A Sustainable Use for Jim Campbell Barrens

Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 21:02:12 -0500 (EST)
To: "sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca"@mail1.auracom.net
From: Kermit deGooyer <degooyer@atcon.com>
Return-Path: <sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects


At 08:41 PM 4/3/98 -0400, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

>The Nova Nada Monastery apparently own about 60 acres, but
>to get the peace and tranquility they desire for their
>operation, they have requested that a forestry company give
>them control of all their lands within a 3 mile radius of
>the Nova Nada Monastery. (A circle of a 3 mile radius has a
>land area of about 18,000 acres) The forest company said no
>to this demand but agreed to no harvesting within a mile of
>the Monastery, and controlled harvesting between mile 1 and
>mile 2 of the Monastery. Nova Nada is holding out for the
>two mile gift from the forestry company. This is about 12.5
>square miles, or about 8,000 acres. Apparently, Nova Nada
>has made no attempt to purchase the land from the forestry
>company.
>
>This seems very generous of the forest company. The gift of
>control over the lands within a 1 mile radius of the
>Monastery is virtual gift of about 2,000 acres. However, by
>retaining ownership, the forestry company has to pay the
>taxes. This is a good deal for the Nova Nada people, but
>they want more. Sister Bielecki appears to be a very
>accomplished negotiator.


Just a few more points to add to Colins:

To my knowledge the monks have never asked Irving to grant them control of
the land. Irving would still own it and control it, but not harvest if NN
had their way.  Irving is attempting to get certified by a certifier
accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council, so they will probably be
required to set aside a portion of their lands anyway.  Clearly that's not
their first choice for the block next to NN, but they would get credit - it
wouldn't become "useless" to them.  

When throwing around numbers like 8,000 and 2,000 acres you have to remember
that NN is surrounded by things other than Irving land.  A 2 mile buffer
does not equate to an 8,000 acre "gift" (or a 1 mile buffer a 2000 acre
gift) because Irving does not own South Carrying Road Lake which borders the
monks to the north or the Crown land to the south and east.  

When you take out the lake and the public land, 1 mile really means less
than 1000 acres (or 400 hectares) of Irving land, a nice gesture but not a
huge sacrifice.  Similarly, Irving only owns 1/3 of the 2 mile "pie".  2600
acres (1000 hectares) is probably more realistic. They have a lease on some
of the public land, but typically there is a clause in these leases that
lets the Province find other land to substitute.

The tax issue is a good point.  Although resource lands are taxed at
literally pennies per acre, it would be nice to see them tax exempt if
protected.

Kermit.
 
  



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kermit deGooyer
Hailfax, NS
(902) 492-4340

Help save Canada's threatened wilderness hotspots!
Check it out:  www.wwfcanada.org/hotspots/index.html

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects