SPEAKING FOR THE TREES: INVESTIGATING THE DISCOURSE REGARDING LOGGING IN QUETICO AND ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARKS
Reid Morris
SUMBITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
NIPISSING UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES NORTH BAY, ONTARIO
September 2019
1 Abstract
The place of logging in Ontario’s Provincial Parks has long been a contentious issue, given the tension between the role of parks in habitat protection, and the historically permissive
policy towards timber values from the establishment of the first Provincial Park in Algonquin.
This thesis examines the discourse used by stakeholders both for and against logging in Ontario
Provincial Parks. The case of Quetico Provincial Park’s prohibition of logging in 1973 and the
ongoing logging debate in Algonquin Provincial Park, the last remaining logged Ontario
Provincial Park, were selected as the case studies for this thesis. The goal was to describe how
pro and anti-logging discourse changed by comparing of a successful logging ban (Quetico) to a
case where logging still persists (Algonquin). I conducted a content analysis in which units of
text within these advocacy documents related to these cases were categorized based on values
expressed in the text, as well as more specific concerns within these values. This ‘coding’ of text
produced a dataset of quantitative descriptions of the contents of advocacy for both sides in
aggregate, as well as samples for qualitative observation of the more nuanced differences in the
way that values and concerns are expressed towards the means of the respective policy aims of
stakeholders. Findings indicated that environmental discourse in the Algonquin Provincial Park
case study was focused on ecological issues, a departure from a strategy of diverse values and
concerns expressed in the Quetico Provincial Park case study. Conversely, industry advocates
communicated a more diverse range of values in the Algonquin case than that of Quetico,
effectively making appeals to the educational, ecological, historical and cultural merit of logging
in the park. Qualitative observations revealed large differences between parties regarding
perceptions about how forests work, the role of parks in society, the perception of destruction of
the costs and benefits of either policy outcome, and the understanding of the Ontario Provincial
2 Parks mandate for ‘ecological integrity’. Unfortunately, these large discrepancies between the
two perspectives presents a barrier to effective collaboration and policy progress. Ultimately, this study identified the historical and present discursive context surrounding the issue of logging in
Ontario Provincial Parks, and suggests that at present, industry advocates have effectively used discourse to insulate logging in Algonquin Park from policy reform.
3
For Mom, for everything
4 Acknowledgments:
First, I’d like to thank my supervisors Dr. James Abbott (Nipissing University) Dr. Kirsten
Greer (Nipissing University), and Dr. Warren Mabee (Queen’s University) for their time and
guidance over the course of my time in the Masters of Environmental Studies (MES) program at
Nipissing University. You have brought unique perspectives and insights to my thesis, and I
genuinely am incredible grateful for your input, guidance, and support. Dr. Abbott it was truly
special to be taken under your wing during my Undergraduate degree, and ever since you have
been a huge influence on my approaches to both research and teaching. Second, thank you to the
instructors of the MES graduate courses, who facilitated thought provoking discussion and
provided the types of constructive criticism on my work which no doubt positively influenced my
development as a researcher. Of these instructors, a special mention to Dr. Jeff Dech, as your professionalism and knowledge were a huge inspiration to me, your desire for us to address real world concerns and suggest real world solutions was a major influence on my academic philosophy. I would also like to thank all the people I met at my data sources, including the Ontario
Archives, the Lakehead Archives, Atikokan Centennial Museum, and John Ridley Library. Your assistance, encouragement, and insights no doubt contributed to the completion of this thesis.
Thank you to my partner Elisabeth MacGillivray, who experienced the ups and downs of this process with me more than anyone, I have all the gratitude in the world for the way you helped me through it. We made it to the finish line Freddy, I love you. Most importantly, a special thank you to my parents, Marc and Kate Morris, you guys are the greatest parents in the world and since repaying you for everything you’ve done would be impossible: I can only hope to pay it forward.
Thank you for believing in me and always having my back, I love you.
5 Table of Contents
Certification of Examination……………………………………………………………………1 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..…………….2 Dedication………………………………………………………………………….……………. 4 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………...……………………… 5 Table of Contents....……………………………………………………...………………………6 List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..8 List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………….9 1. Introduction…………………………………………………...…………………………..….10 1.1 Research Questions and Objectives…………………….………………………………….13 1.2 Significance………………………………………….………………………………………..17 2. Literature Review……………………………………………………………………………18 2.1 Protected areas and society………………………..……………………………………….19 2.2 Social Constructions of Nature…………………….……………………………………….23 2.3 Values and Stakeholder…………………………….………………………………………..28 2.4 Disturbance Ecology………………………………….…..………………………………….45 2.5 Logging in Canadian Protected Areas……………….………..…………………………..47 3. Methods……………………………………………………………………………………….54 3.1 Case Study Areas……………………………………………………………………………..55 3.1.1 Quetico Provincial Park…………………………………….……...……………56 3.1.2 Algonquin Provincial Park………………………………………………………66 3.2 Data Collection and Processing……………………………………………………………80 3.3 Coding Software…………………………………………………………………...…………83 3.4 Quantitative Content Analysis………………………………………………………..…….84 3.4.1 Frequency ……………………………………………….…………………………86 3.4.2 Co-occurrence……………………………………………….………….…………87 3.5 Qualitative Content Analysis………………………………………….…………………….88 4. Results…………………………………………………………………….……………..……92 4.1 Identity Coding…………………………………………………………….………………….92 4.2 Value Code Frequency ………………………………………………….…………………..93 4.3 Value Code Co-occurrence…………………………………………….……………………99
6 4.4 Qualitative Content Analysis……………………………………….….………………….100 4.4.1 Economic……………………………………………..……….……………….…100 4.4.2 Ecological………………………………………………..….……………………106 4.4.3 Social…………………………………………………………….………………..113 4.4.4 Legal……………………………………………………………..………………..122 4.4.5 Information……………………………………………………...………………..124 4.5 Indigenous Advocacy……………………………………………………….………………128 4.5.1 Quetico Provincial Park……………………………...……………….………..129 4.5.2 Algonquin Provincial Park ……………………..…………………..………….131 4.6 Cottaging Advocacy………………………………………………………..…….…………134 4.7 Social Constructions of Nature…………………………………………..…………….....137 4.7.1 Role of Parks……………………………………………….…...………………..137 4.7.2 How Forests Work……………………………………………………………….140 5. Discussion……………………………………………………….……………..……………143 5.1 Values Changing in Context……………………………..……………………...………...143 5.2 Diversification of Values in Industry Discourse………………….………...………..…148 5.3 Specialization of Ecological Values in Environmental Discourse……………...... …153 5.4 Custodial and Stewardship Perspectives……………………………………….………..157 5.5 Divergent Economic Understandings……………………………………..…..………....159 5.6 The Issue of ‘Ecological Integrity’………………………………………………..……...162 5.7 Indigenous Discourse……………………………………………………..………..………166 6. Conclusions……………………………………………………………….…………………170 References………………………………………………………………….…………………..184 Appendices…………………………………………………………….……………………….193 I Tables and Figures……………………………………………….……………………………195 II Qualitative Analysis Quote Selection………………………..……………………………..221 III Text Samples Database……………………………………..………………………………248
7 List of Tables
Table 1: Timelines of significant events by case study 197
Table 2: Text samples used in this research by source and type 199
Table 3: Coding levels used in identity coding process 200
Table 4: Values used to categorize text and specific concerns 201
Table 5: Guide for coding the content of text samples 202
Table 6: Questions for consideration in qualitative analysis 207
Table 7: Identified unique actors by group for Quetico Provincial Park case study 209
Table 8: Identified unique actors by group for Algonquin Provincial Park case study 212
Table 9: Total frequency of main level value code by group and case study 213
Table 10: Percentage of documents containing main level value code by group and case study 216
Table 11: Subcode occurrence by group as proportion of main level value code 217
Table 12: Frequency of main level codes co-occurring by group and case study 218
Appendix II: Qualitative analysis quote selection 221
Appendix III: Content analysis sample source database 248
8 List of Figures
Figure 1: Case Study Areas 195
Figure 2: Overview of old growth, logging and protected areas in Algonquin Park 196
Figure 3: Flowchart depicting methods of this thesis 208
Figure 4: MaxMAPS visualization of main level code frequency by group Quetico Park 214
Figure 5: MaxMAPS visualization of main level code frequency by group Algonquin Park 215
Figure 6: Frequency of co-occurrence of main level codes regardless of group in Quetico Park 219
Figure 7: Frequency of co-occurrence of main level codes regardless of group in Algonquin Park 220
9 1. Introduction
Environmental policies are often developed in response to nuanced interactions of the
social, political, ecological and economic views and priorities held by different stakeholders.
People define what steps are appropriate or reasonable in resource management of commons largely through preconceived notions of nature itself, and our role within it. These conceptualizations are referred to as ‘constructions of nature’, where ‘nature’ is both dynamic and socially constructed and influenced and interpreted in various ways by different actors.
People experience nature through filters shaped by culture, community, and past experience.
Thus the very definition of nature, and our proper role and relationship with and within it, is
inherently subjective (Peterson, 1999). As a result, “nature-culture hybrids”- the recognition that
nature is an historical notion rather than a pure concept outside of the humanity that perceives it,
provide a potent means of understanding environmental policy change over time (Braun, 2002).
While no universal concept of nature exists, understanding the constructions of nature
from which people argue for policy outcomes is important. This is because the term ‘natural’ is
often wielded by “people seeking to legitimize or condemn certain practices or traits”, including
the suitability of certain activities in specific areas (Peterson, 1999 p. 342). The understanding
that nature is a social construct allows us to critically examine these shifts in perceptions and
their consequences (Braun, 2002). These filters through which the natural world is viewed have
real world consequences, especially when it comes to land use.
Yellowstone National Park in the United States of America is an illustrative example of
the role that economic and aesthetic influence of constructions of nature have played in shaping
management policy. Arguments over land use in Yellowstone persisted throughout its early
history and resulted in policy that included predator control – the culling of grey wolves- to
10 preserve the fauna which the public enjoyed seeing, such as deer. Other policies introduced in early years included the prohibition of logging in boundaries and a strict and ingrained practice of fire suppression (Sellars, 2009). These decisions ignored the ecological necessity of disturbance in forests, and the need for a balance of predator and prey in an ecosystem. We can conclude that particular values and held beliefs about nature had far-reaching influence on the flora and fauna making up the landscape of Yellowstone National Park. Regardless of the actual intentions behind these decisions, the influence of a particular conceptualization of nature is clear in the way that conditions were manipulated to reflect economic and aesthetic preferences.
These economic aesthetic preferences vary, and symptomatic of the perspective and the values of a particular stakeholder. The social constructions, and the values and ideas borne of them, make their way into policy through the influence feasibility of certain policy based on the general public perceptions of the time concerning certain policy instruments, options and outcomes, to which some might be seen as more appropriate than others. Additionally, these values and ideas influence policy making in the direct advocacy on their behalf by stakeholders, who express their ideas through various mediums in support of their preferred policy option. The strategic communications by stakeholders concerning an issue makes up that issue’s ‘discourse’, or “family or ensemble of related ideas linked together by a common narrative” (Raymond &
Olive, 2009, p. 208). Stakeholders with opposing policy aims often engage in different
discourses surrounding the same issue and components or specific aspects of a sides discourse
can be more or less influential politically (Raymond & Olive, 2009)
The evolution of land use policy in Ontario Provincial Parks reflects the importance of
advocacy in environmental policy and highlights the role different constructions of nature play in
the debate. Examining advocacy concerning the example of timber harvesting specifically allows
11 us to better understand the values, concerns and justifications used by stakeholders, and the
constructions of nature that underlie those justifications. This insight can then be applied to
appreciate the current debates regarding the role of land uses which are not justified by ecological integrity, such as logging and cottaging in Algonquin Provincial Park.
Throughout the early history of Ontario’s Provincial Parks, commercial timber harvesting was a permitted and frequent land use. In many of the large northern parks, such as Quetico,
Lake Superior, Algonquin, Killarney and others, there is an extensive history of timber harvesting. Over time, logging operations in all of these parks with the exception of Algonquin ceased as a result of advocacy and a changing culture regarding park land use (Killan, 1993).
Currently, official Ontario Provincial Park policy states that commercial timber harvesting “shall not be carried out on lands that are a part of a Provincial Park”, although “timber may be harvested for commercial purposes in Algonquin Provincial Park in accordance with the
Algonquin Forestry Authority Act, the Algonquin Provincial Park Management Plan and the
Crown Forest Sustainability Act 1994.” (Ontario, 2006, Section 17). It is unlikely that Ontarians today, most who are unaware of continued harvests in Algonquin, would consider logging as a land use congruent with the primary management principle of the provincial parks network:
“Maintenance of ecological integrity shall be the first priority and the restoration of ecological integrity shall be considered” as per the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006.
Ontario’s Provincial Parks are a public institution with specific mandates, and the policy
under which these parks operate, especially concerning acceptable and prohibited land uses, has
come to define exactly what a park is supposed to be to its surrounding society. This particular
environmental policy debate took place through battles over the classification of individual
parks, providing an opportunity to understand the transition at a large temporal scale, from the
12 debates raged through public consultation in the 1970s, to the current debate over the logging
which remains in Algonquin. The change in policy that resulted in Quetico Park was significant
and serves as a comparison to the discourse of the issue today in Algonquin. This allows for an
understanding of the evolution in the discourse on logging in parks over a period of time. Park
policy is an especially important demonstration of the influence of constructions of nature, as
Ontario’s Provincial Parks policy plays an important and direct role in facilitating a relationship with nature in citizens.
Using Quetico and Algonquin Provincial Parks as case studies, this thesis will examine the relative positions of stakeholders for and against logging in protected areas, the justification of these positions, and the role of the constructions of nature found at the root of these positions.
The research will explore the way that the discourses regarding nature are represented by each advocacy group (i.e., Environmentalists, Indigenous, Industry) and the ways the changes in these discourses over time, along with changes in institutional structures, environmental understanding, and logging technology, contribute to the current policy state of logging in
Ontario’s Provincial Parks. Understanding the way discourse has contributed to policy change in the past in the case of Quetico can be used to understand the current debate over appropriate use of Provincial Park land, including the way stakeholder values and justifications have changed over time, and potential consequences of the current state of discourse in Algonquin Park concerning logging and cottage leases.
1.1 Research Questions and Objectives
This thesis examines the shift in Ontario Provincial Parks land use policy from permitting logging to its current state as an exception which takes place only in Algonquin Park, with
13 emphasis on the different discourses presented by the opposing sides in advocacy over time.
Through new and more nuanced understandings of the discourses used to support positions for
and against logging in the park, and the presences of fundamental underlying assumptions about
the relationship between humans and nature therein.
In this thesis, I ask three main questions related to the policy of logging in Ontario
Provincial Parks:
1) What differences exist in values and concerns that are presented in the discourse in
support of or against logging in parks in each case?
2) What differences characterize the discourse of the contemporary case study in
Algonquin Park from the historical case study in Quetico Provincial Park?
3) What influences of social constructions of nature are evident in the discourse
presented by the opposing sides?
These research questions place an emphasis on the communication of beliefs and desires by
stakeholders. Advocates for the continuation of logging and those in favour of its prohibition
have expressed their beliefs in transcribed hearings, written briefs to decision makers, press releases, quotes given in interviews with the media, and on websites and social media pages run by stakeholders.
The research questions for this thesis can be understood by the following objectives:
1) Establish a categorization of types of arguments made, and analyze texts to
understand their contents regarding this categorization;
2) Quantitatively analyze the differences in the content of these categories by desired
policy outcome and case study;
14 3) Qualitatively examine the different ways utilized values and concerns found in
categorization are framed in each case by the opposing sides;
4) Describe these qualitative findings in terms of the communicated understandings of
how forests work, and the role of parks in society in terms of the social constructions
of nature which inform these perspectives.
Grounded Theory posits that inductive research methods can be used to develop conceptual categories and a theoretical explanation of the main concerns of an individual or group given the content of their expression on an issue (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). As such, by performing a content analysis of the data sources discussed above, we might synopsize the ways that stakeholders advocated for their policy aims, including insights about the values which drive those policy aims and their stated understandings and justifications of the issue.In this project, the actions of the issue’s opposing sides will be examined qualitatively and quantitatively through a comparative content analysis of documented advocacy throughout the transition of timber policy in Quetico Park and the ongoing policy of logging in Algonquin Park.
Content analysis is a method of studying communication for an inventory of its relevant contents. Content analysis is useful in identifying attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders regarding an issue, from which the values of the author or speaker can be better understood. In research about discourse, content analysis is be driven at questions such as:
• What values are being expressed?
• What justifications are being given for the advocate's position?
• How do these values and justifications change overtime?
In this case, advocacy documents regarding the policy subsystem will be read strategically, with text coded for the identity (speaker/author, affiliation/organization, side of the issue) and for the
15 features of the discourse, including policy aims, justifications, and constructions of nature expressed by an advocate. Conducting content analysis with a prepared coding system will help to achieve reliable qualitative observations about the advocacy, and quantitative data which might illuminate values and concerns of particular emphasis, supplementing the qualitative observations. The content analysis will help to achieve the research objectives, and the results provide the quantitative and qualitative data to draw conclusions regarding the research questions about the discourse concerning logging in Ontario Provincial Parks.
While research has been conducted on transitions from utilitarian land use philosophies to those of more intensive protection in Ontario Provincial Parks (Killan, 1993; Killan, 1998;
Warecki 1989; Warecki, 2017; ) (outlined in section 2) this thesis seeks to fill out the gaps in the literature, especially with regards to the identification and understanding of the discourse surrounding the issue of logging in Provincial Parks. Of specific concern to this thesis are the case studies of Quetico Provincial Park on the traditional Anishinaabe territory (Treaty 3), and
Algonquin Provincial Park on the unceeded traditional territory of the Algonquins. A closer study of the specific values and concerns communicated in advocacy efforts by pro and anti- logging stakeholders may illuminate trends in held understandings of the issue which contribute to the relative feasibility of various policy outcomes. The methodology employed in this thesis
(described in section 3), will help illustrate the values and concerns that advocates communicate in justification of their policy aims, and a qualitative analysis of these texts will help illustrate the different assumptions which contribute to these understandings, especially with regards to how forests work, and the role of parks in society, and the constructions of nature which guide these interpretations. The findings of this study intend to inform advocacy on the issue in the future, and illuminate differences in strategy which might productively contribute to the policy outcome
16 of each case.
1.2 Significance
A strong relationship with wilderness and nature has always been a characteristic of the
Canadian myth and identity, conceptually uniting a vast and geographically diverse nation.
Canada is a nation which has always taken pride in the diversity of its environment, evidenced in wildlife such as beaver and caribou appearing as national symbols on the currency (Henderson,
1992). For many Canadians, a personal relationship with nature is fostered through recreational activities like camping, often occurring in the context of federally or provincially protected areas, especially Provincial and National Parks. These environments create opportunities to educate, research, and experience the natural world. As a result, the land use policy of Provincial Parks play an important role in the conceptualization of nature for many Ontarians, a strong determinant on the core beliefs directing environmental policy.
Furthermore, the Canadian federal government is beginning to increase the emphasis on the importance of parks and conservation reserves, and had aims to increase the total protected area country wide to 17% by 2020 (Mackinnon et al., 2015). With this large proportion of a country with such a large area protected, the management decisions about these environments and the types of anthropogenic use permitted within their boundaries has a significant impact on the overall state of the environment of the province and the country. As we learn more of the potential for enormous consequences of anthropogenic accelerated climate change, and its threat to our ecosystems, it is especially important that we reduce our direct stress and degradation to environments that provide resiliency to change. Land-use policy in protected areas can be a crucial tool to protecting our environment and natural landscapes for future generations.
17 Within the context of existing literature, this thesis aims to help to explain the influence
of constructions of nature on land use policy change within protected places in Canada,
especially concerning resource extraction. The comparison of discourse from previous successful
attempts at devolution of logging in parks to the current discourse surrounding logging in
Algonquin may illuminate reasons for Algonquin’s persistence as an exception, and demonstrate
the way that advocates arguments and values change over time. The findings of this thesis help
identify and better understand discourse related to the public institution of Ontario Provincial
Parks and logging, of which literature is scarce.
This thesis may also help to better recognize approaches to advocacy and arguments
which have been effective, and those which have not. While the context of the case studies
differ, both geographically and in the changes in understanding in the time between them, policy
advocates might find strategic benefits in the lessons regarding discourse in the case, and apply
these lessons in future opportunities to communicate their policy aims. With persistence of
logging in Algonquin, the issue of cottages in parks and Indigenous land claims on park land,
opportunities for similar transitions in Canadian protected areas context remain, and a thorough
understanding of the discourse behind successful phaseouts compared to a case study in which
logging persists might assist advocates in directing stakeholder advocacy efforts in a more
effective and efficient manner.
2. Literature Review
This thesis examines how social constructions of nature are expressed in stakeholders’ discourse when advocating for their values to be represented in protected areas policy. To frame this research for the case of logging in Ontario’s Provincial Parks, it is important that this be
18 placed in context of literature on protected areas, social constructions of nature, values and
stakeholder, the relationship between the role of natural disturbance in forest ecosystems, and
finally, the literature concerning logging in Canadian protected areas. Through a review of
relevant literature, understandings of these themes can help place this case in context of what is
known about the influence on constructions of nature on protected area policy, the social and
ecological impacts of protected areas, and how stakeholders’ values influence policy.
