Re: the letter Mine opposition creates party confusion.
The letter writer suggests that Charlie Wyse should propose some alternative project since he has come out in opposition to the Taseko mine plan.
Wyse is correct in opposing it. The last review panel stated in its report (p. 65) that “the panel agrees with the observations made by Taseko and Environment Canada that Mine Development Plans 1 and 2 would result in greater long-term environmental risk than the preferred alternative.” Yet Taseko is now proposing a mine plan based on option 2. The risk to the Taseko River system is too great.
What Wyse does need to propose is that the province stop the mining of the forests of British Columbia. The government needs to assemble a credible inventory of the existing forest resources and to begin actively to address the reality of the thousands of hectares of NSR lands in the province. The province needs to seriously begin to manage the health of the forests that have sustained the B.C. economy for decades, and can continue to do so with some care and attention. The Williams Lake Forest District has four foresters to deal with all of the issues in that vast area. Not so long ago there were 10, and that was inadequate. Other jurisdictions manage to retain a much larger team of managers.
The forests of B.C. are a sacred entity which we are entrusted to look after for our children and grandchildren. They should not be forced to say at some time “they had a wonderful resource, varied and sustainable, and they blew it through shortsightedness and greed.” The mine opposition does not create confusion; it creates alternatives.