In his fundamentalist zeal to paint the community forest in a negative light, John Keates draws the wrong conclusion (Coast Reporter letters, Aug. 28).
As a member of Commu-nity Forest Advisory Com-mittee (CFAC) I view disagreements with Sechelt Community Projects Inc. (SCPI) as part of a functioning democratic process. Democracy is often messy.
The community forest model is complex, with proponents required to balance community values while operating a viable business. Community values are an elusive quantity and the term does not equate to those who whine the loudest.
Community forests are in the ambiguous and unenviable position of operating a business while responding to the whims of an undefined public perception. Normal businesses do not make every decision in the glare of public scrutiny, and routine disagreements within the internal structure are hidden. Disagree-ments between SCPI and CFAC, "the eyes and ears of the community," may be viewed as evidence the community process is working.
Despite a sniping vocal minority, the community forest has been a success in its short history with debts repaid, profits returned to the community, logs delivered to local entrepreneurs, good forestry practices followed, campsites and trails created, Hidden Grove accommodated and public input incorporated, all within a difficult economic climate.
One may also wish to consider the alternative scenario with decision making concerning our local forest in the purview of BC Timber Sales.
Tony Greenfield
Member of CFAC