2.1 Protected Places and Society
Protected areas are landscapes and seascapes with defined boundaries that impose
jurisdiction over management of natural resources within. This jurisdiction grants the authority
for the exclusion and regulation of land uses in order to protect the ecological value of the area
from human degradation and manipulation (Duinker et al., 2010.). The main characteristic separating these areas from management areas, such as Crown land, is that the driver of management priorities is biocentric rather than anthropocentric, with the areas value derived from the amenity value of preserving the ecosystem, including biological and cultural benefits
(Norton, 1986).
Protected areas are socially constructed and reflect the values and power structures of the societies which they exist within. In this way, these areas influence conceptualizations of nature to those experiencing these areas through recreation and ecotourism. Moreover, protected areas reinforce social norms regarding not just what is allowed in a protected area, but also who is allowed to do it. Over the course of the history of protected areas, the priorities and hierarchy of their purposes have been dynamic and subject of much debate. The discourse on the institutional aims and practices of protected areas such as National and Provincial Parks are means which
19 values and power dynamics actively create the landscape in conjunction with non-anthropogenic
processes acting upon it (West et al., 2006). Because of the tangible effects of protected area legislation and regulation on the landscape, these become a battleground for stakeholders to express their values and policy aims, and are dynamic in their reflection of the values and power
structures of society, making the study of the discourse concerning the fate of management in
these areas particularly interesting areas of study concerning the way that the relationship with
the environment is understood.
One of the biggest divides in the conceptual understanding of protected area management
is the role of human use and residency in the areas. This is particularly true of Indigenous people,
who may have long ties to the land, and even have meaningfully contributed to the state of the
landscape aimed to be preserved, before being removed from the land or directed to change
traditional processes under the coercive threat of government force (Peluso, 1993). In post-
contact North America, nature and humans are viewed as dichotomous, as evidenced in polarized
conceptions of the frontier mentality in which nature is what has yet to be domesticated by
humans, to the protection of nature and its presence as a cure for a modern urbanized world
(Henderson, 1992; West et al., 2006).
The centralization of control and loss of local autonomy is a focus of protected areas
literature. Peluso (1993) notes that protected areas policy provides jurisdiction for the coercive
threat of government, which imposes external influences on local contexts, often justified as
being for the greater good. In this way, protected areas further empower those who already have
political power, extending their control over resources that are often important to local
livelihoods (Adams & Hutton, 2007). Additionally, this political seizure of control takes place
under the threat of state sanctioned violence which comes with legal rights to the land (Peluso,
20 1993). While this control of resources by a centralized entity such as provincial and national governments does not necessarily make negative outcomes inevitable, it does affect local inhabitants’ autonomy, and removes the personal incentives of decision makers which results from feeling the consequences of their decisions directly (Vaccaro et al., 2013). It is much easier for local concerns to be disregarded when those making the decisions do not reside in these regions, or face the negative impacts which result from their decisions regarding the management of resources (Vaccaro et al., 2013). Another consequence of this centralization is that traditional ecological knowledge and other local understandings, which are often valid, are completely disregarded in favour of expert knowledge which is produced in contexts which impose paradigms, for instance the dichotomy of man and nature, to understandings (West et al., 2006).
Elite control of local resources represents a large opportunity for the restriction of access of benefits to those with political means to secure them, perpetuating the imbalances in society with regards to economic well-being and political power (Peluso, 1993).
With the establishment of protected areas and the associated imposition of the human and nature dichotomy on the landscape through policy, original residents of these areas are sometimes removed, having detrimental short and long term economic and cultural impacts for these communities. The phenomena of displaced peoples in protected areas is established in the literature, even dating back to early encroachments from former residents on the newly formed
Yellowstone (its borders being enforced by the U.S Army) in the 19th century (Burnham, 2000).
The occurrence of actual evictions depends on enforcement from those with jurisdiction, and data concerning forced evictions from park land is relatively difficult to find (West et al., 2006).
A broader pattern is the exclusion of long activities in areas traditionally used by Indigenous peoples. While some areas may not necessarily remove people residing from these areas full
21 time, they often restrict the land uses which these peoples rely on these territories for (West et al., 2006). In Ontario’s Parks, Indigenous land use has long been an issue in terms of exclusion, and policy exceptions. For example Quetico Provincial Park restricted the traditional practices of the Lac la Croix First Nations, while Algonquin Park excluded the Algonquin of Golden Lake
First Nations from their traditional practice, especially concerning hunting and trapping, in the name of conservation, despite allowances for loggers to continue exploitation of the territory
(Hodgins & Cannon, 1993). As Indigenous assertion of constitutional and treaty rights to traditional livelihoods and territories have gained stronger legal standing, Indigenous have been able to fight for access to the resources upon which they traditionally relied, but had been denied in the restrictions of parks policy (Hodgins & Cannon, 1993).
Vaccaro et al. (2013) identify three categories of protected places contained in the literature include fortress conservation, co-management conservation, and neoliberal conservation. The most crucial political ecology described by Vaccaro et al. (2013) for the purpose of this thesis, fortress conservation, largely a product of the imposed dichotomy of man and nature in landscapes, considers protected areas as territory which is appropriated by centralized or private powers, and access and use is restricted or prohibited, a policy extremely detrimental to local populations who rely on the landscapes resources for their livelihood and culture, robbing them of autonomy and further hampering already vulnerable demographic groups (West et al., 2006). This phenomenon is highly representative of the origins of protected areas, in the model of Yellowstone, and seems to have had large impacts in the developing world, as foreign actors separate people from their land, and the cost of preserving nature falls solely on those most vulnerable to loss of resource contributing to welfare (Adams & Hutton,
2007).
22
2.2 Social Constructions of Nature
Social Constructivism is the understanding that reality is created through the bidirectional relationship of human understanding and the material world (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). An important assumption of this concept is that the means through which we categorize and understand the world are a product of history, including the power dynamics of economics and politics. Thus societal understandings are not just knowledge, but are knowledge which is subjective, shaped by the context within which it is produced and disseminated or stricken. The baseline of ‘facts’ through which we determine what is true and false in the world is subjective and dependent on cultural and historical context. Given that crucial decisions are made in the light of this socially produced knowledge, exploring the way social dynamics frame our understandings of various phenomena or problems is important.
The roots of social constructivism can be found in Immanuel Kant’s essay What is
Enlightenment?, where an observer’s a priori knowledge, which describes understandings brought to the table by the observer, exist independently from empirical observations, and thus influences the range of possible conclusions which can be drawn from observation (Kant, 1784).
The term ‘social constructivism’ itself derives from the work The Social Construction of
Reality by Berger and Luckmann (1966), a sociological examination of knowledge and the social factors which influence the way that it is produced and legitimized, and how this knowledge often perpetuates the existing power structures of society. Berger and Luckmann (1966) argued that knowledge was not something that could be isolated from the context within which it was produced was major break from previous understandings, and challenged the notion that knowledge and information could ever be ‘pure’ or objective.
23 The influence of sociology on the production of knowledge is a very important aspect of the social constructivist perspective, as it explains both the influence of the social on the origins of understandings, as well as the manner in which social hierarchies, and the norms and values which emerge from them, perpetuate perspectives and understandings over others. Latour and
Woolgar (1988) examined the sociology of the very place where scientific knowledge is produced, the laboratory. The consideration for the ways which social norms which emerge in the interaction between people in a lab, and how these interactions and norms come to impact the findings of the lab further illuminates the complex entanglement of knowledge and social forces.
Because the scientific process is long and includes multiple stages, Latour and Woolgar (1988) posit that the consciousness of researchers is ripe for influence all along the process, and that these influences, while subtle, come to form part of the frame through which observations are made, and conclusions are drawn. Thus, sociology which is inseparable from the scientific production of knowledge constantly undermines the ‘objectivity’ which the scientific method aims to achieve. The deeply social nature of the scientific pursuit of understanding is inherent to all of science (Latour & Woolgar, 1988). While their findings observed the significant influence of the social realm on science, their aim was not to undermine the value of science, or knowledge, in society, rather they sought to raise consciousness of its limitations, which is pertinent given the role of fallibility in the scientific method, the space for understandings to develop, evolve, and be discounted is a central feature of science.
Social constructivism illuminates the way in which our filters for determining what constitutes truth are inseparable from social dynamics within which these judgements are being made. Thus, knowledge and understanding will always reflect power relations in society, and the decisions made based on those understandings is subject to these influences. The significance of
24 a socially constructed reality for the issue of logging in parks is strong, as the notions of what
constitutes a park, nature, wilderness, and the scientific understandings of what is best for these
conceptualizations is inherently fraught with the influence of power. Furthermore, the difference
in underlying assumptions held by stakeholders can explain why the similar values, for instance
the health and well-being of a forest ecosystem, can justify opposite policy aims, as the very
grounds from which the two sides are evaluating health are differently defined.
Social constructivism, and more specifically social constructions of nature described in
the literature has important implications for this study, as the policy aims, beliefs and values,
held by advocates for logging and protection in the parks are formed within the underlying
societal contexts and understandings. By examining the content of the advocacy, we can explore
how the discourse, the communication of these values and aims, reflects the underlying
assumptions about nature and our relationship with it in what is stated, and what is not. This will
illustrate the ways in which differing underlying assumptions made by opposing side can impact
the framing of the problem, and its possible solutions. Even more importantly, it may illuminate
the ways in which the same underlying assumptions, for instance the dichotomy of humans and
nature, limit the understanding of the problem for both sides similarly. The consequences of
social constructivism for this project also extend to more specific assumptions about the cases,
including values expressed in advocacy, the way those values are affected by understandings
about disturbance in ecological functions, and the role of protected areas like Ontario Provincial
Parks in Canadian society.
A significant concept which is socially constructed is the notion of nature, a word which has occupied many niches and held many different connotations by different groups over time.
This has significant consequences in the realm of environmental policy, given that our
25 understanding of what constitutes natural determines which options are feasible and desirable when considering what is best in our interaction with the so-called ‘environment’. Williams
(1976) explores the way the various meanings of nature have been negotiated over time, noting that nature is a word used in three main ways: to describe the essential character of something, the essential force which moves things from present to future, and as a term used to describe the material world. The essential force meaning can be understood as the singularity, or aggregate, of the essential character meaning, for example the nature of all things as opposed to the nature of something in particular. This inherent force often takes on a religious discourse, the idea that
Mother Nature is an ether through which the will of God is done (Williams, 1976). This can be seen in the relationship between forces of nature and human endeavors, such as agrarian societies praying to gods to provide the right measure of rain and sun for a healthy harvest.
As the understanding of the way the concept of nature has been socially constructed has developed, ideas about the consequences of the proposed duality between man and nature in terms of the productions of knowledge needed also to be considered. In The Trouble with
Wilderness, Cronon (1996) suggests that society’s perception of wilderness as pristine, needing to be protected from humans has conceptually pitted human influence against healthy environmental practices. By presenting humans as the anthesis to nature, the responsibility to consider the well-being of the material world outside of designated protected areas are alleviated, as nature is compartmentalized into convenient landscape scales. This dualism has created tension between urban populations seeking these natural experiences, and rural populations which depend on the extractive consumption of resources for their livelihoods.
The eagerness to segregate humans and nature has also provided a foundation of assumptions which have actually harmed both natural environments and the peoples within them.
26 In assuming that the human influence on nature is one which is inherently negative, studies about how landscapes have changed over time have failed to consider the history of the relationship between landscapes and their inhabitants, especially in colonial settings where the pressure from power establishes a need for the considerations of populations incapable of proper, modern behaviour. For instance, the example of deforestation in Africa, in which studies subscribing to the narrative that human effects on nature are inherently negative justified colonial control for environmental protection. Fairhead and Leach (1995) examined the impact of these socially constructed assumptions on research regarding deforestation, where local populations were blamed for causing deforestation, leaving only islands of trees behind, findings which necessitated action and colonial control to prevent further landscape degradation. By contrast, aerial photos proved that the islands of trees which these observations were based were not remnants of a larger forest of the past, but rather were developed by the actions of people, bringing complexity to the landscape in afforested patches. In this case the underlying assumption that man and nature are inherently at odds framed the observations in a way which was detrimental to the local peoples, and failed to acknowledge the complexity of the human relationship with natural processes in co-producing the landscapes. While these studies suggest that the deforestation and erosion were socially constructed by the influence of power on the underlying assumptions, it did not deny the physical processes deforestation as real, it simply illuminated the way in which the causes and solutions to phenomena are inherently fraught with subjective assumptions and power laden judgements which have consequences worth considering.
The social construction of the ‘forest’ is perhaps best explained in the work The
Intemperate Rainforest (Braun, 2002), which examines the way the forest landscape of
27 Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia emerges from the combination of non-human processes and the understandings of the society around it. The work focuses primarily on the conflicting values of environmentalists, Indigenous inhabitants, and the forestry industry in the issue of clear cut commercial logging in the area. Braun depicts the forest as an artifact of history, rising from the influence of social conceptions of nature, modernity, and progress, as well as the colonial and indigenous history of the region. Braun (2002) undermines the idea that nature can be isolated from history, and in doing so explains that the co-production of natural landscapes by society means that society has a responsibility to select values, anthropogenic and other, over long time scales, with which we manage and shape our world. The custodial view of harvesting, in which logging maintains the health of the forest by preventing rot and mimicking disturbance events leaving room for succession, opposed the notion that human activity impacting nature is destructive, and yet Braun illustrates the way which the views are two sides of the same coin.
This separation of human from nature prevents the careful consideration of the forest as a network of political, economic, cultural, technological and ecological interactions, and excuses the lack of these considerations in management decisions regarding these areas (Braun, 2002).
2.3 Stakeholder Values and Policy
A crucial theme in this thesis is the influence of actors on policy decisions. Stakeholders are defined are those who are interested in contributing to the decision making process, often because the policy will either personally impact them, or the policy has the potential to reflect or offend their values. In protected areas policy, stakeholders often include government (federal, provincial or state, municipal), industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Indigenous communities and other local peoples, and the general public of the nation within which the
28 protected area exists (Carlson, 2015). These actors and groups have varying degrees of influence and resources to help enact change in directions which reflect their values, but all of them are impacted in some way by the policy, and therefore have incentive to involve themselves in the decision making process to achieve their preferred policy (Zachrisson & Lindahl, 2013).
The context in which the forest is experienced by stakeholders has a large influence on what they believe the forest is and should be. For example rural residents are less likely to see logging as at odds with the forests well-being, because they experience nature often, in a way which is integrated with an anthropogenic presence (Wiersma et al., 2015), in addition to the ties of employment to industry, which is, not surprisingly, also a strong control on forest values
(Berninger et al., 2010). While stakeholders scale down to individuals, groups play a large part in the process of stakeholder involvement in policy, especially in the dissemination of information and shaping of public opinion through promoting narrative congruent with their policy aims, and in serving as a sounding board for those same individuals, connecting their held values to the resources and political capital to influence decision makers.
Forest values can be either ‘held’ or ‘assigned’, where ‘held values’ include principles that represent the worldview of an actor, while ‘assigned values’ represents a worth assigned to something, such as the price on forest products or tourist experiences (Wiersma, 2015). Values in this context refers to the held values by stakeholders which define the management objective resulting from policy, the potential economic, social, and ecological values assigned to the forest.
Values can also be material, such as timber which refers to the wood products extracted by loggers, or non-material, like the state of biodiversity in an area (Wiersma, 2015). For example, stakeholders and groups who consider themselves to be environmentalists would likely see an intrinsic ecological value in the forest, in the sense that just its existence alone justifies policy
29 which protects that existence, or instrumental values in the amenity provided by the protected
forest, for instance for recreational and educational purposes, largely non-material values. On the
other hand, industry and economically minded stakeholders would likely see the forest for its
timber value, and aim for management that allows for the extraction of that material value of
timber in a manner which benefits the economy, locally, provincially, and even federally. When
stakeholder values differ concerning the appropriate uses of the resources of a landscape, those
values come in conflict, and lead to policy debates (Zachrisson & Lindahl, 2013).
Values are not static; they change over time depending on context. For example, the
presence of economic distress often means industry has a greater influence over policy, such as
the fishery collapse in Newfoundland which led to a growth in the relative importance of the
forestry sector (Kelly, 2014). Marald et al. (2016) compared forestry academic literature from the
United States and Sweden showing that, while understandings of forests were more nuanced than expected in the early 20th century, in both countries the values of the forest embraced diversified over time. Furthermore, the U.S was far more concerned with timber depletion and therefore focus on productivity and wise use, while Swedish resources aimed to prevent degradation on private land (Marald et al., 2016). Values also exist in hierarchy, which is to say, some core values, such as ‘humans are stewards of the environment’, or ‘nature exists for us to harness’ inevitably shape more applied beliefs, such as what constitute conforming and non-conforming uses in a protected area. The historical context of the stakeholder with regards to the forest is also a large factor influencing policy aims, in other words, lands that were traditionally protected, or logged, are likely seems as most congruent to that land use moving forward, with employment being an especially large factor in this phenomenon (Berninger, 2010).
Values occupy geographical space in the values that guide the land use policy of
30 landscapes. Duinker et al. 2010 completed the crucial job of comparing sustainable forest management and protected areas for understanding of the values which each designation centres around. There was previously confusion about the differences between the two, rooted in the expression of one as a dominant management paradigm (SFM) and the other is described by the title given to the place that paradigm takes place on (protected areas). They describe protected areas as areas where the management paradigm of nature protection, the dominant value is the conservation of biodiversity, and includes other values like tourism, heritage, and aesthetics.
These areas are often characterized by the exclusion of industrial uses (Duinker et al., 2010). On the other hand, sustainable forest management is a paradigm that take place on timber producing forests, where logging occurs but not necessarily on the entirety of the land. While this paradigm values the long term health of the ecosystem, the dominant value in these areas is timber, wood for commercial sale and human consumption in the form of pulp, paper, lumber, and biofuel.
Duinker, et al. (2010) conclude that the designation of these areas doesn’t guarantee the effectiveness of that policy, as well managed timber producing forests could conceivably represent biodiversity better than poorly managed protected areas.
Sustainable forest management represents the most recent stage in the multiple stages of management paradigms of societies proposed by Lane & McDonald (2002), who examine management types by era in American, Canadian, and Australian contexts. The general trajectory of these three settings all involve the transition from traditional hunter gatherer stage, to explosive colonization, settlement and commercialization, wood resource protection, multiple use management, and finally sustainable forest management, although not all stages are represented in every context. They also found that transition between stages are generally brought on by dissatisfaction of the publics changing expectations that the current paradigm no
31 longer meets (Lane & McDonald, 2002).
Carlson et al. (2015) describes the key relationship between protected areas and sustainable forest management is the relative abundance and distribution of the two, which they characterize as imbalanced. The Boreal Forest Conservation Framework aimed at achieving a balance in these paradigms in the boreal forest, as the forest remains an opportunity to increase protection in Canada, which is only 12% protected. With a historical bias towards resource production in the Canadian context, Carlson et al. (2015) argues that the imbalance of the
abundance of SFM and protection is a barrier to collaboration as the unequal distribution of
power of the involved parties contributes to animosity and entrenchment. The stress on the
necessity for the designation of protection representing equal area given the designation for
protection in Algonquin Provincial Park has not led to the end of logging in the park,
representing the imbalance in power dynamics described by Carlson et al. (2015).
Robinson & Davis (2014), exploring the contents of the Planning Guides for 1996 and
2009 prescribed by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994), found that there has been an
increase in the importance of non-timber values on managed Crown lands in Ontario. The 2009
plan was found to include a more diverse range of values, a metric which SFM is evaluated by,
although Robinson & Davis (2014) found that timber remains the most prominent value, and that
other values are often included in the manuals in a way which is directly integrated with timber
value.
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s (1988) model for policy change, the Advocacy Coalition
Framework, asserts that the hierarchy consists of core values, policy values, and secondary
values, where secondary values are nuanced beliefs on highly specific aspects of policy, and are
more easily sacrificed than policy aims and core values. Everyone has values, ways they see the
32 world, how it is and how they would like it to be, but these values are not necessarily reflected in
policy, even in a constitutional democracy like Canada, without the mechanism of stakeholder
involvement and advocacy.
The involvement of stakeholders in policymaking connects the mental conceptions and
values about how the world should be, to the material world. In most policy, multiple values
exist, and often conflict, meaning that stakeholder beliefs are balanced in policy making, with
some gaining emphasis over others, and tradeoffs of values resulting with relative winners and
losers in policy outcomes (Berninger et al., 2010). The ability for stakeholders to contribute to policy process has evolved over time, from election of representatives, to public consultations, to direct participatory involvement, decision making power and cooperation of stakeholders of diverse opinions in reaching acceptable compromise. This transition can be described as one from governing to governance, the former being the top down control of resources through rules and institutions, the latter being a complex system of top down and bottom up involvement in policy through multiple overlapping institutions, including interest groups, citizens, and indigenous people, all meaningfully contributing to the policy process (Howlett et al., 2009).
