meeting and was essentially ignored in the government's draft plan.

The document also mentions that the Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society produced a high values conservation analysis for the planning area and that Uskiy Puhco investigated key land use issues in relation to sustainable economic development. So, what became of all that effort? The document doesn't say. The answer from the groups involved is that their work was again ignored. From their point of view, in the end, the much touted consultative and collaborative process turned into a disappointing charade, with the government moving forward with drafting its plan in keeping with its pro-industry agenda.

There are a number of problems with how this planning process was conducted, not the least of which is the lack of respect that government has for people who have dedicated their time and resources to contribute to a project that they feel is important. To solicit public involvement and then reward those volunteers with a slap in the face for their contributions is the height of ingratitude and disrespect.

The Churchill River
My primary area of interest and activity is wilderness canoeing and ecotourism. I see the Churchill River as one of Saskatchewan's premiere natural assets. Firstly, I am disappointed to see virtually no recognition of canoeing in this plan as a major recreational and tourism activity in the north central region. This in spite of the fact that the Saskatchewan Canoe Association was represented at the table by Dave Bober, an active and dedicated participant on the Regional Advisory Board. Secondly, I am even more disappointed that the draft plan does not provide adequate protection for a major corridor encompassing the Churchill River and its major tributaries. This spectacular waterway qualifies as a world class heritage river, not only for its tourism and recreational potential, but perhaps more importantly for its human heritage value and deep rooted connection to northern Aboriginal culture. It deserves far more protection than this plan affords.

This raises the question of how the "tri-fold zoning typology" was applied to the region. In spite of the fact that RAB members provided plenty of well researched material to guide the selection of management zones, it appears that the government's pro-industrial development agenda provided the rationale for how the 3 different zones would be applied to the landscape. Given that the plan is supposed to be based on ecosystem considerations, one wonders how it could come up with 56 % of the area open to intensive industrial development and only 11 % designated as fully protected? Should it not be the reverse? The third zone designated as Sensitive at 31 % allows industrial development with more stringent environmental screening. This sounds like a pretty slippery slope in terms of guaranteeing ecosystem integrity in this zone. Unfortunately, it comprises 1/3 of the planning area and includes the Churchill River. This leaves the Churchill River vulnerable to logging and mining, if the proponents of such developments jump through the environmental hoops and are influential enough to convince the government that their project is benign. Given the government's pro-industrial stance, this should not be too difficult. All this does not bode well for the future of the Churchill River.

The Churchill River poses the question of how a large landscape feature worthy of protection should be handled from a planning perspective. It crosses several planning regions, each developing its own land use plan to include their portion of the river. This is a very unsatisfactory piecemeal approach to a natural feature which transcends arbitrary planning boundaries and requires a "global" approach to protection. These plans are described as integrated forest land use plans, but the disjointed approach that is being applied to the Churchill River across northern Saskatchewan indicates that the river is being disintegrated from a planning perspective.

Conclusion
The draft plan is a disappointment. It espouses many ecological platitudes and redundant statements of principle, but provides little substance to back up its lofty aspirations. I suspect that much of the information contained in the 273 page research report by Uskiy Puhco and the Silva Forest Foundation could have helped provide substance to the plan to make its content consistent with its professed vision.

As it stands now, the disparity between the plan's philosophy and content is highlighted in the zoning framework for the region. We end up with a plan that ignores its own much emphasized allegiance to principles of ecosystem based management in favour of setting the stage for industrial development. This is not good for the north, the rest of the Province or the planet.


Respectfully submitted by
Cliff Speer.

When we hear about the Churchill River, most of us have a picture in our minds of wilderness. Eagles soaring on thermals. Canoes bobbing through rapids, or silently slicing across a glassy lake. The sounds of water on rocks and in waves. The blaze of sunsets and campfires. Nature at its best.

The Churchill River drains about one quarter of Saskatchewan, and is in total over 1,600 km long. Eleven of the fifteen largest lakes in Saskatchewan are part of the Churchill River system, including three of the five largest: Reindeer Lake, Wollaston Lake, and Lac La Ronge, each of which are over 400 km2 in area. It is a big river, in both length and drainage, echoing its Cree name, Missinipi, great water.

