Editorial Making use of the land

It’s not likely that conflicts over land-use policy will ever be resolved. The debate about how strict regulations should be governing extraction of natural resources on public land will always be in a state of flux. On the one hand are those who want to preserve the wilderness fla vor of large tracts of land and ban forestry and mining operations; on the other hand are those who want to extract those resources and create wealth.

There are extremists on either side, and there are periods of relative calm in the debate, when one side or the other gains the upper hand. Times of greatest conflict occur when that position of control begins to change.

That is what is happening in the late 1980s. For the past two decades, control of the land-use “agenda” has been in the hands of environmental extremists. The mining companies and logging firms have been the bad guys — sometimes deservedly so, but often just for doing business the way they had been doing it for years with the support and help of governments and people in the communities in which they operated.

The pendulum is swinging again, however, and has been for the past few years. It took the resources industries a while to get their houses in order, but now they are probably as environmentally conscious — if not more so — as the most militant of environmental activists.

Environmentally conscious, however, doesn’t have to mean fanatical. It doesn’t have to mean a view of the world that regards every yard of earth moved or every spruce tree cut down as an irrevocable act of treachery against Mother Earth. What it does mean is a responsible approach to resource management with regard to how it affects other Canadians today and in the future.

Dr David Suzuki, a world-renowned Canadian scientist, has called Westmin Resources’ open pit mining operations near Buttle Lake on Vancouver Island a “scar on the face of the earth.” Although an open pit mine may not be considered beautiful, a better analogy might be to the scar left from an inoculation against the diseases of foreign debt, unemployment and poverty. Few people like to get a needle from the doctor, but the long-term benefits are undeniable. So, too, are the long-term benefits of a healthy and viable resource sector.

For people who live in the north, land-use conflicts are not an academic debate. George Lefebvre, mayor of Latchford, Ont., chairman of the Timiskaming Municipal Association and a member of the recently formed Northern Community Advocates for Resource Equity, says this: “Our goal is to increase awareness of the importance of natural resources and the industries and recreational opportunities they provide. At the same time, we will be trying to come up with a plan to ensure we still have a viable economy in the north so our children will have a future here.”

The key to proper land-use is balance. What makes achieving that balance difficult is the continuing shift in demands made by various land users. Today the pendulum is swinging away from the environmental extremists to a more reasonable approach that allows for a variety of uses. Where the pendulum comes to rest remains to be seen.