Early efforts at public consultation, such as the discussion to end logging in Quetico
Provincial Park described in this thesis, involved accepting comments from stakeholders in a
formal structured way, without the concession of any decision making status to stakeholders, in
other words, their voices were heard, though the degree to which their influence on decision was
highly case dependent. These are most often characterized by conflict, with competing values
and their justifications pit against each other. This conflict approach, where opposing sides aim
to impose their values on the policy with as little compromise as possible, can be described as a
stage of stakeholder involvement, which can evolve into cooperation over time (Duinker et al.,
33 2015). Cooperation of stakeholders with opposing values forms on the basis of deliberate
interfacing between groups, with informed formal discussion, shared understandings of issues,
policy aims, and their consequences, and a nuanced but hands-on mediating role by government
(Robson & Kant, 2006). The format of the Quetico Advisory Committee hearings from the case
in this thesis serves as an example of early informed, well mediated discussion, representing a
new norm of public involvement which was far more novel in the context of the time. This type
of stakeholder involvement set the stage for more elaborate efforts to integrate opposing values
through cooperation and co-management initiatives which harness resources of both government
and stakeholders to produce more equitable outcomes through informed deliberation and joint
decision making authority. These cooperative endeavours are no small feat, as large gaps in the
core philosophies which guide policy aims exist between industry and environmental groups, and
thus cooperative endeavours rely on strong facilitation which prevents tangents caused by these
gaps (Duinker et al., 2015). Generally speaking, the transition from governing to governance is
one clouded with uncertainty, where the promise of governance faces issue in implementation,
and where ideas about how these endeavours might find success exist far before extensive
evidence of their implementation (Robson & Kant, 2007).
Howlett et al. (2009) found that the applicability of governance approach depends on the political, institutional and regulator dimensions of a context. All three dimensions are impacted by the relative type of society, from rigid hierarchal societies where authority is highly organized, to plurilateral societies where more informal arrangements characterize governing paradigms. The political dimension regards the degree to which power favours state or non-state
actors, impacting the relative influence of the public on decision making. The institutional
dimension concerns the formality of the process, as informal and formal processes each favour
34 different types of stakeholder involvement, for instance formal processes can be barriers to
meaningful public input. Finally, the regulatory dimension concerns whether hard law or soft law
will govern the issue, for instance the difference between voluntary and self-monitored limits
compared to audited firm legal limits imposed by a government. Where a decision making
context falls in these three dimensions can impact the potential for meaningful collaboration and
shifts towards governance. The dimensions also can be considered in isolation of each other, as
Howlett et al. (2009) describe them as nested, as the institutional structure is determined by the
structure of political power, which determines the availability or feasibility of regulatory
instruments.
Duinker et al., (2015) used Lee’s (1993) model of the compass and gyroscope to assess the efforts of collaboration between industry and environmental interest groups in the context of the Colin Stewart Forest Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada. In this model, the compass represents the science of adaptive management, the inclusion of scientific perspectives to consider the barriers and opportunities in the selection of protected areas, assess wood impact supply. The
gyroscope in Lee’s model represents the politics of bounded negotiation, emphasizing conflict
resolution of traditionally opposed values of actors. The study found that the CSFF represented a
strong application of the model, with commitment on both sides to scientifically informed
decision making, and the use of techniques that helped facilitate collaboration between the
groups. These techniques included a facilitator, careful selection of representatives to negotiate,
and a memorandum of understanding that kept focus on the simple mandate of the exercise when
complex tangents occurred. This research emphasizes the importance in not just the values
expressed in the discourse, but the importance of tactfulness and deliberately addressing
potential conflict between collaborators from opposing parties.
35 Zachrisson & Lindahl (2013), describe the necessity of actor interdependence of
collaboration, and examine the way that the institutional, economic, and discursive contexts
influence the amount of actor interdependence. They find that favourable contexts for
collaboration include the mobilization of weaker parties which helps alter the existing power
dynamics, whereas unfavourable conditions contain a dominant party which is unthreatened by
mobilization of weaker ones. Discourse itself influences the potential for collaboration on an
issue, in the shaping of stakeholder perceptions regarding the feasibility of policy options.
Existing discourses about general issues to which a particular issue is connected can be drawn
upon to help alter the power structure as well, such as the inclusion of prevailing discourses
concerning historical treatment of indigenous peoples, as allusions to these greater narratives can
increase awareness and alter perceptions (Zachrisson & Lindahl, 2013).
Berninger et al. (2010) examined the influence of interest group membership and region of respondents on preferences of forest values in a choice experiment. Respondents were given choices between the following in given circumstances, and asked to choose the policy option which would maximize their utility or happiness. The values included: the proportion of land set aside for conservation (ecological), wildlife species the forest supports (ecological, biodiversity, multiple use), average size of clear cuts (ecological), forest sector jobs (socioeconomic) and impacts on the respondent’s household expenses (socioeconomic). The findings of this research indicated that significant differences in preference existed between different interest groups in the same area, and between the same interest group in different areas. The found preferences were often associated with historical forest use and local forest conditions. They also found that employment preference was strongly determined by area rather than interest group. This regional control on forest value preferences is important in contextualizing the rural and city divide
36 regarding forest values.
Historical factors, in addition to influencing the discourse and preferences of
stakeholders, can also influence the feasibility of collaboration between opposing stakeholders.
Barry (2001) examined their influence in a case study of the Kawartha Highlands Local
Stakeholder Committee, and found that the history of rigid discourse and accommodation of
powerful stakeholders without meaningful public input has led to binary discourses characterized
by a lack of flexibility on both sides. Dissatisfaction by environmental advocates and industry
advocates being accustomed to realizing their policy aims lead to entrenchment on both sides and
less willingness to compromise. Barry theorizes this tense discourse was symptomatic of
growing tensions of economic environmental values in the Canadian context. Given their case
study shares the historical context of Ontario with this thesis, this suggests inflexible discourse
may characterize the Quetico and Algonquin Provincial Park case studies as well.
Harshaw and Tindall (2005) examined the impact on social networks of actors in an issue and their values. The study focused on the relationship between the range of ties, diversity of identity, and diversity of forest values. The ‘range of ties’ described the “Diversity of ties to people with different relationships to the forest” and was found to have an impact on the diversity of identities (“indicators related to outdoor and natural resource identities”), which in turn influences an actor’s diversity of forest values (Harshaw and Tindall, 2005 p 441). Put more simply, the exposure to diverse perspectives concerning forests via the network of an actor leads to more diverse perspective of the individual concerning forest values. This has an impact on discourse and the potential for collaboration, as foresters, traditionally the dominant stakeholder in decision making process, tend to have narrower range of ties and forest values. Thus, they recommend that more non-forester stakeholders involved in division making, noting the
37 advantage of not only including the communication of non-timber values during the process, but also in the expansion of forester’s range of ties and the potential for diversifying their own forest values. Even among non-forestry stakeholders the range of ties were important, for instance, a generalist recreation stakeholder would likely have a stronger range of ties than specialists, as specialists’ experiences were less likely to expose them to people with perspectives and relationships to the forest different than their own. Finally, the study found city residents to express more diverse forest values, hypothesizing that they might be more liberal in consideration of ‘post materialist’ values.
Stakeholder groups, both industry based associations and ENGOs, contribute to the policy process through both their own advocacy communications, and through connecting resources and political capital to individuals who holds their values. These groups contribute expertise and political capital to the policy aims which they back, informing the public on their framing of the issue, mobilizing those with like minds and similar values to action and advocacy, and providing voices to those who might not otherwise be able to contribute to the policymaking process (Zachrisson & Lindahl, 2013).
Environmental values, in part through stakeholder interaction in the policy process, have become far more prevalent in land use planning in the twenty first century, both in the expansion of protected areas, and in the adoption of non-timber values in Crown land management units. In the past, it was assumed generally that Crown land without protected status as a park or reserve was purposed for economic exploitation. However, Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) policy has integrated non timber values into the management plans for these regions, aiming to reduce the impact on ecosystems and provide recreational opportunities in a manner which maintained economic productivity (Messier & Kneeshaw, 1999).
38 For industry stakeholders, when the imposition of other values through policy puts the
potential output of the landscape in jeopardy, which represents considerable economic costs of
varying degrees driving conflict. Dhital et al. (2013) examined the effects of sustainable management policy issues including forest age structure inspired by forest disturbance and reproduction of disturbance patterns at a landscape scale, finding that each of these objectives accounted for a tradeoff in timber supply. This tradeoff of timber value represents a cost on the industry of the implementation of protection, of which mitigation of might allow for better collaboration between industry and environmentalists.
Striking a balance between values is difficult, because what one considers an appropriate balance is subjective and influenced by perspective. Erdle (1999) considers the way which the incompatibility of values contributes to complexity in decision making, where improvement in representation of one forest value can often only come at the expense of another. He examined the forest industry in New Brunswick, Canada, where the intensive management by industry accounts for 35% of the provinces gross domestic product. In this context, timber is relied upon heavily by communities and demand is growing, but appreciation for alternative forest values is also growing. Erdle (1999) proposes means of mitigating the loss in timber value as other values are included. He suggests that additional flexibility in harvest treatment like thinning and partial harvests can help forest extract more profit off of the same land base, which would help to offset the cost of reduced availability for harvests due to increases in protection. Other suggestions
Erdle (1999) makes for mitigating such loses include intensive logging on single use zones, harvest of higher quality wood, production of value added products, and tourism related development. Overall, Erdle (1999) suggests that the conflicts of forest values are likely to intensify and creative and innovative solutions can be helpful in implementing more balanced
39 forest values.
An area perfectly protected from human influence, and management areas as timber farms free of ecological and other value considerations, are absolutes on a continuum. The spatial planning of management and protection can be organized in a way that protected areas and management units occupying similar places on the continuum of integrated values so that they maximize effectiveness of both policy instruments (Wiersma et al., 2015). According to
Wiersma et al. (2015) the relative sustainability of a protected area is determined by its size, what surrounds it, visitor traffic, the presence of infrastructure, and the effort made at emulating natural processes during interventions. On the other hand, the sustainability of forest management depends on the amount of land converted to non-forest, the presence of road, amount of restoration, consideration for at risk species and the emulation of natural disturbances.
They also contend, contrary to Berninger et al. (2010) assertion that the equal designation of protection and management areas is crucial, that forest values can be multitude and present regardless of designation.
There are two examples of stakeholders with different values around the ecological, economic, and cultural importance of forested areas which particularly inform this thesis:
Clayoquot Sound and the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. In the 1990’s a conflict occurred in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Environmentalist stakeholders blockaded logging roads to protest the clear cutting of the ecologically significant temperate old growth rainforests in the region. The conflicts between environmentalists and Indigenous and industry interests in the area began with local protests organized by Friends of Clayoquot sound in the mid 1980s, where small scale blockades restricted use of roads by MacMillan-Bloedel employees to reach their operations on Meare Island (Boutilier & Svendsen, 2001). These local protests, which varied in
40 prominence between 1984 and 1992, increased in scale in 1993, where outrage over the
Clayoquot Sound Land Use plan materialized in protests with over 12,000 attendees and support of major environmental groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club (Fabig & Boele, 2003;
Mann, 2013). While in the end the conflict in the region lead to co-management and meaningful collaboration between stakeholders, the case is one which conflict arose over the expression of values in land use, and in the end over 800 arrests were made, and the events became the largest act of civil disobedience in the country’s history (Boutilier & Svendsen, 2001).
LaValle and Suedfeld (1997) performed a content analysis of the information campaigns by the different sides of the issue, including government, environmentalists, Indigenous, and industry, examining the complexity, motive, and values priorities behind each campaign. They found that the government presented the widest range of values, while very little overlap existed between environmentalists and industry concerning values expressed. They also found a strong right or wrong dichotomy presented by stakeholders in both camps, which they argued limited opportunities for collaboration or innovative solution.
Boutilier and Svendsen (2001) identified specific stages of the conflict in Clayoquot, describing the way that connections and relationships were established across advocacy positions over time, and the important development towards this end in each stage. They describe the early
‘confrontation stage’ in which simple cohesion between members of the same side of the issue could be challenging. Prior to the blockade protests in 1993, there was weak cohesion among environmentalist advocates, though individual participants of the blockades coalesced into a more cohesive advocacy group. In the second stage, the ‘power struggle stage’ ENGOs and
Indigenous began to collaborate, with the good standing of Indigenous advocates in the international media utilized in a way that gave ENGOs to achieve a more equal power dynamic
41 with industry counterparts. Next, in the ‘exploration stage’ interpersonal trust was built between the opposing sides in the negotiation by competent individuals on all sides, as well as exercises in trust, such as sharing information and observing if it was leaked by the other side or not. The
‘cooperation stage’ is when shared understanding between opposing sides was to be established, including the identification of common values, goals, and paradigms as a starting place. Finally, the ‘collaboration stage’ involved joint planning by stakeholders from all groups. Boutilier and
Svendsen’s (2001) research shows the gradual way in which conflict can become a collaborative effort, and the way that the balancing and tradeoff of values in land use negotiations take time, and do not exist in a static condition, which might provide useful insights on potential avenues for better collaboration in the case of Algonquin Park.
The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA), is another example where multiple levels of government, industry representatives and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) collaborated in creating a framework for balancing sustainable development and protection in Canada’s Boreal Forest. In 2010, 21 forest product companies and nine environmental organizations agreed to collaborate in the planning and implementation of strategies to increase the ecological values presented in the management of the vast Canadian
Boreal Forest. While initially, this agreement included six goals, such as “reducing greenhouse gas emissions along the full life cycle from forest to end of product life” and “the recovery of species at risk within the boreal forest including species such as Woodland Caribou” (CBFA,
2010 p.7), in which groups would plan initiatives to better the protection offered in the context of forest management. Unfortunately, due to the incongruence of the worldviews held by opposing interest groups, progress on these tracks stalled, with both groups disappointed in the lack of progress made (Sumner, 2015). In 2012, a major participant on the environmental side of the
42 table, Greenpeace, pulled out of the agreement due to lack of foreseeable progress, as at the time only one of the six conservation plans had been completed. Greenpeace felt that other avenues for the improvement of protection in the boreal forest were a better use of time and resources
(McDiarmid, 2012). Criticisms of the agreement seem to have their merit, as by 2015, still frustratingly little progress in compromise and cooperation had been made (Sumner, 2015). The latest update available on the agreement was that land in Quebec which was supposed to be part of the moratorium on logging for the sake of protecting caribou habitat had been logged during the moratorium (Rabson, 2017). The aim of blending values seemingly in direct opposition to each other, use and protection, is a difficult task, and studies by Reid (2014) and Lee (2011), are useful in understanding the ways the values were balanced, and the way trade-offs were negotiated by stakeholders.
Reid (2014) describes the way that the CBFA successfully met the five conditions of collective impact developed by Kania & Kramer (2011), and serves as an example of the way that collaborative endeavours regarding land use are advantageous as opposed to conflict. The
CBFA negotiations consisted of a common agenda, backbone organization, a shared measurement system, mutually reinforcing activities, and continuous communication, which make up the conditions for collective impact. Reid (2014) posits that this process of collaboration between the forestry industry, governments, and environmentalists, although a delicate peace of opposing interests, yields better balance and representation of values as opposed to the consult and decision model, which yields conflict between stakeholders and decisions which “ensure everyone is equally unhappy” (pg 67). While the Quetico case study in this thesis is clearly a consult and decide model of stakeholder participation, the debate over land use in Algonquin persists, and Reid (2014) findings suggest a collaborative model, such as that
43 of the Joint Proposal for Lightening the Ecological Footprint of Logging in Algonquin Park
(2009), which aimed to increase protection in the park to improve the balance between development and ecological values.
Lee (2011) presents another perspective on the CBFA, in which he argues the conservation agreement is actually a case of ENGOs promoting and perpetuating colonialism in
Canada. Partnerships between Indigenous and ENGOs, according to Lee, have the consequence of the continued impairment of Indigenous self. In the case of the CBFA, Lee (2011) suggests the connection between the way ENGOs are legitimized by the state as part of the democratic process, the domination of Indigenous government and self-determination in Canada, and the government’s interest in resource exploitation in the hinterlands within which Indigenous communities exist. Lee (2011) states: “Indigenous Nations, inherently legitimate on their own, have more power in remaining in Nation-to-Nation relationship with the state rather than being brought into Canadian Society as a stakeholder” (Lee, 2011pg. 141). The CBFA explicitly refers to the Indigenous people in the territory covered by the agreement as groups or communities, rather than Nations. This undermines the self determination of Indigenous peoples, and perpetuates colonial injustice. Furthermore, Lee outlines the way that the traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples was ‘mined’ from Indigenous peoples, excluding those who produce and reproduce that knowledge from the negotiations, and disconnecting it from the territory and the people which give it significance. Additionally, the traditional knowledge was included in the
CBFA in a way which its value is subservient to that of other ways of knowing, presented as supplemental to the Eurocentric perspectives and values in the report. Lee’s critical analysis of the CBFA’s marginalization of Indigenous peoples shows that while collaboration between
Indigenous peoples and stakeholders exist, they often undermine the self-determination and
44 sovereignty of the Indigenous people included. This is important for the consideration of the ways that values of Indigenous are expressed in decisions made in the case study for this thesis.
The literature indicates that values held by stakeholders are influenced by the perspectives of their society and social constructions, but are also shaped by the advocates experience, and their understanding of natural and social phenomena related to the case at hand.
In the case of logging in provincial parks, the understanding of the place of disturbance in ecosystems (including the relationship between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic disturbances), as well as the understanding of the purpose of protected areas in society and the distribution of their benefits and costs.
2.4 Ecology and Disturbance
The relationship between human driven forest disturbances like logging, and natural forest disturbances such as fire, windfall, and insect infestation are important features in the debate over logging in protected areas. The understanding that a major driver of forest structure and function is the presence of disturbance events is an important aspect of the discourse surrounding logging in protected areas. However, social and economic factors are large drivers of human management, meaning ecological concerns related to replicating natural disturbances may be considered less important in the interest of short term economic value. While seeking to emulate natural disturbance theoretically limits the negative impact of logging, there are limits to this philosophy. These limits include reduction in carbon storage, disruption of structural patterns in the forests, the removal of debris and therefore nutrients from the system, and reduction in presence of late age stands (Carson et al., 2015; Messier & Kneeshaw, 1999). Additionally, the impacts of logging roads necessary for the transportation of timber outside of cutover areas are
45 an inevitable feature of most logging operations, and change migration and hunting patterns and
fragment ecosystems, disturbing the delicate balances therein (Wedels, 2009). Rather than deciding where logging should be carried out based on disturbance regimes and natural patterns, areas are chosen for their economic feasibility, including their proximity to processing plants and markets, and potential yields (Messier & Kneeshaw, 1999). Carlson et al. (2015) argues that fundamental and crucial factor limiting the ability for human management practices to replicate disturbance regimes to maintain forest health is the fact that logging is additive to disturbance regimes, taking place in addition to them rather than replacing them.
Natural disturbances are highly variable over spatial and temporal scales, as a result of diversity in exogenous and endogenous factors. In the case of forest fires, external factors such as climate, moisture, temperature, wind speed and direction, and the fuel quality (canopy structure, density, species, etc.) determine the scale, frequency and magnitude of these events.
The high degree of variables means the patterns of natural disturbance events lack generalizability, and therefore are difficult to accurately replicate (Attiwell, 1994). The
imposition of concerns regarding human time scales on the landscape is also a major limitation
for proper attempts to replicate natural disturbances, though there is strong financial incentive to
attempt to harvest the forests timber prior to disturbance events which ‘waste’ the resources from
an anthropogenic perspective.
Recent acknowledgement of the limitations of traditional logging practices in replicating
natural disturbances have led to innovative techniques to mitigate the damage of logging,
including more intensive management on smaller blocks, and increased areas with higher
protection, reducing negative impacts by concentrating them spatially (Tittler et al., 2012).
Overall, it is clear that while the notion that logging and events like fires, windfalls, and
46 insect infestations are all disturbance events is accurate, the literature generally shows that their similarities do not extend much further, despite our best attempts to mitigate the damage of logging by attempting to replicate natural processes. Our understanding as a society of this relationship has evolved over time, and the discourse in the transition from logging in Ontario
Parks reflects this transition.
This thesis aims to explore the nuance of discourse and advocacy concerning environmental policy, specifically regarding the inclusion of timber operations in protected areas. Parks are places of conflict and change, and reflect and amplify societal values and attitudes. The discourse concerning land use in these areas reflects differences and similarities in stakeholder understandings and perceptions over time and between groups. As with most policy, social constructions which underlie understandings determine the relative feasibility of policy outcomes, and influence the values and concerns of advocates depending on their desired policy outcome. This thesis offers an opportunity to examine the relationships between the values, concerns, policy aims, and case study within the discourse, providing clarity of the content, characteristics, and changes of those discourses within the policy landscape. While the findings of this thesis will be driven in part by the geographical context of the case study areas, more general insights might be made concerning the divergent perceptions of logging in protected areas. Given the interest of integrating non-timber values into forest management, understanding the perceptions of stakeholders with regards to the integration of timber values in protected areas policy may meaningfully contribute to the understanding of the compatibility and relationship of these policy paradigms concerning the management of forests.
