Critics jump on ‘Lands for Life’ report

The results were long anticipated but critics were quick to voice their opinions on the “Lands for Life” consolidated report released last Friday.
It wasn’t so much what was there that had some disturbed. It’s what wasn’t there.
While he vocally opposed the final draft report being sent away without the Boreal West round table members seeing it, OFAH rep Jack Hedman felt the consolidated report–which he received last Thursday–was a good concerted effort to come up with a synopsis of the three draft reports.
“The problem that I’m beginning to see in there is a lot of the recommendations that came out of the Boreal West draft report . . . were missing,” Hedman said Monday, including some 40 recommendations concerning angling and hunting.
“I’m quite concerned with that,” he stressed, adding he planned to take the issue to local OFAH members for feedback.
“We were looking for the economic impact analysis,” Kenora MPP Frank Miclash (Lib.) said yesterday. “Northerners were certainly looking for that.”
But with all the minority reports submitted, Miclash said there obviously remained a problem with the whole process. And he’s worried people won’t take the time to wade through the report and give feedback before the 30-day deadline expires Nov. 30.
The consolidated report contains more than 240 recommendations, with the Boreal West, Boreal East, and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence drafts available for $35.95, along with the minority reports.
Both environmental and forestry groups spoke out against the consolidated report, charging it fell short of its goals.
“The goal of creating security for the forestry industry has not been realized,” argued Marie Rauter, president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, adding the forest industry lost land available for harvest.
Meanwhile, environmental groups were irked by just a 1.6 percent increase in protected areas over the current six percent.
“These results from the ‘Lands for Life’ process are a slap in the face for all of the people of Ontario who participated in the process on behalf of wilderness protection,” said Lea Anne Mallett, campaign director for Earthroots.
“These opinions do not reflect what the round tables heard but in fact just confirm the industry bias of the round table,” she charged.
But Natural Resources minister John Snobelen defended the report, noting they were working to arrive at a consensus that was best for Ontario.
While the province is awaiting further public input until the end of November, he believed the consolidated report reflected what the public said.
“There are some people who have criticized the round table structure,” Snobelen noted Monday, but he felt most were glad to have been asked what they thought.
But Miclash wasn’t convinced the government was proud of the report, noting it was released very quietly without a lot of hoopla.
“Obviously, this government is concerned about this report,” he concluded.