The Churchill River is also big for other reasons. It is a biological hot spot in the middle of the boreal forest with exciting biodiversity including Bald Eagle, Woodland Caribou, Wolf, River Sturgeon, and an abundance of boreal songbirds. It is a special part of our history, a major exploration and fur trade route, the homeland for First Nations from both Cree and Dene cultures, and home to both Saskatchewan's oldest building, Stanley Mission Church and a wealth of timeless pictographs on its rocky shores. Tourism and recreation includes traditional hunting, fishing and trapping, and modern adventure and eco-tourism with kayaks, canoes and hiking boots. The river is important to both northern and southern people in Saskatchewan, a homeland to many and a vacation-destination for others.

But there are threats to the integrity of this great river. The Churchill already marks the farthest north boundary of commercial timber allocations, although harvesting has not yet reached its shores in earnest. Two roads cross the Churchill's main stem, both in place to serve the mineral industry. And there is a hydroelectric dam at Island Falls near Sandy Bay, which with its companion dam at Whitesand Rapids on the Reindeer River, affects water flows and levels over a significant part of the river basin. In fact, with the dams and diversion projects downstream in Manitoba at South Indian Lake, the Churchill River is already Canada's largest water diversion project.

The essence of the Churchill River, flowing fresh water, is also the source of its largest threat. The energy of the river as it flows to the sea, combined with relatively steady flow volumes, makes the Churchill of great interest for further hydroelectric development. The quality of the water, combined with the natural interconnections that already occur with the Mackenzie basin to the north and the Saskatchewan River to the south, mean that interest will also inevitably be focussed on the Churchill as a source and conduit for northern water to meet the needs of a thirsty south.

The Island Falls hydroelectric development was undertaken at a time in the late 1920's when the Province of Saskatchewan did not yet have legal control over crown lands and resources. It was built to power the huge mineral development at Flin Flon, which it still does today. That dam was built with a large component of manual labour drawn from local communities like Sandy Bay just a few kilometres downstream. It was a time before environmental assessments, and modern labour standards, and the project left a legacy that colours consideration of any proposal for use of the Churchill.

Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation has been attempting to negotiate a settlement with SaskPower Corporation, since they took over ownership and operation of the Island Falls dam in 1981. This agreement would be similar in intent to that signed with Cumberland House in the 1980's in compensation for disruption by the E.B. Campbell dam on the Saskatchewan River. No binding agreement has ever been reached.

The legacy of dams and dam proposals does not end there. In the 1970's, when Manitoba was busy planning its massive power projects, and Quebec was flooding huge areas of the boreal forest on the other side of Hudson Bay, SaskPower put forward an ambitious scheme to dam the Churchill River again. The Wintego Dam project, as it was often called, actually involved three potential power dam sites and a complex of cofferdams that would have brought the Churchill River up to the level of Reindeer Lake, and impounded flow all the way back to Stanley Mission, almost half way across the province.



Canoeing past the church at Stanley Mission.




More CanoeSki paddlers enjoying the Churchill River.

The Churchill River Study was organized in the 1970's and collected a huge amount of information on the river and the communities along its banks. An Environmental Impact Assessment of the dam proposals was done, and an extensive set of public hearings was held, rivalling only those into uranium mine expansion. When the decision was made in 1980, the government of the day, led by Allan Blakeney, decided the project should not go ahead.

And so things drifted back to normal on the river. At least, until recently. In 1998 an integrated forest land use plan was begun in what is now called the Amisk-Atik area. The name derives from Amisk (Beaver) Lake, which lies near the south end of the planning area, and Atik (Reindeer) Lake, which lies at the northern edge. This planning area contains about a third of the length of the Churchill River, as well as the whole of the Reindeer River. The planning was being done by a Regional Advisory Board, with representatives from all the communities in the area, as well as PBCN, the mineral and forestry industries, and the Province.

During the Amisk-Atik planning process, members of the Advisory Board noticed a strange line on some of the government maps. When provincial officials were queried, they indicated that this was the "FSL" or full supply line for the Wintego Dam hydroelectric project. When more direct questions were asked, including straight to the minister of SERM and SaskPower, the response was that development of hydroelectric power was under the jurisdiction of SaskPower, and that SaskPower had requested that development be limited within the flood zone of the former projects to retain future options to proceed with the project.