2.5 Logging in Canadian Protected Areas
The specific case of logging in Ontario Provincial Parks has been covered in past
47 academic literature, though there are gaps in our understanding of what brought about the policy
change, and the values and beliefs ingrained in advocacy practices from the period which were
documented. Gerald Killan’s work, Protected Places: A History of Ontario’s Provincial Parks
System, released on the 100th anniversary of Ontario Provincial Parks, provides a comprehensive
history of the parks system, identifying distinctive eras of the park. Killan argues throughout the
book that the evolution of Provincial Parks reflected the evolution in the values of Ontarians,
from utility to environmental consideration, and the evolution in the administrative history of the
Ontario Government, from one of circumstance and reactivity to one which rigorously planned to
avoid conflict (Killan, 1993). The chapter regarding the transition from utilitarian multiple use
management to ecologically driven policy centres on the actions of the Algonquin Wildlands
League (AWL) in particular, and provides a narrative of the events precipitating the shift,
especially focusing on logging in Quetico Provincial Park. Killan concluded that while the value
of employment won out in Algonquin and Lake Superior Provincial Parks, the Wildlands
Leagues use of the media to garner public attention and support was instrumental in pressuring
decision makers to rid Quetico Park of logging. The author also notes the influence of the period
when Ontario Premier Bill Davis held the position on an interim basis in 1971, as an incentive was created to appear decisive and sympathetic to public concern in an effort at ensuring support in the next election. This presented a political opportunity for the environmentalists in exactly
the time period where the debate concerning logging in Quetico reached its peak. This research
could be built upon by in advancing the understandings of the discourse of the historical case of
Quetico in order to better understand the transition of park policy, and as a comparison for the
ongoing discourse surrounding the issue in Algonquin.
There are limited studies about the process of removal of timber operations from
48 protected areas. The specific case of the near prohibition of logging in Ontario Provincial Parks, which will be explored in this thesis, was the subject of Killan’s paper “The Algonquin
Wildlands League and the emergence of environmental politics in Ontario, 1965-1974”, a paper which mirrors the insights of the “Politics of Preservation” chapter in Protected Places. Killan used a historical approach to explore the Algonquin Wildlands League’s role in advocating for the transition in Ontario’s Provincial Parks. Another Killan Paper, titled “Ontario Provincial
Parks and Changing Conceptions of Protected Places” (1998) reflected on park policy as reflecting a transition from conservationist to preservationist philosophies over time. In this paper, Killan concludes that while the preservationist ideology is much better reflected in our modern parks, the conservationist ideology is equally evident, as while resource development may represent a much smaller aspect of land use in parks, the marketing of tourist and recreational experiences in the parks show that we never stray too far from utilitarian perspective
(Killan, 1998). While the understanding of the transition in land use policy developed in Killan’s work is strong and suggests potential causes and factors, the work can be taken farther in a systematic reading of advocacy briefs and statements to understand the roots of opposing positions in this policy conflict. By employing what is known about the process of policy change to consider factors and advocates outside the Algonquin Wildlands League, a more holistic understanding of the change can be established. This thesis aims to fill these gaps and aid our understanding of the relationship between constructions and conceptualizations of the human place in nature, as it relates to advocacy and decision making in a policy subsystem context.
George Warecki, a colleague of Killan, researched Ontario’s Provincial Parks in numerous papers outlining the history of wilderness in Ontario. In “Environmental Coalitions and the Limits of Science”, he explored the role of advocacy in Ontario wilderness issues in the
49 1970’s, concluding that early failures may have paved the way for more successful advocacy later on as a result of these failed advocacy efforts. His findings included that scientific justification offered little in terms of political capital when compared to more utilitarian justifications such as recreational use, thus encouraging later groups to try different methods of advocating for their cause. Warecki’s description of a process of learning through experience is very close to the notion of policy learning described in the Advocacy Coalition Framework. This finding illustrates the importance of the framing of a policy belief in initiating policy change, which is of particular concern for this thesis.
A similar operational transition within a protected area in a Canadian context was studied by Kevin Timoney (1996), who explored the policy battle to remove logging from Wood
Buffalo National Park in “The Logging of a world heritage site: Wood Buffalo National Park,
Canada”, asserting that the desire on the part of Parks Canada to appear supportive of employment and economic interests played a key role in the extended practice of logging in the park despite its legal prohibition by National Parks policy. Thus, while the transition in operational land use is similar, the aspect of actual policy change is absent in this particular research. Timoney (1996) also studied the persistence of utilitarian management in Alberta’s
Provincial Parks policy, which environmental advocates in the province might aim to address through land use changes in the future.
Grimwood (2018) used Algonquin Park as a case study in the way that tourism in ‘near north’ Ontario perpetuate colonial narratives, and the opportunities and barriers to using these experiences to reintroduce and share indigenous perspectives. Grimwood (2018) uses content analysis (the method also used in this thesis) to examine the way Indigenous peoples are portrayed on stakeholder websites, seeking to understand power dynamics evident in the tourism
50 experiences. Concerning Algonquin Park, the study found that settler occupation of traditional
Indigenous territory is legitimized by the production of wilderness areas pristine from human impact, necessitating the segregation of Indigenous heritage and the park’s ecology. One example of legitimized occupation found in the study was the Algonquin Park Residents
Association’s use of the justification that the cottages have been occupied over generations, legally, and are done so in a way which minimizes impact on the wilderness. The depiction of historical occupancy of the Algonquin People in the area that would become Algonquin
Provincial Park is generally incomplete and misleading, with Indigenous conflict blamed for the displacement of the Algonquin people, without any acknowledgement of the destabilizing influence of the presence of settlers, or the impact of the park’s establishment on the traditional livelihoods upon which they relied. Grimwood provides background of the presence of
Indigenous values in the park, and employs a similar methodology to this thesis project.
Corbett (1995) studied the logging of pine in Algonquin, finding that between 1830 and
1900 most of the large pine in the park was logged, as industry was only mildly regulated and clear cuts characterized harvests in the park territory up until the 1950s. Corbett (1995) found that since the establishment of the Algonquin Forest Authority (AFA) in 1974, new techniques like shelterwood cutting systems, in which canopy is maintained at all times, preserve aesthetic values and landscape characteristics like soil and water quality. He concludes that the forestry by
AFA has been effective in maintaining the health of scattered pine trees that remain in the park.
Lawson (2001) compared the situation concerning logging in Algonquin Provincial Park to that of Temagami Forest Reserve, as the stakeholder alignments, disruption of Indigenous livelihoods, and medium scale forestry firms which lack economic security characterize both contexts. Important for this thesis is Lawson’s finding that land use decisions such as the
51 prohibition of hunting and mining in the park have led to the conceptualization of logging as a non-conforming use, and that there is difficulty in facilitating collaboration between environmentalists and the Algonquins because of the differences of the two concerning the position of hunting taking place in the park.
In The Production and Consumption of Wilderness in Algonquin Provincial Park, Baker
(2002) explores the way that text, objects, and experiences in Algonquin Park reproduces sociocultural conditions of society. Textual depictions of the park experience restrict the interpretation of the subjective experience in the landscape. Zoning in the park is a conduit to the reproduction of culture in the inclusion, restriction, and prohibition of uses, and allows for values of industry, recreation, and protection to exist within the same framework. Baker (2002) describes the way hierarchies of access exist in the park, including the dichotomy between the corridor experience, which centers around car camping and lodges, and day use opportunities along Highway 60, versus the backcountry experience of portaging and backpacking. These experiences differ in access by the skill level, equipment, and leisure time, as the backcountry experience requires more of all. Thus, the class barriers and socioeconomic inequality outside of park persist in the consumption of wilderness in Algonquin Park. Baker also illuminates the irony that those least disadvantaged by modernity due to economic wellbeing are those with the greatest access to camping trips with the function of the escape from the pitfalls of modernity. In other words, the barriers of the backcountry wilderness experience are financial and free time, both of which affect those who would most benefit from the escape to a wilderness setting.
Overall, Baker provides an understanding of the way socioeconomic inequality persists even in the context of provincial parks, which are mandated for the enjoyment of all Ontarians. This demonstrates the strong connection between the values represented in a protected area and the
52 social context within which they exist. This is an important relationship for this study because it demonstrates that Algonquin Park’s inclusion and exclusion of land uses reflect societal values, and thus the connection between social constructions of nature and values expressed in a land use debate in the Park.
The literature suggests that the history of Ontario Provincial Parks reflects two major transitions. The first transition is one from disorganized management of individual parks to the strict, careful planning of the complete network management of the parks system as a whole seen today. The second transition is one from utilitarian view of management allowing extractive resource use which degrades the very natural environment that parks are established to protect, to an ecologically conscious management regime based on preserving ecosystems, prohibiting non- conforming uses (with the obvious exception). These transitions reflect the society in which the parks exist, and the development of the parks system over time provides the context which is very significant to the transition away from logging. That said, the prohibition of non- conforming uses did not occur in isolation, or simultaneously, and a study of the discourse surrounding the issue fills considerable gaps in the understanding of the transition. As this literature review shows, while the subject of logging in Ontario Provincial Parks has been studied in the past, the research questions and objectives of this thesis aims to fill gaps, including a closer, systematic analysis of the values advocates expressed through a content analysis of their communications on the issue. More can be learned about the social constructions of nature that underlie the beliefs and values held by stakeholders, and observations can be made about the way that understandings of how the forest works, and the role of parks in society, can have a strong influence on an advocates desired policy outcome. This thesis presents an opportunity to observe the way that the discourse regarding parks and logging has changed between the case study of
53 Quetico and Algonquin Provincial Parks, applying lessons about constructions of nature and values presented in the literature to findings of this case.
3. Methods
This study examines Ontario Provincial Park policy concerning commercial exploitation of natural resources within the park, specifically the discourse on the practice of logging in parks.
The Constitution Act (1982) c-92A places the domains of forestry and Crown land management under provincial jurisdiction. The Ministry of Natural Resources/Department of Lands and
Forests regulate the forest industry for the province through distribution of licenses which come with a specific duration and annual cutting allowances for each lease. Logging operations rarely occur on private land. Rather, the mechanism for commercial forestry in the province is that the vast Crown land is divided into management zones, of which areas can be leased from the government with permission to remove the timber found on the land, according to provincial regulations and regulations specific to the management area (OMNRF, 2017). Given that the government directly earns revenue from the licensing of logging on the provinces Crown land through stumpage fees paid by private companies, an incentive is created for the government to maximize the revenue from this stream without otherwise damaging the long term viability of the province’s natural resources. This distribution mechanism means that nearly all logging in the province takes place on Crown land, and that the government is highly involved in the industry, providing and denying access based on their criteria (Winfield, 2012).
The Ministry of Natural Resources/Department of Lands and Forests also oversee planning and operations of Ontario Provincial Parks. Over the course of Parks Ontario’s history, the emphasis of the management of parks has evolved from initial efforts at establishing
54 recreation opportunities to more recent mandates in environmental protection and ecological integrity (OMNRF, 2017). Originally, the parks were established on a case by case basis, with no overarching management or planning goals for the parks as a network, though now the parks are rigidly managed as such, including classifications for individual parks in order that specific aspects of the parks mandate, such as cultural heritage, game reserves, recreational opportunities, etc. can be addressed through the combination of parks management throughout the parks system
(Killan, 1993). Provincial Parks represent a social service in the form of environmental protection and tourist recreation opportunities and destinations in the province, and the way that the role of parks is perceived by the public is crucial in dictating the land use therein, as uses become congruent or incongruent with the park mandate depending on perspective, a phenomenon that lies at the heart of this study.
3.1 Case Study Areas
Given the large number of Provincial Parks in Ontario, I decided that the evolution of discourse with regards to land use in Provincial Parks could be best understood by comparing the landmark decommissioning of logging operations in Quetico Provincial Park in 1972 to the ongoing debate over logging in Algonquin, the only remaining case of logging in Ontario Provincial Parks.
Using case study areas offers a better opportunity to incorporate more local based advocacy that would be more likely overlooked in a more generalized study of the policy transition as a whole
(see figure 1for map of case study areas). The timing of the prohibition of logging in each park is also important, as Quetico devolved logging use in 1972, while logging in Algonquin Park persists today, through the Algonquin Forestry Authority, under the 2006 Provincial Parks and
Conservation Reserves Act. This contrast in timing gives one an idea of the way the discourse
55 has changed in the nearly half century between the cases, and allows for the comparison between
a case of devolution in Quetico, to that of persistence in Algonquin. Within each case study
description below, the socioeconomic, and institutional contexts are explored, providing
additional information about the contexts within which advocacy takes place. Table 1 shows a
timeline of major events concerning this study in each case study.
3.1.1 Quetico Provincial Park
Quetico Provincial Park is positioned along the Canada - United States border, west of
Lake Superior in Northwestern Ontario on the traditional territory of the Anishinaabe . The park
is renowned for the beautiful canoe routes along the boundary waters, and massive undeveloped
wilderness landscapes in its 475,819 hectare area (OMNRF, 2018). In 1909, an effort was made
to reduce loss in forest cover due to logging in the area through the establishment of the Quetico
Forest Reserve, placing restrictions and regulations on loggers, ensuring a sustainable supply of
timber for the future. An inquiry report in 1911 concluded that the new title had accomplished
nothing in protecting the area. In 1913, Quetico became the first Provincial Park established
under the Provincial Parks Act (1913). This progression in protection did little to remedy the
situation however, as logging and its associated degradation continued until a moratorium was
finally announced for harvesting in 1946 by Department of Lands and Forests due to depleted
and degraded timber stocks caused by unsustainable harvesting practices (Killan, 1993). Despite
the harm by the logging, evidenced by the need for moratorium, timber licenses were renewed in
1961, as Ontario-Minnesota Lumber and Matheiu Lumber were both granted timber limits within the park boundaries (Killan, 1993). Matheiu Pulp and Paper went into receivership in 1967, with
Domtar, and American company taking control of the Matheiu license (Killan, 1993). This
56 change meant that a locally owned and operated business, which had been in the region since the
1920’s, was being replaced by ownership outside of not only the region, but outside of the country. Given a general anxiety at the time about the imposition of American economic interests on the Canadian public (Killan, 1993), it is possible that this change may have contributed to a change in the public perception of the issue of logging the park, as the distribution of the benefits of the status quo had changed.
In terms of institutional changes which might have contributed to land use policy changes in Quetico Provincial Park, the 1967 Provincial Parks Classification policy, the expansion of
Ontario Provincial Parks, the addition of the use of appointed subcommittees and public consultation in policy development in Ontario, and the evolving role of the provincial government in providing public services all provide important context to the Quetico case study.
At the time of the conflict and policy change in Quetico, the Provincial Parks Act (1954) guided parks management and operation. This legislation was aimed at maintaining status quo for parks use in the face of increasing recreation demand, which was accomplished by spatial fixes, including zoning, establishing buffer zones, and other regulatory measures used to limit the interaction of logging operations and recreational users. These restrictions placed on forestry operations were meant to ensure recreation experience was preserved rather than out of a stewarding concern for the protection of the park’s ecosystems (Killan, 1993).
The Provincial Parks Classification Policy (1967) was an acknowledgement of a need for a stronger planning process of the parks system, including overall goals for the parks system as a whole, and individual park objectives which aligned to aspects of the system wide goals based on the landscapes strengths and weaknesses (Killan, 1993). The classification policy designated five categories of park, each of which would help address the overall mandate of provincial parks,
57 and would come with its own regulations regarding the management and land use of the park. Of the five potential classifications, three (Natural Environment, Wild River, and Recreation) allowed for commercial logging licenses within park territory (Killan, 1993). While zoning legitimized land uses like logging by explicitly establishing a place for them in park, advocates who wished to challenge the status quo, could now attempt to do so by campaigning for the reclassification of individual parks, rather than advocating for a major change on the scale of the entire institution of Ontario Provincial Parks. Environmental advocates changed their strategy to reflect this advantage, and picked parks with particularly controversial harvesting practices to campaign for prohibiting logging, attempting to draw public attention which might bring momentum into planning for other parks (Killan, 1993). This strategy change had a knock on effect in that the battle for logging prohibition in individual parks fragmented the industry advocacy effort, meaning only the companies directly involved in the logging of a park really needed to concern themselves with that particular battle, as opposed to the former strategy which all the companies logging in any park would need to be concerned with a blanket ban on logging in parks. Quetico was one of the more controversial cases of logging in parks, especially with an
American subsidiary in control of the licenses, and environmental advocates lobbied hard for the classification of Quetico as a Primitive which would eliminate logging as a land use in the park
(Killan, 1993).
Another major contextual detail concerning the shift in policy regarding logging in
Quetico Park was the large growth of the provincial parks network during the decade previous to the decision to prohibit logging. In 1954, there were eight Provincial Parks, half of which were large parks, located in the hinterland northern parts of the province. By 1967, 74 total parks occupied the province, over an 800% increase in just 13 years. Five years later, 33 new parks had
58 been established. This massive growth rate was a major source of change in the Provincial Parks institution, and required increased organization and administrative strategies to manage the various needs and concerns of these parks. An even larger source of change was of the composition of the types of parks; early parks were often large northern parks, the expansion involved a substantial increase in smaller parks which were situated near populace for convenience, many of which were in southern Ontario (Killan, 1993). This change in the types of parks may have contributed to a change in public perception regarding what a park is, as rather than all recreational use of parks taking place in contexts which included logging, a growing proportion of the recreational use was taking place in these smaller parks without logging operations, slowly shifting public perception on the understanding of acceptable park land use.
During the late 1960s, provincial government under Premier John Robarts began a trend of assigning conflict riddled policy debates to commissions and subcommittees, which were composed of experts seeking the best possible policy alternatives (Killan, 1993). These committees often sought public consultation from stakeholders, provided background information to involved stakeholders, and provided final recommendations for decision makers to accept or reject based on their findings (Winfield, 2012). The Quetico Advisory Committee
(QAC) was appointed by Premier Robarts in 1970, and was charged as serving a neutral role in determining the best way to address the issue of logging in Quetico. The QAC held four public hearings in Toronto, Fort Frances, Thunder Bay, and Atikokan, receiving 10 minute spoken briefs by stakeholders from each relative policy aim, and accepting hundreds of written briefs regarding the issue of logging in the park. This institutional model of decision making through subcommittee represented a step for government towards meaningful public policy consultation, and provides important context for the reading of advocacy briefs in this case.
59 Finally, the shift in perceived mandate by the provincial government in providing public services which took place in the decades prior to the Quetico debate can also help explain the increased attention of the public on the management of Provincial Parks. In the 1960s the
Conservative Provincial government undertook a shifting role in society, adopting major budget increases towards service of Ontarians. During the 10 year regime of Premier Robarts alone, the
Provincial budget jumped from one billion to four billion, spending on income security, education, housing and health care (White, 1985). This represented a major change in the role of the provincial government, and by extension, the perception of the public of what the role of the government is. This shifted the balance between the authority of the government and the market, allowing the government to spend and regulate in the name of providing services and increasing the quality of life for the residents of Ontario, a mandate with which Provincial Parks could certainly be considered congruent (White, 1985). This change may have helped sway public opinion that the government restricting the influence of market forces on land use in parks was a legitimate use of their authority as it was in service to the quality of life of their constituents.
In observing the institutional changes concerning the parks system specifically, including the classification policy and the growth in the number of parks in the province, as well as those more general trends in provincial government, including public consultation through appointed subcommittees on specific issue, and the increasing role of providing services taken on by the conservative provincial government of the 1960s, all provide context for the advocacy to be studied for the Quetico case.
In terms of factors external to the institutional changes contributing to the prohibition of logging in the Quetico case study, the urbanization of Ontario’s population, an extended period of postwar economic prosperity, the increased sociological emphasis in the public value of
60 recreation and concern for environmental health, and the public fear of loss of sovereignty to
American interests, all provide us with context within which the advocacy documents being studied were written.
By 1971, approximately three fourths of Ontario’s population was urban (Wall & Marsh,
1982). This large proportion of urban residents had an important impact on the public opinion of the subsystem issues. This is because the urban population was much more sympathetic to preservationist goals, given their exposure to the pitfalls of modernity, and their demand for rural type recreational escapes from their dwelling. West et al. (2006) indicate that the support for parks as a tool for preservation and the exclusion of extractive consumptive resource use can largely be attributed to urban dwelling people, meaning an increased proportion of urban residents might help sway the general public opinion towards the environmentalist’s cause. As
Ontario became increasingly urbanized, the demand for preservation and recreation had increased, which served as a socioeconomic force driving public opinion on land use in the park.
The extended period of post war prosperity in Ontario’s economy may also provide important context for the Quetico case study. During post World War II economic prosperity, increases in income and leisure time, and a major proliferation in automobile ownership, enabled a societal movement towards the values of recreation, including camping and other outdoor recreation which Provincial Parks serve host to. Transportation networks, including tens of thousands of miles of paved highway, and an increase in access to airplane and rail travel, became far more extensive, drastically increasing the mobility of the average citizen, and opening up opportunities for domestic tourism (Wall & Marsh, 1982). People began to become tourists in rural areas, seeking out interesting landscapes which might counter that mundane aspects of modernity and urban life through a return to outdoor values, skills and experiences.
61 The increased demand was evidenced by an increase in spending on recreation, entertainment and cultural services from 6.5% in 1951 to 10.6% by 1975 (Wall & Marsh, 1982). This began an appreciation for the amenity values of landscapes, including recreation use, but eventually to even include an appreciation for the ecosystem services offered by wetlands, which had traditionally been scorned as sources of disease (Wall & Marsh, 1982). The increased demand for recreation opportunities directly influenced the growth rate of the parks system, and increased the proportion of recreational use to commercial use of Ontario Provincial Park territory, which may have served as a source of instability in the subsystem and may have helped create opportunities for policy change regarding logging in parks. Additionally, economic stability allows citizens to concern themselves with issues beyond those of economic sustenance, as the focus of policy makers and the public can turn to improvements that can be made with some economic sacrifice, because there is perceived wealth for such sacrifices to be made (Winfield,
2012). The economic prosperity experience in Ontario in the years leading up to the Quetico case study helped to establish a climate of public opinion where management of parks were a concern, and that forced the expansion of the parks network in a way which highlighted recreation and protection over industrial use for average park users, and thus this prosperity is important context for understanding the Quetico case’s advocacy discourses.
