Paparoa national park

Press, 2 April 1979, Page 18

Paparoa national park

Sir, — Mr Wylie, the Assistant Conservator of Forests, writes (March 29): “Reports in West Coast papers have suggested that no area in the Paparoa Range conforms to criteria used by the National Parks Authority to create national parks.” What curious phrasing. Is the forest service in the habit of relying on West Coast newspapers for its knowledge of the range? Or is it that the Forest Service realises the value and importance of the Paparoa Range, meeting al! the N.P.A. criteria, but does not like to say so. and so merely quotes hostile sources? How many people who saw the photograph of Mount Davy in “The Press” last Monday above an article suggesting that a national park would “lock up” the Coast, realise that the Mount Davy coalfield has carefully been excluded from the proposed national park, as have other coalfields and the ilmenite sands? — Yours, etc., D. J. ROUND. March 29, 1979.

Sir, — It was good to see the recent series of articles by your Greymouth reporter, Pat Taylor, on the West Coast. I have always believed that communication of all sides of issues such as the proposed Paparoa national park is an essential requirement if these issues are to be resolved. However, I was disturbed to read some •of the reasons behind the opposition of some West Coasters to the park proposal — e.g. taking more land “out of use”; the views of non-West Coasters are not relevant; and keeping options open for further traditional extractive type development (“The Press,” March 23). The reasoning behind these arguments says little for an organisation such as West Coast Futures which should be trying to involve other New Zealanders in its area and to promote a diversification of earning processes for the Coast, -rYours, etc., C. WAITE. March 30, 1979.

Sir, — The continued complaints (Pat Taylor, “The Press,” March 23-26) from certain small sections of the West Coast community that their resources are “lockedup” to a much greater extent than those of the rest of the country are neither entirely accurate nor appropriate. The West Coast has a much larger proportion of State forest than any other part of the country, granted, but the restrictions on use of State forest are fairly minimal. Most of the logging that takes place on the West Coast, or anywhere else in New Zealand takes place in State forest, and clearly there is a need for a central body to administrate our timber resources on a national scale, to ensure the wise use of a dwindling resource. And the wise use may indeed be, and often is, preservation, that is leaving the options open for future generations who will most certainly not thank present users for leaving nothing but the pickings of the feast. —Yours, etc.. ULLA PEDERSEN GRANT, Nelson. March 28, 1979. Sir, — The articles by Pat Taylor discussing the views of West Coast Futures are riddled with nonsense. The proposed Paparoa national park comprises Crown owned land and is therefore according to Futures already “locked up” (“The Press.” March 23). But the next day Futures argue that the

present control of the Paparoas is not only adequate but the best alternative. Futures then claims that natural features of the Paparoas are not endangered. Caves (e.g. Nile River Caves), beautiful natural archways and underground streams (e.g. Cave Creek). Rare kahikatea forest types and the best warm lowland forests in the north of the South Island are seriously threatened by planned logging operations. Black petrel burrows beyond the existing reserve; and endangered bird species (blue duck, yellowhead, and little spotted kiwi) need protection. These together with many excellent populations of bush birds would be best maintained in a national park. — Yours, etc., SUE CALLANDER. March 27, 1979.