boo ba boo, this is my sandbox, duh!--FrankRBIV (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Introduction to the Origins of the Controversy
editThe region’s wealth of natural resources was discovered in the 18th century with the arrival of the first European explorers. This wealth attracted growing numbers of foreigners, limiting First Nation’s access to land, and creating increasing displeasure among the locals. Government support of private company resource extraction allowed for the growth of this industry over time, resulting in the presence of logging companies in the Clayoquot Sound in the 1980s and 1990s[1] . The differing opinions between these two groups led to the development of Native lobbying organizations and many negotiations regarding policies and general awareness of the conflict. The situation escalated in the late 1980s when MacMillan Bloedel Corporation’s permit to log Meares Island was approved.[2]
Body of the Origins of the Controversy
editThe first white man in Tofino was a Spaniard, Juan José Pérez Hernández in 1774. Hernández and his crew recognized the region's wealth of natural resources such as fish and timber. Several trading posts were then erected and some managed to survive for a little over a century, until the first Catholic mission was built in 1899. Over time the region's prosperity fluctuated, like many other frontier settlements. For years the region remained fairly difficult to access due to the lack of roads. It wasn’t until 1959 that a logging road was built to Tofino, and the region's natural resources began to be exploited commercially. At this time the fishing industry was also taking off: in 1964, four hundred boats were tied up at the Tofino Harbor at once.
On May 4th, 1971 an official dedication ceremony was held in the Sound, creating Pacific Rim National Park. As a result, the 1959 logging road was paved all the way to Tofino. Prior to this, logging companies had been investing into the region, but with easier access, natural resources could be exploited on an even larger scale. They had started with small operations in the Kennedy Lake and Ucluelet area, but when the timber supply began to diminish, their presence near Tofino increased.[3]
What was considered unrestricted logging provoked significant public protest beginning in the 1980s. It began when MacMillan Bloedel announced its aims to begin logging operations on Meares Island. Leaders of the Nuu-chah-nulth tribe rejected this proposal. In 1984 this frustration reached a new level: MacMillan Bloedel workers arrived at Meares Island only to be met by the Nuu-chah-nulth, local environmentalists and other supporters blockading the road. To prevent logging operations from continuing, protesters declared the island a Tribal Park. MacMillan Bloedel attempted to override this with a court injunction and succeeded. However, in 1985 the Ahousaht and Tia-o-qui-aht First Nations acquired their own injunction to halt the logging on the island, at least until the Nuu-chah-nulth's concerns had been addressed in a treaty. More and similar protests continued into the late 1980s and throughout Clayoquot Sound.[4]
These protests posed difficulties to locals who worked in the lumber industry because the blockades prevented the workers from working, and thus getting paid. To address this, a forum was created allowing workers, environmentalists, and aboriginals to discuss mutually beneficial changes. This forum was called the Tin Wis Coalition and was formed in 1988. However, the coalition ceased shortly after its conference in October 1990. Another forum that was meant to find a resolution was an eleven member task force, whose objective was to find compromises for land use in Clayoquot Sound that satisfied all the stakeholders. This task force was formed in 1989 by the Social Credit government in BC. However, its fate was similar to the coalition, and in October of 1989 it disbanded.
The next attempt at a medium for mutual discussion was the Clayoquot Sound Development Steering Committee, which had representatives from the logging industry, environmentalists, tourist operators, and First Nations groups. Talks endured for over a year and a half until the environmentalists walked out because logging operations had continued while they met. In addition, the tourism representative left the committee, but was replaced by another. The Steering Committee finally disbanded without any formal agreement in May 1991. There were further attempts made by the government and a separate panel of Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests representatives to decide where logging could and could not occur, while the Steering Committee was meeting. This panel also failed to reach an agreement on this matter and again, environmentalists left in May 1991. However, when the NDP took up government in 1991 they used all the information that had been compiled from both the committee and the task force to create their land use plan which was announced in 1993.[5] The plan divided the forests of Clayoquot Sound into numerous regions. Some of the regions were set aside for preservation, some remained open for logging, and other regions were designated for various activities, such as recreation, wildlife, and scenery.[6]
References
edit- ^ Guppy, Walter (1997). Clayoquot Soundings: A History of Clayoquot Sound, 1880s-1980s. Tofino, British Columbia: Grassroots Publication. pp. 7, 55, 66. ISBN 0-9697703-1-6.
- ^ Goetze, Tara C. (2005). [www.jstor.org/stable/25606239?seq=6 "Empowered Co-Management: Towards Power-Sharing and Indigenous Rights in Clayoquot Sound, BC"]. Anthropologica. 47 (2): 251, 252. Retrieved 13 March 2012.
{{cite journal}}: Check|url=value (help) - ^ Guppy, Walter (1997). Clayquot Soundings: A History of Clayoquot Sound, 1880s-1980s. Tofino: Grass Roots Publications.
- ^ Goetze, Tara C. (2005). "Empowered Co-Management: Towards Power-Sharing and Indigenous Rights in Clayoquot Sounds, BC". Anthropologica. 47 (2): 247–265. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
- ^ Harter, John-Henry (Fall). "Environmental Justice for Whom? Class, New Social Movements and the Environment: A Case Study of Greenpeace Canada, 1971-2000". Labour / Le Travail. 54: 83–119. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=and|year=/|date=mismatch (help) - ^ Braun, Bruce (2002). The Intemperate Rainforest: Nature, Culture, and Power on Canada's West Coast. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. pp. 1–7. ISBN 0-8166-3399.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: length (help)
Team member editing
editHi Frank, just commenting on your body paragraph. The information looks good, I'm just not sure if the first part regarding the history of the white man, etc is appropriate for this section. Maybe it would belong better in "History". I also made quite a few grammatical/structural changes, which you can see from your 'view history' tab at the top of your sandbox. --Mmann7 (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dope, thanks for the help. --FrankRBIV (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Frank, just made a few changes to your paragraph, it looks good. The only sentence that you might want to remove and or change is the last sentence in the first paragraph. "At this time the fishing industry was also taking off: in 1964, four hundred boats were tied up at the Tofino Harbor at once." Its a little confusing, maybe just a sentence about how the fishing industry was growing during this time would help to clarify without being as specific. :)--Ashleypiv (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Frank, I just edited your section. There was a ton of good information but I felt as though it needed some editing. You used the word 'however' many times so I took some of those out, and I did a lot of editing out of information that just didn't seem relevant to the article. Sometimes I felt as though you had such specific information, which is good, but as Ashley said the 4 hundred boats thing seems like it doesn't fit. I also edited out some stuff that could sound biased, even though it was true, haha. Lots of writing to work with though!--Aliarayan (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Heya FRBIV, I think the section's good, but as the previous comments say, I must agree, that one sentence in the first paragraph just seems somewhat irrelevant or out of place. Minor change but you might just want to consider simply removing it. That's the only thing that I thought was off, other than that, good job! --Fziza (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)