During the case study for Quetico Provincial Park, the early 1970s, just after the peak of the environmentalist movement, the public would likely be more amenable to the suggestion of a tradeoff of economic value for environmental ones than they would have been before the movement took place. This external social force was so much bigger than just increasing protection, rather it was a major societal paradigm shift, from viewing the environment as there purely to exploit for our benefit, to something which should be considered and protected by
62 humankind. The timing of the Quetico case in relation to the environmental movement in North
America further establishes the context within which the advocacy for the case took place.
A growing social attitude which may have been a factor in the public opinion regarding
policy change in this subsystem was a fear of imposition by the economic giant and world
superpower the United States. Some feared that the U.S economic strength and the rise of
globalization would gradually impose American on Canadian Sovereignty through an economic
colonization involving the operation of American companies in Canada (Killan, 1993). This
helps in understanding the Quetico case, as when the local company Matheiu Lumber went into
receivership in 1967, Domtar, and American company took over, which may have reduced
previously strong sympathy of the public to the industry cause. The fear of loss of sovereignty
was not emphasized as thoroughly as it could have been in environmental advocacy, a strategic
choice by advocates who didn’t wish to alienate strong allied support of American
environmentalist and recreational enthusiasts (Killan, 1993).
The history of the Indigenous people in Quetico Provincial Park is a troublesome
example of fortress conservation and the imposition of costs of protection on Indigenous peoples.
The Sturgeon Lake First Nation (24C), a reserve established on Kawa Bay on Lake Kawnipi, and
Lac La Croix First Nations adjacent to the southwest corner of the park were the two band primarily impacted by the park. Aubry White, the Deputy Minister of the Ontario Department of
Lands, Forests and Mines at the time of the establishment of the Quetico Forest Reserve in 1909 claimed that the local Indigenous people wouldn’t be interfered with. However, the establishment of the forest reserve and later Quetico Provincial Park severely disadvantaged the two bands (Nelson, 2009). The following year the Sturgeon Lake band was subject to enforced eviction from Hunters Island, a subsection in the Northwest Corner of the park. The Sturgeon
63 Lake people, restricted in their access to traditional hunting fishing and trapping grounds by the establishment of the forest reserve, and resource competition from settlers, had moved to a camp on Hunter Island to continue their livelihood. Legally, this action was technically in accordance with Treaty #3, however Sturgeon Lake band experienced evictions at gunpoint (Hodgson,
2003), although imperfect population records mean enforcement of this policy is unknown
(Nelson, 2009). By 1915, population records indicated the Sturgeon Lake band had a membership of only four, and by 1931 the band was declared extinct, with the two remaining members joining the Lac La Croix band. Some current members of the Lac La Croix band claim ancestry of Sturgeon Lake First Nations.
While the Lac La Croix band did not suffer the same fate as the Sturgeon Lake Band, the park still had major impact on their livelihoods and the course of their history. The park’s establishment in 1913 restricted access to cultural sites of the band, and restricted the hunting, trapping, and fishing practices as those became illegal in park territory, restricting traditional lifestyles on traditional lands of the people. This major imposition on the Lac La Croix band has contributed to widespread social concerns of poverty and substance abuse (Spielmann & Unger,
2000). Over time, park administrators recognized the impact on the Lac La Croix band, and exceptions were made to the rigidity of park policy specifically for the band, including the permission to run traplines on park territory in 1948, and allowance for motorized vehicles on specific lakes in 1971 in the interest of preserving the bands guiding businesses. Even with these exceptions, it’s clear that Quetico Provincial Park represents mistreatment towards local
Indigenous peoples, as acknowledged in the 1991 apology by the Ontario Provincial Government to the Sturgeon Lake and Lac La Croix First Nations. In 1996, an Agreement of Coexistence was ratified establishing a partnership between the Ontario Government and the Lac La Croix in an
64 effort to both protect wilderness and provide opportunities for social relief and employment for
the Lac La Croix people. Interestingly, on the Quetico Provincial Park webpage, the Lac La
Croix First Nations is described as follows:
“Adjacent the southwest corner of Quetico is the Anishinaabe community of Lac La
Croix. The Lac La Croix Park Entry Station, the gateway to many of the parks most
beautiful lakes is located here. This friendly small community is rich in culture. A
traditional Pow Wow and other public events happen throughout the summer.”
Clearly this depiction ignores how the park has contributed to the small size of the community, and directly restricted access of the Lac La Croix people to their culture, both in restriction on their access to important ceremonial sites, and the direct implications the park has had on their way of life. While the Agreement of Coexistence represented a step towards co-management in
the park, progress can be made in the telling of the darker elements of the park history
concerning Indigenous peoples, as a step towards reconciliation.
By understanding the relative context surrounding the Quetico case study, the advocacy
in the issue can be understood with better attention to the circumstances surrounding the issue at
the time. In observing the documents advocates contributed to the public consultation on the
classification of Quetico Provincial Park in the early 1970s, in conjunction with an understanding
of the context in which the advocates authored their statements, we can examine the contents of
the discourse, including the arguments made for and against logging in the park, and thus better
understand the perception of the purpose of parks and the way that forests work. When compared
with the same type of data from the ongoing debate concerning land use in Algonquin, we can
examine the way these discourses change over time.
65 3.1.2 Algonquin Provincial Park
Algonquin Park, considered the most famous of Ontario’s Provincial Parks, is located in central Ontario, situated between Huntsville to the West, Renfrew to the East, Mattawa in the
North, and Haliburton and Bancroft to the South (Figure 1). The park is located on the unceeded traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples. The park covers an area of 7,653 km, and is known worldwide as a backcountry canoeing haven, with thousands of lakes and eight main river systems consisting of hundreds of tributaries. The forests in the park represent the transition from the Great Lakes St Lawrence Lowlands and Boreal Forest, with deciduous forests dominating the east of the park, and conifers dominating the west. Algonquin was Ontario’s first provincial park, established in 1893 after a lengthy campaign by Alexander Kirkwood, who advocated for a large area free from development to preserve recreational opportunities (Killan, 1993). Interestingly, logging was an appropriate use in Algonquin right from the beginning, and the industry was actually in favour of the establishment of the park because they saw it as protecting potential harvesting space close to populations from developments which would prevent logging. During the first 30 years of the park’s existence, an economic boom contributed to massive harvesting of white pine. The first regulation in terms of buffers did not appear until the 1937 revision of the
Provincial Parks Act (Killan, 1993). A decade later, a report showed that the general trend in the industry was that of mechanization, especially in bulldozing for transportation of harvested wood, and high grading, (taking the oldest highest quality trees only) in which profit was the determining factor in selection in the face of obvious long term consequences of removing only the most profitable wood. In the 1950s Frank MacDougall, the Superintendent of Algonquin
Park, officially implemented multiple use policies into the park operations, with the aim of ensuring that recreational and industry uses were both satisfactorily present and without conflict
66 for all stakeholders, though the emphasis stood on ensuring the perpetuation of logging in the
park (Killian, 1993). The provincial parks classification policy (1967) and the environmental and
recreation movements sparked a major debate in the place of logging in parks. Logging became further entrenched in Algonquin with the establishment of the Algonquin Forestry Authority
(AFA) in 1974, an operational enterprise Crown agency of the Ministry of Natural Resources responsible for regulating the industry within the park. The AFA is in charge of forest management, silviculture, wood measurement, and road maintenance, while under auditing of the MNR.
Current harvesting practices in Algonquin represent the industry wide move to incorporate on production/economic values in sustainable forest management. In Algonquin, logging is typically done using selection and shelter cut techniques, and although some small instances of clear cutting occur, there is a general reluctance to incorporate clear cuts, likely because of how the public may perceive them (Williams, 2009). The general direction of management is that logging should emulate the natural disturbance regimes which the ecosystem is accustomed, providing light to under canopy growth, creating gaps for new growth facilitating the forests natural cycles of growth and disturbance. While this is the accepted best practice in forestry, it’s hard to ignore the fact that within this framework, selection cuts are profit driven, with the most commercially viable trees being harvested, while debris, weak or damaged, overcrowded and undesirable tree species are removed to better facilitate the growth of commercially viable trees (Williams, 2009). Additionally, there has been an increase in actual volume and area of harvest. Logging practices in Algonquin have contributed to reduction of numerous species, including red pine, American elm, yellow birch, eastern hemlock, cedar, and white and red pine. The combination of single tree harvests and fire suppression has limited gaps
67 in the forest, and mid-tolerant species have suffered from these conditions (Williams, 2009). To its credit, the AFA has implemented many ecologically driven techniques and practices into their planning. However, the persistence of logging in Algonquin has led to a reduction in nutrient providing debris, an unnatural horizontal stand structure (irregular gap size frequency) and the simplification of the composition of stands, habitat fragmentation due to logging roads which also increases the potential of poaching and invasive species, changes in groundwater recharge areas for brook trout spawning, and the reduction of minerals in water systems like calcium, which is removed with debris from the forests natural cycles (Banks, 2009; Quinn, 2009;
Williams, 2009). For a map of the scope of land available for logging in the park, see figure 2.
The adoption of more environmentally friendly practices and consideration of alternative forest values while harvesting the parks forests is encouraging, and forestry in Algonquin has become the model for sustainable forest management in Canada. That being said, the implementation of the AFA as a formal institution may have fostered a political atmosphere which may make the prohibition of logging in Algonquin more difficult, given the additional interest and closeness of industry and decision makers, and increasingly environmentally friendly practices and less visible harvests by loggers as imposed by strict regulations which do not draw the same public condemnation of past techniques.
Another longstanding land use controversy in Algonquin Provincial Park has been the
303 cottage leases which exist in the park. Leases were originally offered in 1905, and were offered until 1954, where it was decided that no new leases would be issued and that the 454 existing leases would be phased out by 1996. The seven youth camps and three lodges with commercial leases were extended to 1996 during the initial master planning process for
Algonquin (Killan 1993). In 1996, the existing leases in the park were once again extended 21
68 years until 2017, while negotiations concluded in 2005 for a 60 year extension for the commercial licenses in the park (OMNRF, 2017). To the disappointment of environmental advocates, in 2017 a plan was released to extend leases until 2038, with a five year probationary period with standards of care and environmental practice to be met (OMNRF, 2017).
Cottaging in the park is not a use driven by ecological integrity, and has been justified largely by rather subjective claims, such as the cottages serving as an intermediary between campers and the backcountry, citing their alleged rescues of lost inexperience canoeists over the year (Killan, 1993). Ecologically speaking, the cottages have their share of adverse effects.
According to two reports by the Ontario government, Value of current cottage leases in
Algonquin and Rondeau provincial parks (Miller & Wilson, 2013) and Ecological impacts of cottages in Algonquin Provincial Park (Ontario, 2013) cottage use in the park puts strain of riparian ecosystems, and affects water quality and habitats, with consequences extending far beyond the area of the leased lot (Ontario, 2013). The cottages and associated motorboat use serve as a hazard for introducing invasive species to the ecosystem (Ontario, 2013). Overall, reports have found that these leases represent a general risk of degradation for the park, and one can therefore reasonably conclude that they are not a land use congruent with the Parks Ontario mandate of ecological integrity. In addition to this, a report on the value of the cottages found that the Crown currently struggles to achieve a fair return on the cottages and would have to drastically raise rents and fees to achieve a 4% return on the value of the land (Miller and
Wilson, 2013).
The Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (2006) and the Joint Proposal for
Lightening the Footprint in Algonquin Park (2009) are important institutional changes which contextualize the ongoing advocacy concerning logging in Algonquin Provincial Park in the 21st
69 century. The new Provincial Parks Act did not prohibit logging, but it did establish the value of ecological integrity as the mandate of parks, while the joint proposal provided an opportunity for increasing the protection in the park in conjunction with industry, in order to mitigate the negative economic impact of improvements in protection.
In the nearly 50 years between the 1954 Provincial Parks Act and its successor, the 2006
Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, the state of Ontario’s Parks system experienced a major shift to a greater emphasis of the health of ecosystems rather than simply providing recreational opportunities for Ontarians. While calls for change in the park’s legislation started as early as the late 1970’s, the election of a Liberal provincial government led by Dalton McGuinty in 2003 finally brought this into serious consideration, and work on the new legislation had begun within a year of the election (Eagles, 2007). The new Act solidified the modernization of the parks values in policy over the previous half century as law. The most significant changes in the 2006 Act from that of the 1954 Act was the mandate for the
‘permanent protection’ of biodiversity, and that the ecological integrity of each parks landscape was priority one in planning, management and operations of the parks:
The purpose of this Act is to permanently protect a system of provincial parks and conservation reserves that includes ecosystems that are representative of all Ontario’s natural regions, protects provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage, maintains biodiversity and provides opportunities for compatible, ecologically sustainable recreation. (Ontario Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 s1)
This major shift in mandate, explicitly stated in law, underscored environmental protection of park landscapes as the value directing land use in parks, ensuring that other legitimate and established park uses, such as recreation, were provided in a way which preserves ecosystem health and biodiversity leaving them “unimpaired for future generations”. Ecological values were present in the parks system, especially in policy like the classification policy which established
70 the mandate of particular parks to explicitly hold environmental values above others, such as in the Primitive classification. The presence of ecological integrity as the mandate of whole parks system as law, however, represents a strengthening of environmental policy in the province. The legislation explicitly bans commercial forestry as a land use in parks, however it stipulates that the logging in Algonquin would continue under the Algonquin Forestry Authority (Ontario,
2006). The practice of commercial logging, where even with ecological values of sustainable forest management present, seems to contradict the notion of ecological integrity given the profit incentive which ultimately drives the land use. Some speculated that the contradiction actually might lead to legal trouble for Parks Ontario, as the practice breaks the new first priority of the parks mandate, and could “conceivably lead to litigation” (Eagles, 2007).
Generally speaking, environmental advocates were supportive of the 2006 Parks Act, especially with the emphasis of ecological integrity as a guiding principle to planning and management, but were disappointed that logging would be allowed to persist in Algonquin, and that furthermore, it didn’t seem to be up for debate. While prior to the AFA’s establishment a debate concerning logging in Algonquin existed after the 1967 classification policy, it could be considered that the AFA as an institution with close ties to decision makers, may have prevented the issue from being on the table during the drafting of the legislation.
With a new management plan required for Algonquin Park for the 2010-2020 period, work began in 2008 to ensure that the ecological footprint on Algonquin’s landscape was minimized in the plan, in recognition of the ecological integrity mandate of parks under the 2006
Act. Stakeholders, including the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO), the forest Industry, mill owners, local municipalities, and environmental groups were tasked with establishing a plan to reduce the negative human impact in the park. Once again, the prohibition of logging in the park was not
71 discussed, rather the emphasis was on mitigating the ecological impacts of the logging while having minimal negative effect on industry (Ontario, 2009). Mill owners were the most concerned about the recommendations, questioning the need for more restriction on industry in an already sustainably managed operation in the park, concerned about the extra transportation costs caused by reduced utilization areas, a loss in harvesting area would create a lack of flexibility for operators, and that this was a possible step towards the prohibition of logging in the park. While the mandate of the proposal was not perfect from the environmental advocate’s perspective, Environmental Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) worked hard to contribute to meaningful mitigations of ecological harm in the park (Ontario 2009).
The Joint Proposal for Lightening the Footprint of Logging in Algonquin Park (2009) recommended the increase in protected area in the park to 35%, and the total area not available for logging to 49%, although this included counting areas within utilization zone which were not being harvested into the statistics. The plan recommended the use of GIS in park planning, and a review of the forestry practices in the park to enhance the ecological integrity of operations
(Ontario Parks Board of Directors, 2009). Added protection areas were strategically included as areas which bridged gaps between protection zones, creating corridors of protected areas for wildlife, enhancing the ecological values in the park. The public consultation associated with this document and its implementation in the 2010 Management plan are included in the advocacy documents in the Algonquin case study.
Other important institutional context includes the development of OMNRF’s policy and practices related to forestry. The early 21st century has seen an increased public interest of the environmental practices of industry, and thus, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and
Forest, have thus included environmental values in their policy to reflect this societal change
72 institutionally. Forestry in Ontario is practiced using Sustainable Forest Management, as outlined
in the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (1994), which aims to ensure harvests and regeneration projects are done in a way which reflects the findings of scientific research in aims of ensuring our forests are healthy for generations to come. The Endangered Species Act (2007), Ontario
Biodiversity Strategy, and Ontario Invasive Species Act (2015) are all examples of the ways
Ontario’s government have included ecological values in policy. The forestry industry has struggled in the early 21st century, with significant reductions in harvest area, and employment in
the period of 2009-2013, as compared to the previous period for the report on the state of natural
resources forest indicators; this had led to reduced stumpage fees collected by the MNRF
(Ontario, 2017). The trends of increased consideration and regulation for environmental
protection in forestry, and the reduction in economic indicators in the industry, could both
contribute to the persistence of operations in Algonquin, as they are conducted in a way which is
purported to be environmentally friendly, while policy which further disadvantages a struggling
industry might draw negative public opinion to decision makers, and have real economic
repercussions for communities which rely on forestry in the park.
In terms of economic context during the study period for Algonquin Park case study, the
2008 global financial crisis is important. For the period from quarter three of 2008 to quarter two
of 2009, the Canadian GDP dropped 3.3%. The crisis, caused by abuses in lending by banks, had
much greater impact in the United States than in Canada (Boivin, 2011), although it had a major
impact on the U.S housing market, which provides a market for Canadian lumber. During the
period 2006-2009, which encompasses pre and post crisis periods, lumber production in Canada
dropped about 44%, while pulp output declined by 26.9% (Couture & Macdonald, 2013).
Finally, understanding the context of Indigenous peoples and Algonquin Park is
73 important in framing the advocacy concerning land use in the park, especially given the large land claim submitted by the Algonquins of Ontario starting in 1980, with negotiations up until
2012 when an Agreement in Principle was reached for the land claim. The historical occupancy of the territory of Algonquin Park, and an understanding of the ongoing land claim process is important in understanding the role of Indigenous values in the park.
Historically, the territory of Algonquin Park was occupied by the Algonquin peoples, whose territory in the Ottawa Valley “Kitchissippi” or “Omamowiniai” extends to the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. The abundance of waterways in the region meant it was a vital route for French fur traders in the 1600s, a century which was characterized by war between the
Algonquin and Iroquois, resulting in a loss in the population of older Algonquin people and the social repercussion of lost opportunities for the passing down of tradition and culture (Huitema, n.d).
In the 1700s settlers began to encroach on the Algonquin’s territory, depleting the game and lumber resources for their settlements, leading to a 1772 complaint to the King of France by the Algonquins and Nipissing peoples, although action was never taken to protect their interests.
The King of France had originally promised the Algonquins the deed to their territory in 1721, but it still hadn’t been enacted (likely to accommodate influxes in settlers to New France) in
1780, when the Algonquins put forth a petition for the deed, which went unheeded (Huitema, n.d). In 1840 another trespassing petition against the settlers was filed by the Algonquins, however, three years later, the lack of tillage and temporary residences by Algonquin were cited as a lack of land tenure, and once again the petition was dismissed. This is an example of the colonial justification of terra nullius, in which land not being utilized was thought to be unoccupied, and should be claimed by those who would utilize it properly (Puppe, 2015).
74 Algonquins practiced their own civil law, and the rotation of hunting grounds show consideration for sustainability and the conservation of resources, rather than the vacancy which it was interpreted as by colonists. Despite this, the Algonquin way of life was viewed as lacking the civility of settler culture, and thus the land could be appropriated by settlers to be better utilized from that perspective. This discrimination against the types of land tenure practiced by
Indigenous represent a bias towards understandings of stasis of permanent residency rather than continuity of rotating hunting grounds has had traumatic repercussions for Indigenous peoples worldwide as it enabled colonialism (Puppe, 2015). In an 1845 final report on the issue of land deed for the Algonquins, it was decided that no reserve would be established in the territory, and they were directed to migrate to Manitoulin Island or other Upper Canada reserves that had already been established (Huitema, n.d). Given the requirement of living on a reserve for the
Indian Status, this is significant to the story of the Algonquin peoples.
When Algonquin Park was established in 1893, logging as a land use was considered part of the purpose of the park’s establishment, providing an opportunity for forest management in an area which excluded settlement. While there was consideration and support of the interests of loggers in the park’s establishment, there was no consideration of the rights of Indigenous people when the park was established. Algonquins experienced forcible eviction from the park as their land tenure wasn’t recognized as occupancy. The parks establishment meant the Algonquin people right to their traditional right to the resources of the land became “poaching”, which they continued in defiance of their exclusion from the park (Puppe, 2015). The land for Algonquin
Provincial Park was essentially secured by the implication that First Nation ‘savagery’ was impeding civilization, and their portrayal as lesser humans made the expropriation of their territory for the park easier to justify.
75 Even the decision made to name the park Algonquin came in a tone that suggested the
Algonquins no longer occupied the territory, and were be honoured with the name of the
provincial park as “perpetuating the memory of one of the greatest Indian Nations that has
inhabited the North American Continent” (Puppe, 2015 p. 87). In fact, records indicate several
Algonquins remained in the park territory at the time of its establishment (Puppe, 2015).
Ultimately, both case studies represent a global colonial trend of conservation removing agency and resources from indigenous groups who have legitimate rights to use the land.