This was of great concern to local people. The Wintego Dam project had been turned down, and now here it was, still alive and controlling the land and water of the river as if it had been built 20 years before. What it meant to local people was no settlement of outstanding Treaty Land Entitlements, strict limits on leases of land, and few options for other economic opportunities, including eco-tourism. The consensus recommendation passed by the Regional Advisory Board reads in part: "A future hydro project on the Churchill River should not occur." That recommendation has not been included in the draft of the plan now under review, which only says in the text, "The possible benefits of hydroelectric development in this area are not desired by people in the planning area at this time." So, even when you do achieve consensus in these processes, the government takes the liberty of ignoring the recommendation!

The government is supporting the continued threat of the Wintego Dam project, which was turned down by a massive show of public disapproval two decades ago. It is proposing to adopt zoning for the FSL area that would limit development, and thus SaskPower's liability for compensation. It is doing this in the face of continuing public insistence that the project is not wanted. What will it take to kill this project and return the river to the people?

But of course, there's more. Wollaston Lake, at 2,681 km2, is the largest lake in the world to drain naturally in two directions, north into the Mackenzie River basin and south into the Churchill. The Churchill also overflows naturally into the Sturgeon Weir/ Saskatchewan River in high water years. This makes the basin exceptionally vulnerable to inter-basin transfer plans as fresh water becomes ever more valuable to world economies.

The Wintego project includes a huge cofferdam to stop water flowing south from Frog Portage, but of course, as is done at Lake Diefenbaker, such a dam could also be used to intentionally divert water south. Once in the Saskatchewan River drainage, Churchill River water, including a component from the Mackenzie basin, would flow to Lake Winnipeg, and from there the Red River valley runs south the last 100 km into the United States of America, where connections to the Missouri/ Mississippi are already underway. Could the Missinipi become a tributary of the Mississippi? Or is this just a crazy idea? The massive diversions in Manitoba and Quebec would have been called crazy ideas a half century ago.

The Churchill is a river at the edge. It lies at and defines the edge of wilderness in Saskatchewan's boreal forest, but it also more and more lies at the edge of development. The river has been much altered, but retains much of its natural, historic and recreational value. It is a line in the face of Mother Earth that gives us both the need and the chance to make a stand for the protection of wilderness and natural environments in the boreal forest.. Action is required now to develop a strategy for the protection of the Churchill River and its immense northern watershed. It is a natural line of defence for the boreal forest beyond, but we have limited time to secure its natural, historic and scenic wonders.

Reprinted with permission from the Saskatchewan Environmental Society Newsletter, March/April 2001

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Sask. Chapter) -
Contact: Colleen Rickard, Executive Director
Tel: (306) 955-6197 Email: info@cpaws-sask.org

Saskatchewan Environmental Society
Contact: Allyson Brady, Executive Director
Tel: (306) 665-1915 Email: saskenv@link.ca

An ill wind is blowing in Northern Saskatchewan as the Provincial Government attempts to double the annual timber harvest in Saskatchewan.

Much of our Province between 54 and 57 degrees latitude will be subjected to large-scale logging. The Provincial Government (SERM) has recently approved Weyerhaeuser's 20-year Forest Management Plan that jeopardizes the long-term health of the forest in exchange for short-term economic benefits. Other, smaller timber companies are aligning themselves with northern communities, as the push for timber moves into the Precambrian Shield.

At the present time (April 2001), the Provincial Government and Integrated Forest Land Use Planning Committees are putting the finishing touches on their Land Use Policy Draft for the AMISK-ATIK AREA in the East, while the NORTH CENTRAL AREA and the LITTLE DIPPER AREA (west side of SK) are beginning the public consultation process. I would encourage Northern residents and others with vested interests in healthy forests to voice their concern on a number of issues including: traditional native uses; forestry; mining; fishing and wildlife; forest fire protection; wild rice production; cabin development; road construction; hydro-power generation and dams; and recreation and tourism.

Preliminary policy drafts can develop into massive volumes of data, but unless people are knowledgeable as to what is at risk, such planning documents can be used as a smoke screen for Government and Industry to push their agenda while providing an illusion of control to local residents. Official governmental policy, once enacted, will have far reaching effects and will be very difficult to alter. All Saskatchewan people and concerned outsiders who have an interest in wilderness preservation need to speak up now - we can still influence government to make better choices for our environment.

