More pie in the sky. First settle land claims. Then sell land. Otherwise just wait for the fireworks. Then try and find a buyer. Last time I looked there were a bunch of mills shut down. This is just more BS from the Fraser Institute who think that privatizing everything will solve all problems.

Left wing, right wing who cares...by the way the Fraser Institute does not have the Chief Forester of the Province of British Columbia on their payroll.

Yup they want the forests privatized so that the people of BC can no longer have a right to access it. I firmly oppose any idea of privatizing our forests. It would be no different than the Alcan deal where they get their foot in the door and then change their practices and it becomes defaco law because no one saw to challange them on the incrimental changes to their interpretation of the agreements.

I firmly oppose privatizing the forest for the forest company or anyone else for that matter. Its crown land and it should stay that way.

And I agree Eagleone!
Leave the damn crown lands alone!
There is enough screwed up in B.C.without these winners making up a new set of rules!
I firmly agree that the government would like nothing better than to deny us the use of our crown land!
In many cases,they already have.
This is a classic case of "trust no one and question everything", because it is not quite as simple as people like Snetsinger or the Fraser Institute would have us believe!
He may not recieve a paycheck from the Fraser Institute, but he does know what side his bread is buttered on!
He is right about one thing however...the province DOES has a long history of forest management but unfortunately,it is not all good!

Another stupid idea from those that see beauty only in piles of cash. As well these same money worshippers will come up with any bone headed scheme they can think of other than the cold, hard truth: Humanity is living on lies and false assumptions. The statements made about "managing" the land is a perfect example of telling lies based on false assumptions. The land DOES NOT NEED our constant tweaking and manipulation; it needs to be left alone! European arrogance and self love yet again. Makes me wonder... how on God's green Earth did North America manage for tens of thousands of years without those really smart white boys running around? And why has the connection still not been made that all these problems started when European greed came to this land? Uhhh... maybe the problem is the people and their views of life on Earth? Maybe the only problem the beetle is presenting is that it's getting in the way of the money worshippers? The only thing wrong in the forest folks is that us white folks still don't get it: greed is not good; greed is destruction and evil; greed causes many to see only what they want to see even if it's not true.

Leave the land alone to do what nature does and then learn to adapt to it, not the other way around. Nature will never be forced to do anything and the constant attempt to force it according to our will leads to nothing but problems. This truth is still lost on the money worshippers despite the long list of proof to the contrary, the beetle and local flooding being only two recent examples of this truth.

God help us, a stupid, arrogant species.

Who would want to buy a chunk of dead forest anyways? There are miles of dead trees out there that are past the point of being merchantable. Of course he's talking about planting trees, but I can't think of anyone that could afford to buy the land now, find a way to dispose of the dead trees, and replant in the hopes of harvesting it in 80 yrs. Maybe thats the plan.......pass those costs and responsibilities onto someone else.

"...how on God's green Earth did North America manage for tens of thousands of years without those really smart white boys running around?"

Not too bad, actually! Average human life expectancy was less than half of what it is now, something like 36 years.

One mans greed is another mans feeding his family iguess.
I have worked in forestry for over 20 years and during this entire time there have people advocating privatization. The idea that this will lead to a healthier industry is, in my opinio groundless. If i hear one more comparison to a scandinavian country i will scream! We currently have a rare and excellent system of forest tenure. The actual management may leave something to be desired but the system is the best in the world. You, me, kevin, aboriginals everyone of us in this province OWN our forest land. We can influence its management, recreate on it, just sit there and look at it if we want and it belongs to US. Try that anywhere else. This is one of those things which we, as northerners will definately miss when it is gone. No one is going to buy land that is denuded. not without harvesting benefits on crown land or massive regeneration write offs. Corporations run on profit. There is nothing wrong with that but it is foolish to think that corporations will be concerned with long term sustainability or non industrial uses.
I am no politician and i am not a MOF or Licensee employee. However, as an insider i can say with all confidence that forest management has improved by leaps and bounds over the years. The cyclical nature of the industry will not be affected by privatization. If privatization is going to help make forest companies more competitive where will the savings come from? That , to my mind is a better way to look at the question. Certainly more valid than saying 'hey, finland is doing it' so it must work somehow.