It is important to consider in the issue of logging in Algonquin Park from the Indigenous perspective, as it adds the complexity of who can benefit from the parks resources to the question of the issue, rather than just what uses would be appropriate to benefit from. It adds a layer of complexity, as many of the early loggers in the park were Algonquins who lacked the benefits of status because they stayed in the territory, and logging provided a means of subsistence (Puppe,
2015). Additionally, the town of Brent in the north of the Park where a selection of the private cottage leases remain, is allegedly largely composed of Algonquins who lost their status in the retention of the leases (Puppe, 2015). While one might consider who owns the leases irrelevant, it should be considered that exceptions of land use rules according to the treaty rights of
Indigenous peoples in other parks, such as the right for hunting game and fishing (Puppe, 2015), and one might consider the right for an Algonquin to reside in Algonquin Park differently than other ethnicity and personal histories. Overall, the historical context of Indigenous peoples in the park’s territory are significant, as it illustrates the ways in which the rights to use the land, such as resource exploitation like logging were secured in a way which fundamentally excluded the use of those who arguably have the most legitimate claim to those resources.
While the land claim from the Algonquins of Ontario was first submitted in 1980, the
76 objective of a modern treaty is a demanding and lengthy process. Negotiations had persisted for over 25 years before an agreement on shared objectives by the parties was reached in 2006, bringing on a more substantive stage of negotiations. In 2012, where an Agreement in Principle
(AIP) was reached, outlining the terms of the land transfers for public comment. In 2016, the
AIP was ratified by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, though the consultations and negotiations are still ongoing (Ontario, 2018).
The Algonquins of Ontario number over 10,000 people within 10 communities in the land claim area (Algonquins of Ontario, 2013). Algonquins living in the Province of Quebec are not included in the claim, which has been controversial given the traditional Algonquin territory expands beyond the Ottawa river (Tabachnick, 2017). This adds complexity, as the Ontario government could not include Quebec land in the claim, and thus the addition of another province in the negotiations may reduce the chances of agreement. It also serves as an example of ways that modern governments continue to promote division, intentionally or not, in
Indigenous peoples, as in the past when groups were pitted against each other for land deeds
(Puppe, 2015). Canadian provincial political borders do not reflect those territories of indigenous kinship, and thus the imposition of those boundaries in this case points to the perpetual influence of colonialism within the context of reconciliation in the form of the modern-day treaty.
The territory in the AIP, ratified in 2016, is an area of 36,000 km2, within which over one million people reside. 117,500 acres of Crown land will be transferred to Algonquin ownership, as well as a $300,000,000 settlement. It is important to note that no private land is expropriated in the claim. The AIP provides clarity to the Indigenous rights to land and resources within the territory, including active decision-making participation in moose harvesting plans. Regarding
Algonquin Provincial Park, which is in the land claim territory, the claim does not affect its
77 status as a park or its controlling agency. The Algonquins of Ontario will increase their influence on the park management, with an Algonquin representative is to be added as board member to
Ontario Parks under the AIP terms, and the promotion of employment opportunities within the park is also outlined in the agreement.
Regarding the issue of logging in the park specifically, the AIP outlines that this should continue. The agreement stipulates that moving forward, it should be done in a way that promotes Indigenous values, including education and training programs aimed at opportunities for employment, and decision making participation in the form of representation on the AFA
Board of Directors (Algonquins of Ontario et al., 2016). While logging is acknowledged as a legitimate use in the agreement, it is important to note the document explicitly ensures that ecological integrity remains the foremost priority in park management and planning, as well as that opportunities for public consultation would not be affected by the agreement (Algonquins of
Ontario et al., 2016).
In the latest provincial report on The State of Ontario’s Natural Resource: Forest
Indicators (2016), there is acknowledgement that there is need for better relationships between
Indigenous peoples and the management of our forests, so that Indigenous values are better reflected in the management. While the report indicated that the presence of Indigenous participants in local citizens committees had increased during the period 2009-2013 from the previous reporting period of 2004-2008, it also noted that Indigenous values were poorly represented in forest management itself. The Algonquin of Ontario land claim presents an opportunity for the inclusion of Indigenous values in forest management, specifically within
Algonquin Park. More importantly, the increased participation may serve to “revitalize the bonds between the Algonquin people and their homeland” (Puppe, 2015 p. 79). The cultural aspects of
78 the AIP concerning Algonquin Park are also significant, as traditional and cultural places are
protected for the right to ceremonial use. Additionally, cultural inventories, and the potential for
the inclusion of a tourism attraction, such as a museum which highlights the history of the
Algonquins in the park, are included in the AIP (Algonquins of Ontario et al., 2016). In these
ways, the Algonquin Land Claim, while controversial in the exclusion of Algonquin peoples in
Quebec, presents a real opportunity for reconciliation for the Algonquins of Ontario.
Understanding the historical context of Algonquin peoples in the territory of Algonquin
Park, the way the parks establishment harmed the kinship of the Algonquins and their land, and
the ongoing context of the Algonquin of Ontario Land Claim are all important when considering
the Indigenous perspective in the case study regarding the practice of logging in Algonquin Park.
While policy aims of Indigenous people sometimes align with those of environmental or industry
advocates, the important context included from their unique perspective make the consideration of their values and advocacy important in understanding the discourse surrounding land use in the park.
Quetico Provincial Park and Algonquin Provincial Park serve as effective case studies in
understanding the evolution of discourse regarding logging in provincial parks over time.
Regarding Quetico, the strong documentation of evidence of advocacy in the form of the
consultations by the QAC along with relevant temporal links to external factors, such as an
interim Premier appointed in 1971 and the environmental movement sweeping across North
America, highlight Quetico as an important case study for understanding the Ontario Parks
timber policy transition and the role of values therein. Algonquin Park on the other hand
represents the modern context of the issue of logging in parks, with documentation of advocacy
found largely in statements made to the media, reports and briefs published on stakeholders’
79 websites, and comments on the Ontario Environmental Registry. Together, these cases will help identify and understand the discourse about logging in provincial parks in the past and present.
They will be used to compare a context in which logging was prohibited to one where operations are ongoing, and generally will provide insight on the different perspectives and understandings of how forests work and what they fundamentally are, as well as the purpose of protected areas in modern society.
3.2 Data Collection and Processing
In order to assess the beliefs, values and policy aims of active stakeholders, it was necessary to find advocacy documents concerning the issue of logging in each of the case study Provincial
Parks. These documents included written briefs and correspondence with the relevant
Government of Ontario departments (i.e., Department of Lands and Forests from 1967-1973,
Ministry of Natural Resources 1973-present), transcribed hearing testimonies by advocates, and quotes found in media and press releases and documents published by stakeholders. I focused on original contemporary sources instead of interviews. This is because the contemporary sources document stakeholder values and the justifications they use in actual time, rather than as a subjective and contextualized recollection several decades later.
While Algonquin advocacy documents were published recently which meant samples could be found online through media based databases, simple search engine queries, and websites of stakeholders, documents from the Quetico case exist in physical form. While 17 documents were found online in ProQuest’s Canadian Dailies Database, it was necessary to travel to potential data sources for physical documents to complete the dataset. There were five data sources of physical documents searched for relevant documents, including the Wildlands
80 League Library at their offices in Toronto, Ontario, the John Ridley Library in the Quetico Park
Visitor Centre, the Atikokan Centennial Museum archive collection, the Ontario Archives at
York University, and the Lakehead University Archives at the Lakehead Thunder Bay Campus.
A breakdown of the document sources can be found in Table 1. While some of these sources, such as the Atikokan Centennial Museum, did not contain advocacy documents that I hadn’t already come across, the experience of visiting these locations, and discussions had with employees and local residents were useful in contextualizing the issue locally. The briefs found at John Ridley Library were the most crucial dataset for the case study, including the briefs presented and sent to the QAC, while the Lakehead Archives had an impressive collection of media clippings concerning the issue, as well as duplicates of some of the briefs I had already acquired at the John Ridley Library.
The physical documents found at these sources were digitized using the Android mobile application GeniusScan (Grizzly Labs version 4.4.1) which automatically crops, collates, and enhances contrast for text based documents. In order that the digitized copies could be best utilized, the data had to be converted from image files to a format in which text could be highlighted and searched. This was accomplished using a feature called Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) found in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC (Adobe, version 11.1.3), in which text content is identified in image files, and a new text file document is created. While this is a very effective means of accomplishing the task of completing the digitization of documents, as with all software, it is imperfect, and has issues with misaligned and faded text, or glare on the original image file. Unfortunately, some documents collected suffered these issues and were unsuitable for the study. Time constraints, and distance from the document sources prevented the recapturing or transcribing them. More minor issues, such as one or two missing words within a
81 line of texts, could generally be overlooked as the full line is automatically coded because of the words highlighted around them regardless.
The collection of documents used to identify and understand the discourse in the
Algonquin case study was done using various web based sources, including the research
Canadian press database on ProQuest, search engine queries on Google, the ERB registry consultation for the 2013 amendment of the Algonquin Park 2010 Management Plan and websites of key stakeholders. In all of these sources, search queries included “Algonquin Park
Logging”, “Algonquin Park Cottages”, “Algonquin Park Land Claim”, “Algonquin Park Roads”
“Algonquin Park Forestry”, “Algonquin Park Timber”. These terms were chosen to ensure documents retrieved were relevant to that particular land use issue in the park, in hopes of finding documents with samples of text explicitly advocating for policy outcomes in this particular issue. Documents created from 2000 to present were considered in the Algonquin case.
This helped ensure a robust sample of texts containing explicit advocacy in favour of a particular policy outcome on the issue. Websites of key stakeholders searched for advocacy text samples included those of: the Canadian Institute of Forestry, Ontario Forest Industries Association,
Forests Ontario, Algonquin Forestry Authority, Friends of Algonquin Park, Algonquin Park
Residents Association, Algonquin Eco Watch, Wilderness Committee, Earthroots, Canadian
Parks and Wilderness Society, and Wildlands League. These documents did not require the OCR processing step that the physical documents did, though the quotes in media documents were compiled as a single document for coding purposes. A summary of sources consulted and documents retrieved is shown in Table 2.
The total number of text samples found for Industry and Environmental Advocates in
Quetico case was 334, with 6 additional documents representing the Indigenous advocacy on the
82 issue, while the total Industry/Environmental text in the Algonquin case was 129, with an additional 5 representing Indigenous interests.
While documents with one author or authoring organization were coded in their entirety, quotes found in media clippings had to be isolated into samples, as many stories included quotations from members of different sides of the issue. For the purpose of this study, these samples are considered as individual documents, even if numerous ones are derived from the same media source, most commonly articles from Canadian major newspapers and local newspapers.. A list of all sources used for content analysis of both case studies can be found in
Appendix III.
3.3 Coding Software
MAXQDA 2018 (Verbi, version 18.2.0), is a software designed for mixed methods
(qualitative and quantitative) studies of documents including text, image, and audio that was utilized in this study. While in the past content analysis required the extremely tedious task of tallying frequencies and highlighting coding segments by hand, advances in research software have provided researchers with the tools necessarily to perform content analysis in software. The advantages of this approach include the compiling of entire databases, ease of finding categorized segments, and visualization and statistical tools built into the software. While the some of the tedium associated with content analysis is alleviated by this program, by no means is the process automated, and the researcher still requires familiarity with the document context, explicit coding directions, and the history of the issue being analyzed.
83 3.4 Quantitative Content Analysis
Content analysis, the systematic reading of the texts for identifying themes contained therein,
was chosen as the methodology for identifying and categorizing the values expressed by
advocates, and understanding the types of arguments or justifications that they employ to argue
for their policy aims. Each text sample in the database is read multiple times for familiarity and
focused categorization. The first reading involved identifying the individual stakeholder, their
affiliated organization, their policy aims, and the membership in terms of policy aim
(environmentalist or industry) (Table 3).
The second reading of the documents focused on identifying the values of advocates,
including those ecological, economic, social, information based and legal, along with
justifications or more specific arguments made as sub-codes of each value code. These value codes and sub-codes were developed in a pilot coding of a sample of 30 documents, utilizing a combination of familiarity with the issue, and trial and error in establishing coding categories that would fit the relevant content and help answer the research question regarding the discourse surrounding the issues of logging in Provincial Parks. During the coding pilot, if new values or concerns emerged in a document, they were noted, and each document previously coded was evaluated for this context. After two separate coding pilots, a final value coding system consisting of five top level value codes, and 23 specific concern sub codes (Table 4) were established, with guidelines for finding qualifying quotes as a guide for coding (Table 5). By observing the relationship between the identity coding and the value and justification coding we might find patterns can be identified that explain the general way arguments were made by each side, and can then compare the discourse promoted by each side in each of the two case studies,
helping to show how this discourse developed and changed over time.
84 To ensure that the frequency of a coding category had defined meaning, each code was applied
to the minimum coding unit of a sentence and the maximum coding unit of a paragraph. This
means that any sentence focused on a value was coded as such, and that one coding could
continue for consecutive sentences regarding that value, up to the maximum unit of a paragraph.
If a theme was addressed multiple times in a paragraph, separated by the use of unrelated values,
the code was applied to only the sentences with that value, resulting in codes for each of the
isolated mentions of that value. This system was chosen so that frequency represented the
number of times the value was expressed without the continual expression of the same idea over multiple sentences being counted as multiple instances of that value. When a value is the focus of many paragraphs in a row, this would result in one code frequency per paragraph, given the rule of a maximum unit for a code being one paragraph. This unitizing of codes allows us to ensure that when we discuss the frequency of a coded value, we can understand that each code represents no less than a sentence and no more than a paragraph of text.
While content analysis can be performed by simply searching for the frequency of appearance of selected keywords (Robson & Davis, 2015), I elected to systematically read through these documents multiple times, each time with a particular coding emphasis, and manually coded the entirety of each text to ensure that the context of the appearance of keywords was properly considered. This also provided the added benefit of additional familiarity with the documents, which ensures the qualitative observations made about the nature of arguments made by either side include a higher degree of consideration. While this manual coding was the chosen method to ensure careful and through consideration in the categorization of text, I chose to employ a keyword search on the documents using the lexical search feature in MaxQDA following the manual coding to ensure that valid references to values and justifications were not
85 missed. This system may be stronger than a keyword-based search only approach, as the level of
familiarity with the texts bolsters the quantitative data acquired in the analysis with stronger qualitative observations.
3.4.1 Frequency and coverage
To identify the frequency, and thus the prominence of values expressed by each side of the issue, the aggregate data derived from the coding of the documents were considered to compare the ways in which the views of each side were justified in the sources. This was achieved using the Stats tool in MAXQDA, which compiles statistics about the frequency of codes for the entirety of both data sets. By exploring the relationship between the occurrence of value codes and those of identifier codes concerning the side of the issue, we can determine what
arguments occur most frequently in each side, and thus the emphasis placed on that value in the
discourse by both sides, in each case study.
Another consideration of coded frequency is the percentage of the total documents within
which each value appears for each side in each case. This meant using the code matrix browser
visual tool in MAXQDA to isolate which values are mentioned at least once in a document at the
aim of describing how prevalent the value was throughout the advocacy group being considered.
For instance, if a value is mentioned in the vast majority of one side’s documents, we can infer
that that value, or at least the expression of it, was a point of emphasis for many advocates on
that side of the issue, whereas if very few of the text samples for that group mention it, it can be
inferred that the value was not of significance to the group as a whole.
A final consideration of frequency and coverage of coding addressed is what proportion
of each top level value code is made up of each (more specific justification). Because the first
86 level codes are values which cover a widespread of various concerns, detail is lacking about the
way which the value relates to the issue at hand. By examining the proportional emphasis of sub-
codes of each main level value code for each side, we demonstrate what particular aspects of the
value categories are of most concern to each group, and help illuminate the differences and similarities in the perspective and foci of the issue for Environmental, Industry, and Indigenous advocates. The assumption that frequency expresses the real life values of the stakeholder, and
not necessarily what they hope the decision-makers and opponents want to hear is a limitation
inherent to this study method.
3.4.2 Co-occurrence of Values
Observing the way which different values were referenced in conjunction with each-other
is a useful means of understanding the relationship between the categories from the perspective
of each side. An analysis of the co-occurrence of values and beliefs observes the frequency
which coding categories overlapped, illustrating relationships between the values as they are
described by advocating stakeholders. The differences between the strength of relationships of
values for each side may illuminate similarities and differences in each sides understanding of
the way values are conceptualized by each side.
The Code Relations Matrix Tool in MaxQDA allowed for the identification of which
codes overlapped, and how often. In this case, I elected to investigate the co-occurrence of top level value codes for each group. By limiting the Matrix tool to documents for either group in each case study the way which the values expressed by each side related to each other differently can be better grasped.
I used the MaxMAPS Co-occurrence Model allowed me to create a visual representation
87 of the connections between values. The models produced by this tool depict each value and connect each with lines that vary in thickness by the frequency of the overlapping in coding. This model is useful in that it creates a visual representation which makes the co-occurring values easier to understand, and easier for the comparison of the relationships between the value of either side.
Co-occurrence analysis can help develop an understanding of how the values are related in this issue, and the differing complexities of arguments made by advocates between each side.
A limitation of this type of model is that the degree of detail in which each value is discussed in their overlapping text is unknown, so datapoint concerning more superficial co-occurrence can be conflated with more complex ones (Robson & Davis, 2015). In an attempt to limit this source of error, I omitted sentences in which values were simply being listed, rather than discussed, for these analyses, which should reduce superficial co-occurring values from the statistics.
These simple statistics of frequency of mention and co-occurrence provide simplicity of understanding what got mentioned most often, and what values were mentioned together most often. It should be considered that this quantitative data omits the nuance which of the quality of the argument, and the context which surrounds the mention of the value, and thus are limited in use when used in isolation. That said, this quantitative data can be very useful in helping to contextualize qualitative observations made in the content analyses (Krippendorff, 2013). Thus, the results of the quantitative content analysis of each case study should be considered complimentary to the qualitative observation.
3.5 Qualitative Content Analysis
Content analysis, originally a quantitative method to increase the reliability of social studies, has developed into a mixed methods approach where qualitative research by an analyst can help
88 outline latent meaning in the text, examining the intention beyond the simple manifest of the text
(Krippendorf, 2012). Qualitative research, and content analysis specifically, derives its
credibility from a consistent, outlined system of how conclusions are drawn from the documents.
This process involves de-textualization, re-textualization, categorization, and compilation of
units of relevant texts found in the document (Bengtsson, 2016). De-textualization involves the
process of discovery what sources of text are relevant to the research question, in this case, what can the text tells us about the advocates’ perception of the issue, including their position, justification, and their values. Re-textualization involves isolating the most important aspects of those units from what is not needed. Categorization is the process of organizing the data by categories which help answer the research question. In this thesis, the coding categories were developed directly from readings of the advocacy text, these largely center around the assigned
and held values surrounding the issue. Finally, compilation is an evaluation of the trends and
patterns which become evident in the categorized data (Bengtsson, 2016). In this case,
compilation will involve judgements about the types of arguments made by each stakeholder
groups, and drawn conclusions about the latent meaning of these units of text, specifically the
way that held values are evident in the expressed beliefs of advocates concerning the issue at
hand.
A comparison of how the same values are communicated as part of different narratives by
opposing sides of the issue is useful in understanding the way that the problem is defined by each
side. How advocates define the problem is shaped by the conceptualizations of what nature is
and our relationship with it, and in turn these constructions contribute to beliefs about policy, and
therefore policy itself. A qualitative analysis of the way which similar values are employed to
different ends is useful in developing an understanding of the constructions of nature which
89 motivate the policy aims of each side.
I performed a qualitative analysis by selecting quotations for each coded value that were representative of each advocacy groups use of that coded value (sub-code level values). The manual reading of the text as opposed to keyword based coding was highly advantageous in these regards, because my familiarity with the documents made selecting useful and representative citing of each value much easier. I used the Quote Matrix, Cross Tabs, and Joint
Display tools in the MaxQDA software to retrieve quotes from each value and organize the quotations by side of the issue, and case study. I have displayed all the relevant quotes at once side by side, allowing for the effective and efficient comparisons between the discourse for each group in each particular case study. The familiarity with the text and the mixed methods tools provided by the software made the selection of representative coded text more effective, however, the subjective nature of qualitative analysis should be noted as a limitation in this regard, as my interpretations of the issue and perspectives inevitably impacted the decisions made in the selection of quotations for this analysis.
To make explicit the systematic process by which selected values were considered, I asked questions of each sample, (Table 6). These questions guided observations to ensure consistency and prevent arbitrariness throughout this analysis. I considered text prior to and after each quotation from the source to ensure the context was properly understood, and the persuasive purpose of these documents was actively considered while evaluating (Bowen, 2009).
By comparing the quotes for coded values on each group, I considered the ways the fundamentally opposing constructions of nature held by each side allow each to express the same values as means of justification for entirely different ends. A good example of this is the way that economic justifications are made both for continuing and prohibiting logging, as the different
90 sides suggest different influences, such as employment, tourism, and growing demand to make their case. While both sides use all these justifications for their ends, it is the way which they are applied to fit a narrative, their context, which provides insights on the similarities and differences in each group’s constructed idea of nature and the forest.
Finally, after a thorough qualitative analysis about the ways values and concerns were wielded differently by each group in each case study, I considered the question at the center of the research, what does the discourse by each side in each case say about the understanding of how forests work, and what parks role in society is, selecting quotes which illustrate the way these held values impact the discourse on the issue.
