Milling on Coast

Press, 22 December 1986, Page 24

Milling on Coast

Sir, —The competitive philosophy of Rogernomics has downgraded planning and substituted maximum self-interest for cooperation. Horse trading between •opposing factions, with the Government abdicating all responsibility, is no recipe for sound resource allocation. The Government, or its corporations, should be as accountable for the resources used up as for the dollars earned. The West Coast forest “agreement,” by emphasising nature conservation at the expense of resource conservation (wise use), has ignored this principle. There is still no one authority, or mechanism, for ensuring wise use of resources by prospective developers. The Ministry for the Environment has only a policy advisory role and no “teeth,” while the statutory environmental assessment procedures, unless they are applied before the allocation of a resource for a specific development, are akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The West Coast beech resource, allocated by Government fiat, is a case in point. — Yours, etc., ERIC BENNETT, Wellington. December 17, 1986.

Sir,—Harsh economic reality has prompted a “cry of anguish from the West Coast,” as reported on December 11. Predictably, the problems that have come to roost in our Forest Service and sawmilling sectors are blamed on conservationists from “outside the West Coast.” Their real cause of “anguish” is the Government departmental restructuring, affecting many of its employees and dependents. Dr Blakeley’s compromise allowed unabated logging of indigenous timber; yet has drawn criticism and blame for defining what£ forest is reserved from

cutting. Mr Allan’s view is that anyone disagreeing with him is not an acknowledged West Coaster; so conservationists here are few! Large numbers here genuinely support conservation, whereas numerous “logging strategy” submissions were whipped up by scaremongering and other tactics. Increasingly, Westlanders appreciate their trees for what they are, and want some of the remaining forests left. — Yours, etc., BRENDA J. DORFLIGER, Reefton. December 15, 1986.

Sir, —R. McKay and L. Winter exaggerate and also confuse two issues in their letters on West Coast forests. Conservationists can be justifiably pleased with the Blakeley package as it creates reserves, but maintains timber output through heavy cutting elsewhere. Consequently, there need be no job losses in the timber industry. Independent of this exercise is the nationwide move to improve the efficiency of the Public Service. Foresters in the Forestry Corporation argue that the commercial viability of forestry is threatened by significant over-staffing in the Forest Service. Bureaucratic and political mismanagement in the past is responsible for this situation, not the conservation movement. Mrs Winter criticises me for using my own name rather than my husband’s, a practice I abandoned some time ago. All I can say is that women who want to should assert their individual identity by rejecting the questionable custom of assuming their husbands’ names. — Yours, etc., B. J. DEVERY. Harihari, December 15, 1986. Sir, —With regard to your article, “Cry of anguish rises from the West Coast” (December 11), I ask what is new? Some members of local authorities on the Coast have become extremely skilled at producing anguished cries. In some cases this seems to be the limit of their ability, which is unfortunate considering the region’s need for imaginative leadership, and that it produces so many talented people. The article, and those quoted in it, have been highly selective in the facts they have chosen to present. For instance, no mention is made of exotic forest, either with regard to production forest available to the region, or that the Blakely compromise has allowed timber mills to remain operating, until sufficient exotics become available to sustain them. It is perverse to demand that the people of New Zealand sacrifice a representative reserves system in the interest of sustained-yield, indigenous logging when the lack of timber available for that purpose is the result of decades of wasteful exploitation. The responsibility for the present situation lies with those who formulated the policies and practices of the regional timber industry. — Yours, etc., BRYAN HORNE. December 16, 1986. Sir,—Regarding “Cry of anguish rises from the West Coast.” (December 11), does Mr Allan think that if he ignores us, we thinking members of West Coast communities do not exist? As a fifth-generation West Coaster and conservationist with principles probably more extreme than Kevin Smith’s and Gerry McSweeney’s, I am most annoyed to find that ridiculous statements such as those made by Mr Allan find press coverage at all. A person who can make a statement as wide sweeping as “all the pressure came from outside the West Coast” clearly illustrates himself as another unthinking sensationalist. It is time the rest of New Zealand realised that there is a strong West Coast movement, and

many elderly West Coasters support this. These people appreciate and enjoy their chosen surroundings instead of destroying them. When adding up the figures, Mr Allan should not forget that less than 20 per cent of West Coasters still live here. The rest, by necessity, live elsewhere in New Zealand. — Yours, etc.,

DAVID HAWES, Reefton. December 16, 1986.