Oh as a postscript. I really think we need to investigate just how much of the pine beetle crisis is due to global warming and how much to an oversupply of mature and decadent pine forests, creating a population burst of beetle which no weather would likely have defeated. There isnt a big list of spp available for regenerating our forests. Thats a fact. Spruce, lodgepole pine, and douglas fir (with care), some hardwoods and maybe, a small icrease in the range of cedar and hemlock. Does that sound like a lot of sail adjustment room to you?

I also think the privatization idea is one to set BC up with the elites and the working class. Two classes of people; one that owns the land, and the other that works it. It goes against everything BC was built upon and values IMO.

The people that push that kind of an idea should be smoked out of their holes and removed from public policy positions.

Eagelone..go back to your basement apartment..The reality is that there are huge clearcuts that are on public lands. opening up some, not all, to fee simple title is a great start. I have driven buy the same logged land that looks like shit and will never be planted/cleanedup/farmed/whatever. If I could buy it, I think it would be good for all. The only loser is my back and bank account. There are thousands of square miles of this land. Thats the opportunity.
thats how they settled the praires in the 1900's. W
hardworking people who wanted the chance at there own land..

is that out of the box....or obvious..

Leave it all crown land? Why?

Hasn't been that great an experience so far. Nobody owns it so nobody looks after it. Everytime we have a change in left right government the land takes another hit and more people get hurt.

Sell it all to the natives, let them pay for it, not the other way round.

that article made no sense. crown land to private land will fix the problems? how. inform me.

Dow7500:- "Thats the opportunity.
thats how they settled the praires in the 1900's. W
hardworking people who wanted the chance at there own land.."

And are most of those 'hardworking people' still on THEIR own land? I've nothing against selling Crown land to anyone who'll look after it. In fact I'm all for it. With the inclusion of certain provisos.

But when we have a system that denies people the ability to do that because we elevate 'making money' above everything else, yet won't ever look at just WHO really 'makes money'?

Change what needs to be changed first. The argument over which way to best 'administer' anything, publicly or privately, (because that's really all 'ownership' entails ~ 'administration'), is completely moot so long as the primary means of 'administration' ~ money ~ is solely in the hands of an anti-social monopoly called 'Banks'.

Privatize the land,then we can sell it to China and have something else with a "Made in China" label

Dow I'm all for selling crown land for agriculture. thats not what is being discussed. The idea put forward was to sell our forest lands for forest harvesting, and that is something that takes long term 80 year cycle planning and just does not fit with private owners looking for short term profits as well as the fact that I like to have access to the back country for fishing, exploring, and all the other things we as citizens can enjoy on public forest lands. The last thing we need is more ignorant 'land owners' putting up their stupid gates blocking access to all the best most scenic places in BC's great outdoors.

If you want your children to live in Palestine then move to Palestine, but don't try to bring Palestine to BC... we don't need it and we don't want it.

All we need is a re-vamping of the forest legislation and policys to allow companies, small businesses, and up comming entrepreneurs to take advantage, manage and utilize the forests to their full potential. Lets look at the current legislation and make changes there before we look at giving away our forests. If we privatize our forests we sacrafice what makes B.C important to all of us and thats the freedom to come and go as we please in our forests.

If we start privatizing, crown land, the mills up north will never start up again, we will watch our logs leave our communities, to be processed else where. There are all ready enough whole logs being shipped, across the water. We can not let this happen, it is our land lets keep it that way.

Rich Coleman is under investigation for trying to change the tree farm license of a large forest company. He is trying to allow this company to sell a large tract of land for real estate development instead of forestry. Is this a good thing? Is it sustainable? How many jobs created? Is it in the best interest of the public? Who owns the land? Is it a sweetheart deal for the fat wallets at WFP where, coincidentally, Coleman's brother works?
So many questions, so few answers from our secretive leaders and our selective Big Media