While the qualitative method of text analysis introduces more subjectivity in the interpretive role of the analyst, explicit guidelines for sampling and analyzing the text can ensure a degree of reliability and usefulness in findings concerning the documents (Bowen, 2009). In qualitative studies, the potential bias of a researcher can have a large effect on the results of a study. Content analysis requires the practitioner to possess a level of expertise about the specific issue, so as to identify important relevant information from a potentially massive store of documents with relevance to the issue but not necessarily the research question (Krippendorf,
2012). Unfortunately, this presents an interesting paradox, as a research vastly informed means the researcher is more likely to have drawn their own conclusions about the issue (Bengtsson,
2016). Awareness of this will help prevent for the influence of this bias on selection and interpretation of units of text, although this should be noted as a limitation to this methodology.
Another limitation is that, while content analysis is incredibly efficient at shedding light on a specific aspect of a specific issue, there can be issues with the generalizability of the results.
Given the specific issue at hand persists today, and has been contested for almost half a century,
91 a potential for lack of generalizability does not necessarily reduce the value of the findings of
this thesis.
The qualitative analysis used in this thesis will explore the nuances of the discourse by each
side of each case study, contributing to an understanding of the roles of values, concerns, and
narratives and the way they are influenced by social constructions of nature. Because the
influence of social constructions, and the roles of values therein, are ubiquitous in the issues of
environmental policy, this analysis aims to provide insight about these social processes which
provide insight beyond the case studies examined in my research. Figure 3 shows a basic flow
chart which summarizes the methods for this research paper.
4. Results
4.1 Identity Coding
A three level value coding was used to identify the membership of both the Industry and
Environmental groups, including organizations and individuals who contributed to the arguments made on each side. In the Quetico case, the number of Environmental text samples (250) far
outnumbered those from the Industry side (66). Regarding unique contributors by organizations
the Environmental membership in Quetico consisted of 216 different organizations and citizens,
while the industry membership consisted of 42 unique speakers. In Algonquin the number of
environmental documents was nearly equal to that of the industry (68), and the environmental
unique speakers (35) outnumbered the industry (32). A breakdown of the membership in each
case can be found in Table 7 and Table 8. The names of the specific speakers are not included.
Instead, I have listed the organization which they represent in their communications, in
accordance with the conditions described by Ontario Parks in the research agreement for this
92 thesis. Personal appeals to decision makers, or actors speaking to the media on their own behalf, are included as ‘Citizens’, also in accordance with Ontario Parks research agreement.
4.2 Value Code Frequency
The number of times a value is coded for each group demonstrates the general importance of these values in the arguments which stakeholders are presenting in pursuit of their policy aims. Table 9 indicates the total number of times each value category is coded by group, including the proportion that category made up of the total coding for that side.
In this table we can see the way that main level value codes are utilized by each side. In the case of Quetico Provincial Park, Industry had an obvious stress on economic (24.6%), ecological (28.6%) and social (35.0%) based arguments, while for the Environmental group economic concerns were brought up much less proportionally (16.8%), while ecological arguments were even more important (32.7%).
In the Algonquin Provincial Park advocacy documents, Industry advocates continue to stress ecological (25.8%) and social (35.6%) concerns. Economic consideration was less prevalent in the discourse than in Quetico for Industry advocates at 15.6%, and information based justifications or arguments were far more frequent (12.9%) as compared to only 3.0% of arguments made in Quetico. For Environmentalists, the ecological arguments have grown in frequency to become the majority (51.1%), while economic (10.1%) and social (20.9%) have become less frequent, with social arguments seeing nearly a 50% reduction in frequency.
Information based arguments have grown to 9% of arguments made by Environmentalists from
4% in Quetico, and legal arguments have also grown slightly to 9.1%. The distribution of these frequency of values for the respective case studies is visualized using the MaxMAPS feature of
93 MaxQDA12 in Figures 4 and 5, where the thickness of the lines shows the strength of links between Industry and Environmental advocacy groups and each main value level code. The frequency of use of each group is shown in brackets along each link.
Another way of using frequency to understand the arguments put forth by each group is to see what proportion of actors within each side cited that value in their advocacy (Table 10).
In the case of Quetico Provincial Park, Industry advocates presented social (73.9%) economic (69.2%) and ecological concerns (72.3%) most frequently, while information (49.2%) and legal (26.2%) appeared in the cases made by far fewer actors. For the Environmental group, ecological (87.5%) and social (87.5%) arguments were made by the most advocates, economic
(70.8%) arguments were in many but a smaller portion of actors arguments, while once again information (46.5%) and legal (30.9%) based arguments were mentioned by considerably less stakeholders.
In the case of Algonquin Park, Industry advocates still presented social (78.7%), economic (55.7%) and ecological (54.1%) concerns most frequently in term of the number of documents each value appeared in, however the inclusion of economic and ecological arguments have both reduced significantly from the Quetico case study. Information arguments (36.2%) appeared in less documents in the Algonquin case, while legal argument (41%) appeared a little more frequently than in Quetico. Environmentalists referred to ecological values in 88.2% of documents, but referred to economic (36.8%) and social (66.2%) arguments less than in Quetico, with economic arguments in much less documents proportionally than the Quetico case study.
While the relative frequency of sub codes for each of these main value codes should not be relied on too heavily as quantitative data, it is interesting to consider the proportion which each concern makes up of the larger value level arguments (Kirppendorf, 2012). Table 11
94 displays the percentage which each sub-code makes up of its main value code by group.
Similarities and differences in the way that the main value codes are applied between the opposing advocates are demonstrated as such.
As shown, in terms of economic concerns, in the Quetico case study both Industry and
Environmental advocates were most concerned with need and demand at 45.8% and 38.6% respectively. Industry advocates stressed issues employment as a leading secondary concern
(31.9%), while surplus was the second biggest economic concern for Environmental advocates representing 26.6% of main value codes. Both Industry and Environmental advocates stressed tourism (6.3% & 11.0%), and trade (3.4% & 0.5%) to lesser degrees.
In the Algonquin case study, Industry continued to stress need/demand (43.1%) and employment (24.6%), while tourism became a greater influence at 13.8%. Discussion of surplus rose slightly to 15.3%, while trade stayed level proportionally with the Quetico case.
Environmental advocates stressed employment more in this case study (35.5%), while need/demand saw a reduced emphasis from the Quetico case but still a sizeable proportion of in the economic value at 27.4%. Tourism related arguments appeared in greater relative frequency at 16.9% of economic arguments, while surplus was less emphasized than in Quetico at 16.9%, down from 27% in Quetico. Trade continued to be marginal argument for Environmentalist stakeholders in the Algonquin case study at 1.6%
In the Quetico Park case study, ecological concerns varied more greatly by group, as arguments concerning forest disturbance made up the majority of the Industry position at 34.5%, while degradation (38.9%) and wilderness (28.9%) concerns dominated the Environmental group’s focus. Interestingly, the concept of maturity or old growth stands was brought up more proportionally from the Industry perspective (10.0%) than the Environmental group (3.8%),
95 while research shared a nearly equal proportion of arguments on either side at around 9.2% for
Industry and 9.8% for Environmentalists.
In the Algonquin park case study, Wilderness/Protection became the most frequent ecological argument at 29.1%, similar to the Quetico case, though the reduction of degradation based arguments from 38.9% in Quetico to 22.7% in Algonquin accounts for the change in its ranking. The old growth coding proportion of ecological arguments was four times more frequent in Algonquin at 12.8%, while fauna/habitat based arguments were more than three times more frequent proportionally at 15.0%. Regeneration based arguments were slightly more frequent at 5.1%, while disturbance and research were slightly less frequent at 6.7% and 8.6% respectively as compared to 9.4% and 9.7% in the Quetico case study.
In the Quetico case study, social arguments made by each group also show some differences. The social value cited most by Industry was distribution and access to benefit by the public (27.7%), while Environmental advocates was responsibility (18.8%) and recreation
(20.4%). Local benefit was more important to Industry group (13.6%), while aesthetic, historical
/ cultural, psychological / spiritual, and educational concerns made up a smaller proportion of arguments for both sides, though all were more important aspects for the Environmental group than Industry.
In the Algonquin Park case study, Industry’s most frequent social argument was responsibility at 21.5%, three times more frequently than in the Quetico case. Public access to benefits continued to be an important social argument for Industry advocates in the Algonquin
Park case study at 19.4%, though was reduced from the frequency in Quetico (27.3%). Local benefit was a more significant proportion than in Quetico at 19.4%. Historical and cultural social justifications were almost twice as frequent compared to Quetico at 14.8% becoming an
96 important argument for Industry, while recreation dropped from 26.2% in Quetico to 14.1% in
Algonquin. Educational values were almost twice as important in this case study at 7.4%, while aesthetic and psychological/spiritual arguments were less prevalent at 2.7% and 0.7% respectively. For Environmental advocates, historical/cultural arguments were the most frequent social value in the Algonquin case study at 22.7%, while recreation and responsibility continued to account for large proportions at 18.8% and 17.9% respectively. Public access to benefit is equal in frequency to the Quetico study at 15.6%, while psychological/spiritual (7.8%), education (3.9%), and aesthetic (4.7%) frequency all experienced a slight reduction from the
Quetico case study.
In Quetico, the legal arguments made by Industry side consisted of citing licenses
(50.0%), followed by mandate (36.7%), and to a much lesser degree, treaties (13.3%).
Environmental advocates made most of their legal arguments about the mandate of parks
(68.5%).
In the Algonquin Park case study, Industry made 51.2% of their legal arguments about mandate, while treaties and licenses made up 19.5% and 29.3% of the arguments respectively.
Environmentalists’ legal arguments consisted of 91.7% of the mandate coding, 3.6% for treaties, and 5.3% about licenses.
Finally, arguments concerning information for both Industry and Environmental advocates in Quetico were more likely to concern public opinion (43.5% & 54.6 %), and to a lesser degree misconception and misinformation (25.9% & 26.5%), while expert vs non-expert arguments were more important for Industry advocates (30.6%) than Environmental ones
(13.4%). Neither the Industry (0%) nor Environmental groups (5.5%) expressed great concern for conflicts in interest.
97 In the case of Algonquin, for Industry, public opinion became less significant proportionally at 20.9%, while misconception/misinformation based arguments increased in frequency to 50% of information value codes. Conflict of interest was proportionally ten times more frequent in Algonquin at 12% of information arguments, while expertise based arguments reduced drastically from 29.9% in the Quetico data to just 5.5% in Algonquin. From the
Environmentalist perspective, public opinion continued to be the most important at 40.7%, though its proportional frequency was much less than the 54.5% in the Quetico data.
Misinformation/misconception was more frequent in the Algonquin data, with 38.9% of information based arguments. Conflicts of interest and expertise flipped in importance from the
Quetico case, as conflict of interest codes were a more frequent argument than in Quetico at
16.7%, while expertise less frequent at 3.6%.
From these values concerning the proportion of each sub codes to main code relative an understanding of the priority secondary concerns for each group is established, which provides more detail concerning the similarities and differences in the arguments made by each group than the general data provided at the main value code level.
These quantitative findings about the frequency of contents in advocacy documents can help illuminate the relative values emphasized by each side based on the number of times they’re mentioned relative to each other, and how many of the advocates for each group share the expressed value. While useful in these regards, this data lacks nuance, and does not adequately address the relationships between the coded values, which can be considered with an analysis of the co-occurrence of the values in the following section. The more detailed manners in which discourse influences the way which these values are employed to the ends of the policy aims which are being sought will be examined qualitatively.
98
4.3 Value Code Co-occurrence
Value codings which overlap or “co-occur” suggest the advocate is drawing a connection
between the two values. For example, in a dispute about rent control, advocates who made
arguments about the cost of rent which frequently co-occurred with arguments about the number
of overall units available are expressing a perceived link in the cost of rent and supply of units
available. By counting the instances that each group mentions two different values in conjunction, it can be established how each group understands and presents the links in values in their advocacy. The frequency of co-occurrence of values for each side are shown in Table 12.
The Environmental group data in both case studies shows strong links between the values of social, ecological and economic values, while information and legal values display weaker links with other values.
The co-occurrence data for the Industry group in both case studies also shows that the links between social and economic, and social and ecological arguments are quite strong, while there is far less connection between information and legal values for the group.
To compare the way values are related, regardless of advocacy group, in each of the two case studies, I created models showing the relationship of top level value codes in each case study using MaxMAPs (Figure 6 & 7). Values are pictured with connecting lines which vary in thickness based on the frequency of these co-occurrences, and the frequency of co-occurrence is found in brackets along each line. These models are useful in demonstrating the strength of relationships between values in the general discourse in each case study.
Overall, the quantitative data for each case study derived from the content analysis can provide us with an understanding of the general ways each side made arguments in each case,
99 and the differences in the topics found in the discourse between sides and case studies.
4.4 Qualitative Content Analysis
Quotations were chosen which represent common discourses regarding each concern, and highlight the different ways which the sides spin the value to make their desired policy outcomes appear desirable to decision makers. The sub-codes, which represent the more specific concerns of the general value expressed in the first level coding demonstrate how different sides can use the exact same aspect of the problem in advocacy. The similarities and differences way which these concerns and values are addressed is a potent tool for understanding the way which constructions of nature influence the framing of the problem for stakeholders. Using the Coding
Query tool, instances of each value and concern for involved stakeholders are retrieved, so as to compare the ways which multiple people on each side use the concern to pursue their policy aim.
A table containing the selected quotes which represented common arguments and concerns, as well as particularly clear or elaborate framings, and can be found in Appendix II.
4.4.1 Economic Values
Generally, in terms of economic arguments, the industrial side tends to focus on present economic structure and commodity output in both cases, emphasizing current demand over prospective ones. The demand for timber and the supply to fill this demand, along with the employment opportunities provided therein, are the primary emphasis of the economic arguments from these advocates in both case studies. On the other hand, in both case studies the
Environmental group’s economic arguments center around the amenity value of the forest, and
the projection of increased demand for eco-tourism related experiences, while questioning the
100 long term viability of single resource economies like those relying on timber from the park. Both sides of the issue emphasize the importance of both parks in the Ontario economy, though they differ in their understanding of how to best proceed in the relationship of economic goals to the
Ontario Provincial Park system.
Tourism
In the Quetico case, for arguments regarding tourism, the Industry stressed that people tend to go car camping in parks closer to their homes in southern Ontario, and that if Quetico were to become a destination, the majority of demand would be for car camping, which is not compatible with a primitive classification. The idea that there was little potential for Quetico as a recreation based tourist destination was expressed by the Fort Frances Chamber of Commerce
(1971) in their brief to the QAC: “As far as recreation is concerned, with our present low population and the distance of Quetico Park from the population centres of Ontario, we can see little recreational use of the park by Canadians at this time”. In the Algonquin discourse, Industry has embraced the role of tourism as a revenue stream, noting that they help to drive tourism to the park with the logging museum and the annual Loggers Day celebration: “we hosted our 19th
Annual Loggers Day in cooperation with the Algonquin Forestry Authority and Ontario Parks, attracting over 890 visitors for an interesting day of live historical interpretation and entertainment” (Friends of Algonquin Park, 2015). Cottagers of the Algonquin Park Residents
Association (2006) made a similar argument about driving tourism demand: “We have taken care to properly introduce Algonquin to many visitors, through the park’s interpretative programs, on hikes, canoe trips, and wolf howls.”.
The Environmental group stressed the tourism potential as a major service Industry for the region, projecting increases in people seeking wilderness and backcountry camping
101 experiences, noting “Wilderness is the single greatest quality which draws people to the Quetico
Superior” (Izaak Walton League, 1971). In the Algonquin case study, Environmentalists continued this narrative, stressing the importance of tourism in the Muskoka economy, the benefits of its location as an accessible potential tourist destination, and the way the perception of wilderness drives tourism demand for the park “Within a day’s drive of about 40 million people and receiving over 1 million visitors per year, Algonquin is the most natural environment most of these people will ever experience and serves as a mental benchmark for what nature can be.” (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, n.d).
Employment
In terms of employment, Industry advocates stressed the immediate concerns of loggers losing their jobs in both the Quetico and Algonquin case studies. Industry prioritized livelihood above all else, noting “Livelihoods of Ontario Citizens must receive first consideration and cannot be subordinated to the recreational desires of a minority” (Ontario Minnesota Pulp and
Paper Company, 1971), and continuing this sentiment in the Algonquin case:
The OFIA, the Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA), and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) have all established that further reductions to the available forest management area would be detrimental to both businesses and livelihoods and would irrevocably damage current and future sustainable economic development opportunities in communities throughout central Ontario. (Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2015)
In both cases, Environmental advocates questioned the long term viability of resource based economies with increased automation and mechanization, and instead stressed the long term viability of the service jobs provided by the parks amenity value with one private citizen
(1971) stating “Ontario could realize greater benefits from developing park-visitor opportunities than from logging”. In Algonquin, it was stressed by Environmentalists that job loss wasn’t an inevitable outcome of their policy aims given the potential for alternative wood sources, and that
102 while employment was important, regionally speaking logging the park accounted for a very
small percentage of employment “Today, within the greater Algonquin economic region, which
includes such towns as North Bay, Huntsville, Whitney and Pembroke, logging accounts for less
than two per cent of all employment, and it is shrinking.”(Janet Sumner Canadian Parks and
Wilderness Society, 2005).
Surplus
Industry emphasized the regional concerns viewing Quetico and Algonquin’s large area
as a surplus of forests, which were too grand to be designated for a single use: Comprising 25%
of the Rainy River District, Quetico Park is too large an area to be designated a primitive park
and dedicated to a single use.” (Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Paper Company, 1971). In
Algonquin there was also sentiment expressed by Industry that the time and money spent on the
issue of logging were exorbitant, and would be better spent on other issues “The cost of putting
forth this proposal to date is high, close to 1 million dollars. This is a lot of money that could
have been better spent educating students on the importance of managing our resources wisely
through Sustainable Forest Management as demonstrated through the forest certification
process.” (2010 Management Plan Comment 142378, 2009).
Alternatively, Environmentalist noted that when compared to the entire province, the area
of Quetico and Algonquin were relatively small, and the surplus in the scenario was in the
Crown land outside the park which could already be licensed for logging. In the Quetico case,
the national and Provincial Parks Association of Canada stated:
On the one hand, we hear from Queen’s Park that we are an incomparably wealthy province with unlimited potential for growth and development of more and more natural resources and industry. On the other hand, we hear that we are so impoverished resource wise, that it is necessary to log off our few areas of park land (Private Citizen, 1971)
103 In the case of Algonquin Janet Sumner of CPAWS (2005) states: “There is plenty of land in
Ontario outside of Algonquin park that is available for logging”. Both of these quotes allude to the surplus of territory in Ontario, arguing that protected areas like the two parks studied here are a common sense means of avoiding against over exploitation of our province’s forest resources.
In the Algonquin case, the culture of consumerism and selfishness, the pursuit of surplus, was also expressed by Respondent 125407(2009) in the ERB 2010 Algonquin Park Management Plan consultation: “With so many losses, here and around the world, we cannot do too much to save what is being taken by consumerism and selfishness. Save everything we can before we are too late.”.
Need / Demand
Concerning demand and need, Industry advocates in both cases stressed the high existing demand for timber products on a national scale, and the regional demands of local sawmills to maintain their operations. The Industry suggested supply side needs should sufficiently justify operations in both contexts as they are necessary sources of timber for mills that would close without the harvesting in each park “the new pulp mill is in Fort Frances where supplies are short. It seems unlikely the Ontario–Minnesota Co. would invest many millions of dollars in a pulp mill without a firm guarantee from the Ontario government that sufficient raw materials would be provided to operate it. Presumably these supplies, at least in part are destined to come from Quetico.” (Private Citizen, 1971).
In the Quetico case, Environmental advocates instead stressed that as population increased and as landscapes were becoming increasingly urban, the demand for wilderness recreation would grow, while the supply would inevitably be reduced by development. A
University of Michigan School of Natural Resources Professor (1971) stated: “Studies of outdoor
104 recreation have clearly indicated the growing demand among our modern urban populace for this scarce, unique type of recreation environment.”. In the Algonquin case, Environmentalists stressed need and demand of local economies to diversify or add value to products so that their economies would not be so reliant on a dated practice of logging parks. There was sentiment that the location of mills built in past contexts should not determine environmental or economic priorities of the province moving forward “Yes wood has to be supplied to those mills. That’s a given. But you know, mills come and go.” (Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of
Ontario, 2014).
Trade
Trade was not a large part of either side’s economic argument, though in Quetico it was most stressed by a small minority of Industry advocates, who noted that the world market and growing demand from global markets meant it would be foolish to limit the supply for logging companies: “World demand – as forecast by competent authorities-for products of the forest probably will quadruple by the year 2000. At present, Canada is not using its allowable cut: but, by the year 2000 it will be using all the forest area possible to produce enough to maintain its position in world trade” (Ontario Forest Industries Association, 1971). This prediction was incorrect, as though no Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) is calculated for Canada as a whole, provinces were still harvesting well below their AAC as of 2017 (Natural Resources Canada,
2017). In the Algonquin case study Industry stressed that acquiring commodities like wood via the international market was less ethical, as the human and environmental rights and regulations in other wood providing nations would not be as important or effective as those here: "The second you start taking it away, where are you getting those forestry products from? It could come from Russia, China, Indonesia. No human rights, no environmental concerns.” (Jeff Muzzi
105 Renfrew Forestry Services, 2009).
Environmentalists in Algonquin stressed that trade of value-added products is more effective in growing economies than the trade of commodities like wood: “Mills should be encouraged to manufacture more valuable products that use less wood: log cottages, window frames, trusses and panelized wall sections are among the new building and consumer wood products that could be developed in the Algonquin region and shipped to nearby Southern
Ontario and U.S. markets.”(Wildlands League, 2000).
