BCWF calls for more oversight .................

[Opinionated Ol Phart]

http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion+...587/story.html

[hillman]

This is a good idea. I support the BCWF's push to expand the mandate of the Forest Practices Board.

The government has legislated professional associations to push their concept of "professional reliance" as a means to speed up approvals. These so-called professional associations now look and act more like government agencies. These "professional reliance" ideas have nothing to do with protecting the public's interest.

[Prophet]

Professional reliance is a foundational piece of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Mt Polley mine disaster has zero to do with FRPA, the Forest Practices Board or PR. BCWF should find a new whipping boy, PR is far from perfect but conceptually and practically, it makes a lot of sense.

The concept of a Resource Practices Board is not a new one, it has some attractive features in that it would finally elevate all other resource sectors to equal footing with forestry when it comes to government oversight and accountability to meeting the public interest.

[Brno22F]

Professional reliance is a foundational piece of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Mt Polley mine disaster has zero to do with FRPA, the Forest Practices Board or PR. BCWF should find a new whipping boy, PR is far from perfect but conceptually and practically, it makes a lot of sense.

The concept of a Resource Practices Board is not a new one, it has some attractive features in that it would finally elevate all other resource sectors to equal footing with forestry when it comes to government oversight and accountability to meeting the public interest.

Well said Prophet. I have been proud to sign RPF behind my name for over 30 years as a Forester both here in BC and in Alberta. Professional Reliance was a concept that truly needed to be implemented in the Forest Industry.

[Angus]

Professional reliance is a foundational piece of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Mt Polley mine disaster has zero to do with FRPA, the Forest Practices Board or PR. BCWF should find a new whipping boy, PR is far from perfect but conceptually and practically, it makes a lot of sense.

The concept of a Resource Practices Board is not a new one, it has some attractive features in that it would finally elevate all other resource sectors to equal footing with forestry when it comes to government oversight and accountability to meeting the public interest.

How friggin dense are you?

There is no point in that article where BCWF says anything derogatory about the FRPA, FBP or PR. They merely suggest that it would be beneficial to set up a similar organization that would oversee resource extraction. Nothing more.

Take a couple minutes and try to re-read the article, this time without moving your lips.

[J_T]

"Grave" Concerns? I wonder how many people in the business of mining and forestry (a life on the land) are hunters, and might take offense to that comment.

I would agree with Prophet. Would a new proposed structure then bring on other user/stakeholder groups that may undermine any process and any progress?

Why do we have regulations if we are moving toward monitoring boards to monitor performance? Sounds like more red tape. Sounds like an open door to the NIMBY groups.

[The Hermit]

Well J_T is asking the coyotes to safeguard the hen house working?

[J_T]

Well J_T is asking the coyotes to safeguard the hen house working?

I think when you look at the bigger picture about how much industrial activity is going on out on the land, whether its mining, logging, petroleum, oil and gas, the incidents are very minimal. The current regulations and approval process provide sufficient safeguards are always considered by any industrial activity. Those regulations ensure each person out there working, is aware.

The only thing a new committee will do is provide some group the opportunity to stick their nose in someone else's business. I can't see the logic or the benefit.

It always comes down to risk. What are we doing, that will 'allow' said industrial activity to continue, and in the event of an incident, to minimize that incident. Performance bonding, security bonding, more frequent inspections with professionals that understand the business are all available tools to use. Industry does not need a bunch of chickens clucking away at them.

[Prophet]

How friggin dense are you?

There is no point in that article where BCWF says anything derogatory about the FRPA, FBP or PR. They merely suggest that it would be beneficial to set up a similar organization that would oversee resource extraction. Nothing more.

Take a couple minutes and try to re-read the article, this time without moving your lips.

Derogatory? I would not characterize this article as derogatory. I did as you suggested, I re-read the article without moving my lips (again), here is a direct quote from that article.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation has long been concerned with the move by government towards the “professional reliance” model, by which resource extraction within the province has replaced government planning and oversight.
In light of these questions and concerns, BCWF has encouraged the B.C. government to expand the mandate of the Forest Practices Board to include a new multi-interest board that provides oversight for all resource extraction activities within the province.

So to answer your question of how dense I am, maybe others can determine that once they read this thread.

The article quoted was a reaction by BCWF to the Mt Polley disaster, I failed to see how professional reliance fit into that issue since it is solely associated with FRPA, not with mining or any other resource sector. The inference in this article is that PR has failed to provide adequate environmental protection in BC - huge leap imo as PR is not germane to the Mt. Polley disaster or the mining industry in general.

Maybe now you can connect the dots and take your own advice - do it without moving your lips.

[GoatGuy]

I think when you look at the bigger picture about how much industrial activity is going on out on the land, whether its mining, logging, petroleum, oil and gas, the incidents are very minimal. The current regulations and approval process provide sufficient safeguards are always considered by any industrial activity. Those regulations ensure each person out there working, is aware.

The only thing a new committee will do is provide some group the opportunity to stick their nose in someone else's business. I can't see the logic or the benefit.

It always comes down to risk. What are we doing, that will 'allow' said industrial activity to continue, and in the event of an incident, to minimize that incident. Performance bonding, security bonding, more frequent inspections with professionals that understand the business are all available tools to use. Industry does not need a bunch of chickens clucking away at them.

Just compare BC's track record, net present value of natural resource extraction, and incident rate to the global rate. You can even bring developing world countries into the mix.

You will find BC is doing an extremely poor job of managing natural resources, particularly non-renewables. At least from an economics perspective.