HURUNUI LAKES
Sir, —I cannot agree with E. B. BoydWilson’s view on the Canterbury Progress League’s project at Loch Katrine. Only a comparatively small area of beech forest remains round Loch Katrine itself, the main forest areas being on the western shores of Lake Sumner, some distance by water from the proposed resort. Where a beech forest is frequently visited, it has a better chance to regenerate, as the deer move away from the frequently-visited areas, as demonstrated in the Craigieburn Range over the last 30 years, where a number of ski clubs have been operating. The fire , risk in a high rainfall area and native beech cannot be compared with the risk of an exotic forest in a dry area such as Balmoral. The scheme may well become to Canterbury what Wanaka and Queenstown are to Otago. I hope it and the runholders concerned can come to some amicable agreement.— Yours, etc., March 7, 1956. MOUNTAINEER.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19560308.2.10.2
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27912, 8 March 1956, Page 3
Word Count
157HURUNUI LAKES Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27912, 8 March 1956, Page 3
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.