Preservationists’ report has little to say on multiple use

Recently, I came into possession of a typed copy of a tape taken of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, “Report of the Anglo- North American mapping group, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 23, 1990.” The area of concern includes the U.S., Canada, Greenland and Mexico. This group has been involved in mapping and identifying “what’s left” of North America’s wilderness (the roadless areas). The exercise has already been largely carried out in the U.S., and the Canadian government will be pressed to do the same. The group maintains that wilderness areas (no mineral exploration and mining, for example) must be adequate in size and quality to encompass spiritual and cultural values not just biological and ecological ones. These areas, they feel, must be large enough to accommodate certain indicator species.

Park designations are to be avoided as parks attract tourists, resulting in more pressures on the land and can alienate lands from natives. Efforts are to be made to work through land claim settlements as a way of conserving wilderness.

Although a great number of “hot spots” had been identified, 12 were prioritized. West coast “hot spots” mentioned included the Porcupine Caribou Herd, Tatshenshini, the whole west coast temperate rain forest (for example, Stikine River, Khutzymateen and Clayoquot Sound), the California desert and the Baja Peninsula.

The preservationists’ strategy is twofold. First, to identify wilderness areas and second, to defend them. The defence is guided by a principle of no compromise. “Let government fashion the middle ground. It is not our role to be reasonable. We are here to defend wilderness, and not to go for half a loaf.”

In addition, preservationists were urged to be mindful of what’s happening adjacent to wilderness areas because of possible adverse downstream effects. Efforts, particularly in California, are also being made to restore or protect existing areas either by expanding or withdrawing human impacts.

Of particular concern to all fair-minded Canadians is the extreme end of a thrust which had unanimous agreement: to be tolerant of a range of tactics and to see strength in diversity. As one participant said, you can have a finger or you can have a fist. But if it works, go for it. “And, if we just hang together, there is room for everyone here from Prince Phillip to somebody putting sand in the gas tank of a D-9 bulldozer.”

“And, if we just hang together, there is room for everyone here from Prince Phillip to somebody putting sand in the gas tank of a D-9 bulldozer.”

More of an international focus was advocated. The goal is to create in Canada a number of protected areas that would be Canada’s contribution to the international job of preserving biological diversity.

The Wise Use or Share Movement was identified as a particular threat to the preservationists’ goals. They view it as a disguised effort to introduce industrial activity into protected areas as well as unprotected areas of interest. The movement’s appeal to most people, because of its fairness and reasonableness, was viewed as most threatening, and tactics to counteract this movement were discussed.

In summary, the report indicated, as expected, continuing efforts by preservationists to alienate large areas of Canada from mineral exploration and other industrial activities. This they hope to do by continuing to bring about international pressure and where possible, mesh with native land claims. Unfortunately, co-operation, if it means compromise, is not the order of the day. A major disappointment was the “end- justifies-the-means” attitude incorporated in the report.006 Jack Patterson is the managing director of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines.