The obvious questions remain:

· Why wasn’t TimberWest charged by Mr. Macpherson for violating the provisions under
Section 18 of the Regulations in 2005 as the PMFLC later charged the company in
September 2007 for so doing?

· Would the matter have simply disappeared, or been submerged in abeyance, if the
complainant had not filed his complaint?

· Are there other, similar undisclosed instances of this that need to be investigated by some
independent, or oversight, agency?

Irrelevancy in the March 13, 2008 Reconsideration

The issues stated in the PMFLC’s four-page long March 13, 2008 Reconsideration document that rescinds the Council’s September 27, 2007 well-reasoned Determination against TimberWest,
following the appeal hearing in early November 2007, appear to be irrelevant and obscure.
Without TimberWest’s two written submissions that led to the Council’s 180 degree shift, it is difficult to understand the details behind the Reconsideration. That is why I am requesting a copy of the submissions from the PMFLC. Meanwhile, I must rely on the summary statements provided by
the Council concerning TimberWest’s appeal arguments.
The reason for my stating the Council’s issues are irrelevant is because they simply appear to be so.
A contract is a contract, no matter who may execute the contract for the delegated licensee. If TimberWest’s unidentified contractor had failed to carry out the owner’s riparian harvesting plans that TimberWest apparently and so diligently discussed with its contractor, then TimberWest, under
contract law, is liable for any infractions, plain and simple. And, if TimberWest is so charged, it can seek compensatory remedies under the law against its own contractor. That’s the way the business world operates, or so we expect.
However, the PMFLC has provided some special, provisional loop-hole exemptions for
TimberWest and its contractor in its Reconsideration, exemptions that seem to be lacking in logic.
There seem to be two main arguments.
The first is that TimberWest had somehow “exercised all due diligence” regarding the violations previous to its contractor actually clearcutting the buffer zone. What this has to do with the
violations is not clear, merely that it seems that the presumed intent of TimberWest was to prevent the violations from occurring by its contractor. That, of course, does not change the fate of what occurred. The Council now seems intent on believing that TimberWest is no longer responsible for what occurred.
The second Council argument is that “the removal of the buffer area” was somehow unforeseen,“not reasonably foreseeable”. What the Council seems to be saying is that the clearcutting incident was ‘accidental’. If it was clear from Council’s deliberations that TimberWest had practiced “due diligence”, and that its contractor did not “move a marked harvesting boundary”, how could the
violation have been ‘an accident’? There isn’t a discussion about this important question.
Furthermore, Mr. Macpherson states in his July 27, 2007 report assessment that TimberWest failed to make “an application for exemption from the tree retention requirement for large streams (section
18) under section 3” (page 4), ruling out any possibility by the PMFLC to excuse TimberWest in its Reconsideration. The way that the Council seems to wiggle out of this murky and confusing argument is that if “the [clearcutting] event was reasonable (sic, “reasonably”) foreseeable,” i.e.,
that the violation was not an accident and was done purposely by the contractor, then “the Council is” somehow “satisfied that TimberWest took all reasonable measures to prevent the event from occurring.” So, if TimberWest isn’t responsible, and its contractor isn’t responsible, then who is?
Answer: nobody. That conclusion is sheer nonsense.
What do these week arguments by the PMFLC mean, one might ask? What they mean is that the PMFLC no longer intends to charge TimberWest for the violations, even though there are no firm grounds provided in the Council’s revisionist finding for not charging the company. When one takes a careful examination of the arguments in the Reconsideration they merely amount to hollow
sophistry.
In line with the spirit of the day, there may be another message here governing community
watersheds in private forest lands, namely that an already weakened law can easily be bent by a decision-making body which apparently operates, through the behest of the provincial government, beyond public involvement, scrutiny and accountability.
Beyond the burdensome technicalities related to recent controversial laws that now allow logging in community watersheds, community watersheds ought to be fully protected on both public and
private lands, under one law for all.
Sincerely,
Will Koop,
Coordinator,
B.C. Tap Water Alliance

cc. Comox-Strathcona Regional District Board of Directors
Comox Valley Water Watch Coalition & Vancouver Island Water Watch Campaign
Save Our Valley Alliance (Port Alberni)
Rich Coleman, Minister of Forests and Range
Bob Simpson, NDP opposition Forests & Range Critic
Barry Penner, Minister of Environment
Shane Simpson, NDP Environment Critic
Pat Bell, Minister of Agriculture and Lands
Dr. Perry Kendall, Provincial Medical Health Officer
Jane Sterk, BC Green Party Leader
John Wareing, David Suzuki Foundation
Jill Thompson, Sierra Club, Victoria
Joe Foy, Western Canada Wilderness Committee
Marilyn Burgoon, Slocan Valley Watershed Alliance
West Coast Environmental Law Association
Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund)
Comox Valley Record
Comox Valley Echo
Vancouver Sun newspaper
Vancouver Province newspaper
CBC News Network
CKNW Radio, Vancouver
The Tyee
Georgia Straight newspaper
Victoria Times Colonist