I have to say I was disappointed to hear the tone of the article concerning our biosphere, Biosphere’s Future in a Fog (The News, July 21).
We are going to try to generate research which will get discussion as to what’s worth saving.”
I realize that most of the region has already been destroyed by logging activities, so that to experience a true climax ecosystem you have to go to the few areas way up the mountain that haven’t been logged if you can find them.
But to say the goal is to determine “what’s worth saving” doesn’t sound like a mandate worthy of support.
Shouldn’t the point be to hope for the reserve to return to its natural condition, by ceasing detrimental human activities including logging so that we protect our water systems and might learn to appreciate good stewardship?
Isn’t the point to save all that’s left so that there’s a semblance of the ecosystem left for our children to appreciate?
Our fathers have already harvested all the big trees, so we can only hope that by the time our children have grown that the forests might be healthy again.
In my humble opinion, an activist attitude is likely necessary, even if it is a little disturbing to the entrenched attitudes that assume the land is there for human exploitation.
I wonder what interest the members who resigned had in the biosphere, if it wasn’t to actively work to protect it from further exploitation?
Does this group not have a mandate to promote preservation of the biosphere? For this group to fracture because of a couple of overzealous ‘activist’-type members sounds fishy.
C. Pahl
Parksville