Northern residents are being bribed with unrealistic promises of economic growth and employment opportunities. In reality, the logging industry offers relatively few jobs with the new high tech timber harvesting machinery. Healthy economic diversification for the North should be encouraged by governmental incentives that promote the wise use of resources such as ecotourism; fishing lodges; commercial fishing; wild rice harvesting; wild plant gathering and native crafts. Selective logging for local use may be acceptable, but large-scale logging in the shield, for which an impartial environmental assessment has never been conducted, will certainly impact the above industries in many negative ways. Lands south of the Shield that are presently logged must be managed more intensely with better methods of reforestation, and fast growing hybrid poplar and softwoods should be developed.

The Government track record on reforestation is a dismal one (just look at Simpson Timber's past performance in the Hudson Bay area). What assurance do we have that the future will be any better, especially in the rugged shield country, where climate is severe and tree growth extremely slow.

Water quality and access are key issues in forestry as they directly affect the survival of boreal species. And we must not overlook the implications of global warming that we are only beginning to understand. Without a doubt, the unsound practice of clear-cutting will adversely affect the lakes and streams and all life found in fragile riparian areas. Silting and undesirable run-off from steep granite slopes or sand ridges, characteristic of the Shield, will be a threat for years to come.

Proposed buffer zones along watercourses are marginal at best, and will be difficult to monitor. And some rivers have no proposed buffers at all, including the Pagato, Wapiskau, Grassberry, and upper Deschambault rivers in the AMISK-ATIK planning zone. A decent buffer of at least one kilometre is necessary to provide a sponge effect for run-off and a reduction in wind blow-downs (trees) once clear-cutting is completed above the watercourse. The devastating results of extensive clear-cutting are readily evident in the Pasquia and Porcupine Hills where tiny creeks have gouged out deep ravines after heavy summer rains. The sponge effect of the forest has been lost resulting in extensive erosion and repeated bridge wash outs.

Logging industry promises of respecting water bodies do not carry much sincerity, as we have learned in the past. Once the timber has been cut, recreational users with four-wheel drive trucks and ATVs move in, and it is impossible to keep them out even if the logging roads and trails are officially "retired". This increased access will result in poaching, man-made fires, pollution, and a decline in fish stocks - none of which can be monitored adequately by SERM.

The public should not forget that Sask Power's agenda for expansion still includes hydro- electric development on the Churchill and other rivers. Of all rivers in Canada, the Churchill and Sturgeon-Weir are certainly worthy of Heritage River Status.

Governmental apathy for the environment is evident in the new minimum levels of protection for "Riparian Areas" as stated in Weyerhaeuser's 20-year Forest Management Plan (appendix B). Timber can be harvested to within ten meters of the river, stream, or lake! As such, the "Riparian Area Management Objectives" as stated in appendix A of the Plan are a sham - the biggest trees grow near the water and the name of the game is "DOLLARS". Riparian Areas are the seedbed of life, both in abundance of species and diversity of species. Saskatchewan residents must mobilize themselves against the abuse of our Riparian Areas and this letter is a plea to concerned citizens to voice their opinions before it is too late.

Several years ago while canoeing the Overflowing River (northeast of Hudson Bay, SK), we came across blatant abuse that was shocking: huge white spruce had been cut right down to the rivers edge - every tree for several miles had been poached! This occurred in Manitoba, just east of the Saskatchewan border and was a sight to make your eyes sore. Canoeists - wake up to reality - wilderness rivers, streams, and lakes will be denuded and your favorite campsites and portages obliterated. The long-term devastation of large-scale logging in the Shield goes far beyond cosmetic damage - it will alter the ecosystem and threaten the biodiversity of species.

The greatest resources in the North are WATER and FOREST - old growth forest and the clean water found in the pristine lakes and streams are unique treasures that cannot be replaced once lost to greed and mismanagement. Few places on earth have what we still have in Northern Saskatchewan. We can no longer take our quality wilderness for granted - some kind of protection must be mandated soon to keep it safe for its own sake and for all people and for future generations.

Please consider writing a letter (even a brief one will help) and expressing your concerns to the politicians and government personnel listed below. Also, consider joining environmental agencies such as:

Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society
Tel: 306-955-6197 Email: info@cpaws-sask.org

The Saskatchewan Environmental Society
Tel: 306-665-1915 Email: saskenv@link.ca

Healthy Forests
are Good
for Canoeists Too

There has probably never been a more
critical time for people to become
involved in forest issues,
especially canoeists, than now.

