 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Forests and Northern Ontario Doug Skeates' column of 3 September made some interesting observations. Mr Skeates pondered why there are so few people living in northern Ontario. I wondered about that, too. Could it be that Mr McGuinty's "Places to Grow" Act does not impose increased population on the North? Why does the Act require a doubling of rural population in Dufferin County when towns like Atikokan and cities like North Bay are losing residents? Could we not reverse the trend? All Mr McGuinty has to do is pass another of his laws. Mr Skeates noticed that northern lumber merchants clear-cut their leased woodlands, which in turn ruins the land and delays restoration of the forests. I suggest that, when land is leased instead of owned, it is exploited as thoroughly as possible without regard for the future. Large forests in the northwestern USA are carefully nourished because the lumber companies own them and wish to maintain a renewable stock of quality lumber for the future. If ownership of woodland ensures good woodland stewardship, why does Dufferin County persist in hardening the rules for lumber harvesting on privately-owned rural properties? As it is in the long-term interest of landowners to nurture their trees and harvest them sustainably, and since landowners have been successfully doing so for well over a century, there is clearly no need for the county administration to control private woodlot management.
Both the Ontario and Dufferin County governments continue to pass laws that frustrate the work of conscientious farmers. No one can convince me that all legislation is logical. |
      |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
