next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
I agree with Ian that it is not good general practice to subscribe to a
"Contrarian" Viewpoint. Further on this matter some folks may be interested
in reading comments made by two well respected national
environmental/conservation organizations about the Sable Island issue:
CPAWS has put out a press release...welcoming a national park proposal
because of stronger habitat provisions and dedicated $$ for research...but
also cautioning against increased access.
http://cpaws.org/news/archive/2010/01/cpaws-welcomes-stronger-protec.php
Nature Canada issued the following press release re the Prentice-MacDonell
Sable Island announcement yesterday.
http://www.naturecanada.org/newsroom_jan_26_10_SableIsland.asp - Groups
applaud Ottawa's plans to protect island, but caution against public access
Cheers,
Bob McDonald
----- Original Message -----
From: <iamclar@dal.ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: [NatureNS] Sable Island Status
> All:
>
> I admire and am amused by Parker Donham's blogs, but a contrarian must be
> understood as contary.
>
> For real background knowledge go to:
>
> http://www.greenhorsesociety.com
>
> and for a balanced selection of views within that site to:
>
> http://www.greenhorsesociety.com/Status/National%20status.htm
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian McLaren
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2655 - Release Date: 01/29/10
09:08:00
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects