Clear concerns
Shelburne County residents say the province should start a process of consultation before going ahead with clearcutting on Crown land.
Residents near a proposed 260-hectare area of clearcutting in Shelburne County say the province needs to do more to let property owners know when forestry operations are making such applications.
Residents between Clyde River and Middle Clyde River, about 20 kilometres west of Shelburne, also say the province shouldn’t be approving clearcutting on Crown land as much as they do.
Shelly Hipson lives about a kilometre from one of the areas to be cut, which is eight individual sites separated by about 50 metres along many of the dividing strips. The closest of the sections is a little under a kilometre east of Wagners Lake.
Hipson said no one in the area knew anything about the application until it was spotted and posted on a Facebook site on March 28, just a few days before the period for public comments ended.
“I know some people who have camps near the lake so I made the phone calls and nobody was aware,” she said. “I just find it kind of disrespectful in a way.”
She said has gone through clearcut areas before and “it’s disheartening to somebody who really cares about nature to see such destruction.”
She said people need to know when something is happening to be able to comment on it, and the province “should start the process of consultation in a way that respects the people.”
A map on the Natural Resources Department website shows areas of Crown land in the province that are proposed for harvest. But users have to scroll into fine detail on the map, and there is no actual list of the areas. There is an option on the page for someone to opt in to receive email notification of any proposed plans.
Hipson said property owners within a designated area around such sites should be notified through advertising when such work is proposed. She said that could be expanded to a notice in writing, in the same manner as municipalities notify nearby property owners of zoning or develop- ment applications.
Area residents put together a petition with 200 signatures asking the government to do a better job of consulting about harvest operations. It states that the signatories feel that “the process of consultation requires open, formal and informal communication between government, stakeholders and local residents. It is not a consultation process when government staff post a harvest on a website asking for comment that no one knows about.”
In an emailed response, spokesman Bruce Nunn said Natural Resources makes its forestry plans public on its website through the Harvest Plan Map Viewer, which has been in place since 2016.
“Anyone can view the harvest plans in detail by visiting this site, and they are also invited to sign up to receive emails when new harvests are being proposed,” he wrote.
He said a link to the viewer is on the department’s homepage, and that the map viewer replaced Pdf-based harvest operation maps.
As for the proposal for a clearcut operation, Nunn wrote that the harvest method on Crown land “is determined through an ecosystem assessment that relies on forest ecosystem classification and pretreatment assessments and the department’s forest management guides.”
He said clearcut harvests are an “appropriate method to be used in many situations.”