The representative introduced the meeting by presenting the main issues. These issues were water, habitat and trail issues, as well as the way the area would be logged and cleaned up. The underline of all answers was “We cannot have zero impact, but we can try to limit it”.
One of the concerns raised by the locals was the impact on the visual aspect of the area, knowing that this is a heavy recreational corridor. Government and company rules were mentioned, but no action was to be taken for this specific area.
Another issue which rose was the noise that would result from the logging; the company said they would try to schedule the logging to minimize impact.
As other questions were raised, such as “When was the current stewardship plan put in place? Will logging in this area, especially above houses, increase the risk of slides of debris and snow?” tension built. The representative answered calmly and peacefully, trying to soothe people’s concerns as much as possible. It was clear that these answers were well polished, wisely avoiding making any promises or reaching any agreement. But, eventually, it seemed that his eloquent talking did calm people’s worries, as most of the people left happy that they had been heard.
When it comes to logging, the issue is to find a balance between logging, environmental concerns and societal values. It takes hard work from all involved.