Clear-cutting and other irresponsible forestry practices have been part of the Saskatchewan logging scene for years, but the magnitude of harvesting being planned not only for existing forest lease areas, but worse, for virgin shield timberlands is mind boggling. What canoeists once dreamily considered as pristine wilderness along most northern waterways now faces the prospect of being turned into a clear-cut moonscape!

In the fall of 2000, the Provincial Government requested public input on their review of Weyerhaeuser's 20-year Forest Management Plan. The following excerpts are from a submission I made to Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management's environmental assessment branch in late October regarding the government's forest management strategy and specific concerns about the Weyerhaeuser Plan:

My primary concern is the approach to forestry that the Province is pursuing. The announcement in the spring of 1999 by Government that the forest industry would be doubled in the next few years is distressing. The fact that this move was made without environmental assessments of the impacts on our provincial forest resources or indeed, any consultation with the Saskatchewan public is cause for alarm. The fact that the Government's own appointed Forest Advisory Council was not informed of this decision is indicative of the arrogance and disrespect that seems to have infected the political and administrative machinery in charge of our forest resources. With few exceptions, the game appears to be the Government in cahoots with the forest industry making indefensible decisions about the fate of our forests with far-reaching and potentially devastating ramifications on forest health, and ultimately on our own health and well-being.

"What I would like to see instead is a change in attitude and direction on matters related to forest management in the province."

I would like to see the health of the forest, not short-term economic and political gain, as the foremost priority to guide all forest management policies. In that context, I would expect meaningful consultation to occur, in particular with those groups and individuals whose primary interest is healthy forests. This unfortunately, is now absent. The consultation processes that have been established to date on forestry issues have been serving the Government's purpose of pretending to listen to public concerns while continuing to pursue policies and practices that have already been set in motion. The Titanic SK is heading for the tip of the iceberg, barely visible in the politically induced fog, and the Government crew is striking up the band with a co-management tune and shuffling the deck chairs in order to distract the unsuspecting taxpayers from their ultimate doom. What they should be doing is taking the ship's helm and correcting its course to avoid decimation of our natural heritage.

1. A lack of a comprehensive inventory of all the elements
of the forest ecosystem affected by industrial logging.
2. Unrealistic predictions of forest regeneration. Logging practices in Saskatchewan have historically resulted in not sufficiently restocked
forests according to a very credible report published by the GlobalForest Watch Institute.
3. Inadequate protected areas within Weyerhaeuser's
3.16 million-hectare forest lease.
4. No allowance for global warming.
5. Old growth and riparian areas, both critical for maintenance
of biodiversity, are now targeted for harvesting to meet
government's "use it or lose it" dictums.
6. No allocation of forest resources to alternative land uses
within the lease area. Co-management and land use planning
committees are structured to stymie non-logging interests.
7. Demands by international building product retailers for
eco-forestry and lumber certification have not been considered.
8. Independent expert analysts have found the plan to be flawed.
9. Credible environmental organizations have condemned
the plan as unsustainable.

Since April 2001, I have attended four meetings of the North Central Planning Board at La Ronge. Our 25-member board has thus far established objectives, a goal statement, and ground rules for upcoming debates. The board has a strong environmental component and hopefully, we will be able to influence government and industry to proceed with development in a responsible and sustainable manner.

Of grave concern to me is the preservation of our wilderness canoe routes and I will push for the protection of riparian areas. The threats of hydro and forestry are very real, especially with the recent government announcement of massive forestry expansion in northern regions. The effects of large scale clear-cutting on the fragile Precambrian Shield are unknown, but will certainly impact the Churchill River Basin in many negative ways. The general public needs to be informed and has a right to know what is being proposed.

My involvement on the planning board may last several years and I may call on Saskatchewan canoeists for information and advice. At a later date, the North Central Board will be asking for public comment, and I will encourage fellow paddlers to submit letters of concern to the proper government people. Wilderness-minded paddlers should also get involved and stay informed by joining environmental groups such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) and the Saskatchewan Environmental Society (S.E.S.). If any of you have a particular concern, please do not hesitate to contact me. The S.C.A. Recreation Director, Heidi Seida, will also have some North Central Planning Board material on file for those interested.

Submitted by:

Dave Bober
Box 541
Hudson Bay, SK. S0E0Y0
1-306-865-3680
Email: theboberfarm@hotmail.com