4.4.2 Ecological
In both cases, the ecological and scientific arguments put forth by each side followed a general pattern. Industry advocates stressed the narrative that the health of the forest depended on disturbance events which would allow new growth to emerge from the shade of mature stands, and that logging replicated the natural disturbances which accomplished this function in an ecosystem. Environmental advocates on the other hand, emphasized the value of wilderness, areas uninfluenced by humanity, and stressed the resilience of natural processes when compared to the influence of logging in degrading the forest through nutrient removal and scarring the landscape.
Fauna / Habitat
In terms of the habitat the forest provides for the fauna of the park, Industry stakeholders in both cases pointed out that cutover actually provided improved habitat for species such as moose and wolves, and that by controlling the age of stands it could be ensured that a variety of habitats were available within the park at all times. In the Quetico case study, the Thunder Bay
Chamber of Commerce (1971) stated: “A well balanced distribution of age classes, from recent
106 cutover to mature forest, encourages a denser more consistent and yet more varied wildlife population than the extensive even age conditions associated with uncut forests.”.
Environmentalists in both parks pointed out the way that the removal of dying trees was removing necessary components of habitat for wildlife in the park, and also noted that on a global scale preserving the habitat in Quetico was preserving a representative ecosystem. In the
Algonquin case, an emphasis was placed on the indirect connections between logging and habitat health, such as the way logging can impact the hydrology of a landscape, affecting spawning grounds for important species such as brook trout: “The construction of these roads causes deposition of sediment into the lakes and streams. This affects water quality and temperature and destroys fish habitat and aquatic vegetation.” (Novar Resident, 2005).
Regeneration / Tree Planting
The Industry group noted in both cases that after cutting, tree planting to regenerate the forest was conducted with a high degree of success, and that these practices used scientific understanding to replicate nature wherever possible. In the Quetico case, a private citizen (1971) stated: “the entire area that has been cut has been reseeded by the Department of Lands and
Forests. In these areas the trees are reaching a height of six feet.”. In Algonquin specifically, this argument was present with some complexity with discussion on the way trees with seed potential were spared from cuts, and the way that the removal of competition allowed for increased growth and improved quality of stands " ’Shelterwood’ and ‘selection’ are the two primary harvesting systems used in Algonquin … allows new forest to regenerate. The selection system marks for harvesting mature or diseased trees which cannot serve as habitat or seed sources.” (Algonquin
Forestry Authority, 2014).
The Environmental group was far less enthused with this practice, noting that the section
107 of species was often based on Industry goals, and created a less diverse, less resilient habitat than
the ones produced by natural succession in forest ecosystems. Environmentalists were quick to
point out that even if the regeneration effort by the Industry was great, it would still pale in
comparison to the forest system left to its own devices: "Mr Cumming states that ‘forestry is
actually very compatible with the Algonquin wolf’ by regenerating the forest. This is true in
some respects, but in this small area, a natural regeneration is highly beneficial over the destructive impacts of forestry” (Novar Resident, 2005).
Old Growth
In the Quetico case study the view of Industry advocates concerning maturity and old
growth in the park was generally that trees grow old and die, and that if we let them die without
utilizing them we are allowing for unhealthy rot, and wasting the forest, a very custodial view of
forestry:
A good continuing park doesn’t just happen. Trees have a life span like people. Rarely do stands survive 150 years and in our surveys, we class a tree as being past its prime or overmatured at 100 years of age… The much publicized production of oxygen from healthy growing forest stands is slowing down by this time. Breakage, windthrow, insect infestations, disease, all combine to make openings (Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper Company, 1971)
Environmentalists on the other hand, embraced the value of strikingly old trees in the discourse of both case studies, feeling their beauty and connection to the people of the past was something to be valued, and the cost of their cutting being a semi-permanent consequence from a human time perspective “When one of these beautiful old trees is gone for good and no amount of money can buy it back” (Private Citizen, 1971). In the Algonquin case, discovery of old growth trees in logging zones spawned much concern by Environmentalists, demanding more extensive inventories on old growth in the park, and stressing their importance beyond the context of the park, but for the ecology of Ontario “It’s significant old growth. Algonquin is an
108 important park because old trees store more carbon than younger forests, and are “incredibly
important for biodiversity,” (Wildlands League, 2019).
Degradation
In the Quetico advocacy, Industry viewed degradation as the forest rotting, decomposing from lack of maintenance and becoming vulnerable to natural disturbances due to lack of logging:
Just leaving it standing there subject to all the hazards to which it is subject, will mean its certain death. To say Quetico Park should not be used and should be preserved for future generations, or not used at all and not exploited for either economic or ecological purposes is equivalent to saying ‘this is a beautiful red tomato and I shall put it on the back of this shelf for my grand-children’ (Private Citizen, 1971)
In the Algonquin park context, degradation arguments for Industry changed drastically, citing
Environmentally conscious regulations, guidelines and practices which logging in the park were
conducted under, and the advances in sustainably forestry made within the park which are now
practiced elsewhere, reducing and mitigating environmental degradation Industry wide.
In a very different light, Environmentalists viewed logging as irreparable damage to the
ecosystem, and that degradation of the forest occurred when it was pushed off its natural course
by human interference, “The end result is the same, the ecology will be transformed, the marks
will stay there for many, many years and you will have disturbed the biological ecosystem with
its fragile and interrelated living things to one of commercial manipulation.” (Wilderness Society
of Washington DC, 1971). In the Algonquin case study, Environmental stakeholders insisted that
as environmental degradation world-wide has increased, protecting areas like parks should have
become more important from a policy perspective: “If wilderness protection and other stated
values were important when Algonquin was first created, how much more vital are they now in a
world of precipitous decline in wild areas and biodiversity?”(Canadian Parks and Wilderness
109 Society, 2012).
Wilderness / Protection
Wilderness value was acknowledged by Industry, though their concern was that
wilderness value should be provided at an appropriate scale, in appropriate places at an
appropriate cost. They suggested that Quetico was far too large, and cost far too much to justify
preserving wilderness over its entire area: “it is excessive to allocate 25% of the entire Rainy
River District to this single purpose use” (Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Paper, 1971). In
Algonquin, Industry continued to cite their regulations and practices in harvesting as protection
enough “Forest Ontario believes that the forest management practices currently in place in
Algonquin Park are consistent with the principle of maintaining ecological integrity and that existing management techniques are among the best in the world.” (Forests Ontario 2015).
Environmentalists stress the value of wilderness in both cases, aiming to preserve it in large qualities, to be experienced by humans and as inherently valuable in its own right, especially idealizing its separation from man and the low technology non-consumptive use “in small numbers and by natural means; by foot, by canoe, snowshoeing , without destroying the wilderness quality. Wilderness does not mean just any unpopulated area.” (Citizens for Quetico’s
Defence, 1972). The fundamental opposition of logging and wilderness was a point of emphasis for Environmentalists in both case studies: “You can't simultaneously manage for ecological integrity and profit. It doesn't matter if you're doing the best forestry management in the universe, you're not managing for ecological integrity." (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society,
2009).
Disturbance
The necessity of disturbance in forests is acknowledged by both Industrial and
110 Environmental advocates, in very different ways. Industry sees logging as simultaneously replicating the natural disturbance events which allow for the continuous succession of forests as over mature forests “They become prime targets for fire and breeding grounds for insects.”
(Northwestern Ontario Timber Operators Association, 1971). In the case of Algonquin, Industry advocates stress the way management plans use scientific models ensure that natural disturbance is emulated as best as possible “Our intervention the harvesting in this case mimics the disturbance that was here before settlement, including fires, windthrow and so on.” (Algonquin
Forestry Authority, 2015).
Alternatively, Environmentalists in both cases note the deficiencies in logging in replicating natural disturbances and subsequent regeneration, and note the potential for the reintroduction of natural disturbances to the ecosystem through reduced fire suppression and prescribed burns “if we are going to maintain the integrity, the ecological integrity of this area to do burning, controlled burning as the Forest Services look at it, in order to bring back the kind of vegetation that you see here before you now” (Wilderness Society of Washington DC, 1971). In the Algonquin case, some Environmental advocates suggest that the excuse for not participating in controlled burning in the park, which would provide it with natural disturbance regime, is prevented to protect the supply of wood for foresters. One of the largest impacts of industrial forestry is the accompanying wildfire suppression program, designed largely to protect commercial timber supplies” (Wildlands League, 2000).
Research
Finally the research potential for the parks are noted by both Industry and Environmental advocates, though once again it is employed in very different ways. Industry stakeholders see research as a means of learning to best replicate nature in their operations, and as a tool for
111 completing an inventory of the resources in the park for utilization. This sentiment was expressed in both cases, and Algonquin as a case study sees much discourse about the strides research on logging in the park has allowed them to make Industry wide:
Some of North America’s most valuable silvicultural data stems from Algonquin Park with plots initiated there in the 1950s. Over 1,800 scientific papers have been published out of the research conducted within the Park…it is not an exaggeration to state that the Algonquin Forestry Authority and its predecessors have contributed more to the science of hardwood forestry than any other forestry operations in the world. (Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2014)
Environmental advocates on the other hand, stressed that if human intervention such as logging was prevented in an area at the scale of Quetico, the region could serve as an ideal baseline for scientific study, and noted “Quetico may be one of the greatest natural science laboratories in the world” (Voyageur Wilderness Programme, 1971). In the Algonquin case study,
Environmentalists stress the research with regards to inventory of Old growth stands in the park:
“A complete and detailed assessment of old growth forest through the entirety of Algonquin Park should be undertaken and completed within the next five years. This needs to be done using GIS, digital FRI data, and field inventory work” (Ancient Forests Research and Exploration, 2006).
Additionally, the uncertainty riddled in our understandings of complex systems in the environment: “Algonquin’s ecology is a web of dependencies. Soil chemistry and rainfall chemistry, prevailing winds, hydrology, geology, logging techniques, road construction, invasive species, dendrology and silviculture, even glaciation, they all play a part – positively or negatively-in the breeding success of brook trout in the park.” (Ontario Rivers Alliance, n.d).
The implication being that in the face of these complexities of cause and effect, research is crucial in ensuring the parks ecology remains healthy.
112 4.4.3 Social
In general, while social arguments make up a key component of the argument for both
Industry and Environmental stakeholders, the way these values and concerns are implied by stakeholders on either side of the issue are vastly different. In Quetico, Industry advocates primarily focused on the livelihood opportunities provided by the park, and the distribution and access to the benefits of the park, while maintaining the recreational value for which the park was established. In Algonquin, the Industry’s social arguments became more varied, including values which seemed all but inconsequential to the group during the Quetico case, such as historical and cultural significance. Environmentalists in the Quetico case had a more diverse consideration of the potential social values of the park including education, spiritual, psychological and historical values, though this variety of concern was less present in the
Algonquin case study.
Recreation
Recreation, as a cornerstone of provincial park use, was undoubtedly a significant
concern expressed by both of the issue’s sides. In both cases, Industry stakeholders felt that the
recreational value and the logging operations in the park could coexist if spatially segregated,
especially considering that interior users tend to stay along waterways, meaning that as long as a
buffer around these rivers and lakes were respected, the logging would not be seen. Ontario-
Minnesota Pulp and Paper’s (1971) brief provides an exemplary case of this “if you consider that
a canoeist might penetrate the quarter mile inland and I doubt very much if there are many who
do so. But that area generates and area of 225 square miles, or about 1/9 of the entire park. I ask
you then, why lock up the whole park for canoeists”. Another recreation based argument which
appeared from Industry advocates was that the impact of recreationalists on the park ecosystem
113 was substantial “In fact many of them are utilized by canoeists and other recreation seekers.
There has been more impact on wildlife from park users than there has been from logging”
(Laurie March Outdoor Adventure Canada, 2005).
Environmentalists noted that Quetico represented a rare and unique opportunity,
especially for canoe based recreation, and Algonquin Park’s myriad of lakes, rivers, and scenery
provided excellent recreational opportunities nearby large densely populated areas. In the case of
Algonquin, Environmental advocates also stressed the spatial fix of zoning simply meant that to
avoid conflict with the recreational experience, logging would have to occur deeper in the parks
interior, harming more pristine areas “Its website indicates its ‘forest operations’ will be located
away from recreational park areas… that suggests to me that logging roads are being pushed ever
deeper into the forest.” (Kitchener Resident, 2005). While non-monetary, Environmentalists
suggest the value of recreation of this type is considerable, and should not be compromised to
Industry influence.
Aesthetics
The Industry group argued in both cases that the aesthetic value of the park was actually maintained by logging, and that the methods of cutting ensured the sustainability of the aesthetic value of the park: “To preserve the aesthetic values necessary for enjoyment of nature by the recreationalists, canoe trippers, fishermen and other people, industry has operated under restrictions imposed by the department... As a result, it is possible to travel for many miles within cutover areas by road or water without seeing evidence of past activity” (Northwestern Ontario
Timber Operators Association, 1971).
Environmentalists, noted that the false front of nature provided by a buffered management make the true beauty and aura of wilderness, and that the modifications to the land
114 necessitated by logging operations, such as roads and bridges were aesthetically very unappealing, stating: “Portages are obliterated by road building, bridges cross river canoe routes, the total result can truly be described as a scar on the landscape, hardly in keeping with our idea of aesthetics”. (Citizens for Quetico’s Defence, 1972). In the case of Algonquin,
Environmentalist compared the maintenance of aesthetic value of the forest to the maintenance of a movie set, protection lacking substance: “Like a Hollywood set, the park’s lakes and forests hide the industrial zone over the next hill,” (Wildlands League, 2010).
Local Benefits
In terms of local benefits derived from the park, the Industry inevitably argued that the needs of those living closer to the park should be considered more important than those living far away, and that the cost of a primitive area would be unfairly distributed to local people who relied on the logging in the park for their livelihoods. This was especially true concerning the discourse around Quetico, and is well put by the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce (1971):
“the opinion of the residents of Northwestern Ontario is paramount in this matter and should be given much more weight than the opinion of other residents.”. In the case of Algonquin, Industry felt local communities were being held hostage at the hands of regulatory impositions on industry: “Our tenure policy actually ensures the collapse of communities…we need leaders with an understanding of economic and social development.” (David Robinson, Laurentian
Economics, 2014).
Environmentalists felt that while the cost borne by locals could be subsidized provincially, the two case study parks were too significant on a provincial and national scale for local need to allow for its degradation. The difference for the Environmental group was the distribution of the resource on a larger scale, stating “Quetico represents a recreational resource
115 of national significance, whilst the economic returns, as we have just argued, are of very local
significance” (Toronto Field Naturalists Club, 1971). In the case of Algonquin,
Environmentalists also argued that the economies based on one resource from a public park
might seek diversification for local benefit, rather than continuing to hem themselves into the
need for the park’s wood “With the forest Industry continuing in free-fall all around the park, the time to set new social and economic goals for these communities - weaning them off of the false economies of logging a park - are long overdue” (2010 Management Plan Comment 142590,
2009).
American Use
In the case of Quetico, both Industry and Environmentalists were concerned with
American use of the park, albeit, in very different respects. The Industry group noted that the
majority of the interior users of the park entered the park through access points on the American
side of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area located adjacent to the park “To designate the whole of
Quetico at present as primitive park would serve a multitude of Americans but very few
Canadians. Americans use Quetico because it is accessible and attractive to them.” (Private
Citizen, 1971). This was a concern as they felt it was eliminating necessary livelihood
opportunities for Canadians to provide the luxury of wilderness recreation opportunities for
Americans.
Environmentalists, in a similar vein, argued that because the logging operations in
Quetico and Lake Superior Provincial parks were run by American subsidiaries, the majority of
profits from the operations which were degrading Canadian land were funneled to American
benefit. They also noted American prevalence of use was no reason to destroy our own tourist
attraction, stating “One is tempted to answer that Americans don’t use Hawaii or Florida for
116 atomic bomb testing just because Canadians visit them.” (Thunder Bay Naturalist Club, 1971).
This concern was not expressed by either side in the context of Algonquin.
Responsibility / Long Term Interests
In both case studies, Industry advocates argued that, given logging maintains the health of the forest and that operations were conducted to sustain yields, logging was fulfilling a responsibility to future generations in the region who would need employment and the benefits of the forest, expressing that those opposed to the logging weren’t considering: “Thus it is imperative that the advisory committee consider the long term effects of its recommendations on one of Ontario’s most important industries so that expansion is not inhibited and existing facilities are not put at an economic disadvantage” (Woodlands at Domtar Pulp and Paper, 1971).
In the case of Algonquin, the theme of responsibility and sustainability for long term was ever present, described in relation to regulations, the practice of harvesting local rather than trading from countries with irresponsible human rights, as well as the fact that Algonquin is still beautiful after 180 years of logging as evidence of the practices’ sustainability. Additionally, it was argued that the long term operations within the park have contributed to research and techniques which has made forestry in general more sustainable: “While some would consider it ironic that logging operations within Algonquin Park have contributed so much to the sustainability of the boarder provincial forestry sector, we think it is entirely natural that a park would emerge as an iconic success story about multi-use land stewardship” (Ontario Forest
Industries Association, 2014).
In the Quetico case, Environmentalists considered the quantities of wilderness which would degrade given the exponential population growth occurring in Ontario, and considered setting an area aside with legal protection as fulfilling a responsibility to future generations to
117 keep wilderness available to them in a quickly changing world: “[the park] could serve as a living museum for our children and future generations. Let me ask for your foresight and overall perspective in reserving a small percentage of the land of Ontario free from commercial exploitation so that maybe the ones who have not been born yet can enjoy some of the beauty of
Ontario” (Federation of Ontario Naturalists, 1971). In the case of Algonquin, stress was placed on long term interest with regards to climate change and the resiliency provided by protected areas: “Ontario's protected areas network plays a critical role in maintaining and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity. Protected areas in an age of climate change are a buffer against extreme weather events and add resiliency” (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2012).
Historical / Cultural
The Industry group viewed the historical and cultural significance of the park as a value which should be considered, but did not justify exclusion of logging in the Quetico discourse, "it has historical and cultural values that ought to be treasured and preserved. However, this does not require locking up the whole Park” (Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Paper, 1971). While the historical presence of logging in the area of Quetico park was noted, the theme of logging as part of the culture and history of the park was much more prevalent in the Algonquin case, where early loggers are celebrated in the logging museum and on Loggers’ Day: “Cultural history is also an important component of provincial parks. One needs only to reflect on Algonquin’s history to see that logging in a vast portion of the park is by design and is part of the area’s cultural value” (Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2013).
Environmentalists, cite the historical significance of Quetico’s waterbodies as a route for the voyageurs hundreds of years beforehand, and the paintings by indigenous peoples found therein, which should act as an incentive to preserve the routes in the form in which they were
118 experienced then, just as artifacts of history might be preserved in a museum: “The fact the La
Venrendry [sic] came through this area…then the Voyageurs followed. I think this is tremendously interesting and well, well worth preserving as well as anything else, and the only way we can preserve it is to keep it as it was as much as possible.” (Natural History Society,
1971). In both cases, the discourse by Environmentalists stresses the rich history of each park and their significance to Canadian culture as something to protect from logging, especially stressing the historical contexts in which the management decisions to allow logging in parks have changed:
The province did not have more than 200 endangered species in 1905…Today, we have lost much of our original forests, undisturbed wetland ecosystems are declining and far more species are going extinct…Early park managers poisoned wolves and actively introduced non-native species. As late as 1920 Park Superintendents also sold maple syrup and grazing rights for cattle in the park. Such practices would be unthinkable today. A lot has changed since 1905. (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2012)
Public Access and Distribution of Benefits
In terms of the access and distribution of benefits of the park. The Industry believed that
Quetico Park “as Crown Land belongs to all the people of Ontario - and all Canada - it should be managed to best meet the needs of the people and particularly those of Northwestern Ontario”
(Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Paper, 1971), and were concerned that the Environmentalist ethic narrowed the distribution of benefits rather than widening it. They also noted that the logging roads which were heavily contested by Environmental advocates were conduits for access,
“These roads … would be welcomed by many as a means of access to recreation areas… so that more benefit is derived for more of the people of Ontario from the Provincial Parks.” (Ontario
Forest Industries Association, 1971). In the case of Algonquin, Industry argued that the access which they provided by creating roads has been the only reason for the controversy, and
119 continued to stress that management of the park should be driven by the diverse needs of the many, which include the wood supply and employment therein: “Algonquin is a great example of how we manage our forests for a variety of values” (Forests Ontario, n.d).
Environmentalists noted that though Quetico as primitive designation limited access, it preserved the park for wider use than simply local livelihoods, and even provided utility for those not using it, in that there is value in knowing areas uninfluenced by humans exist.
Generally, the environmental perspective with regards to Quetico and access to benefits was that local need didn’t supersede the significance of the park on a provincial scale: “I appreciate the tendency for people who live close to the park to feel that it has some special significance for them. But I submit really that this park is so important, is so rich, is so unique, that we must consider it as an asset for the people of Ontario at large.” (Algonquin Wildlands League, 1971).
In the case of Algonquin, the accessibility of Algonquin given its location nearby the population hub of Ontario was stressed as further reason to provide the park with protection: “Its beauty and wildlife are world renowned. Within a day’s drive of about 40 million people.” (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, n.d). Additionally, Environmentalists pointed out that the logging roads in the park provided access to illegal uses like poaching, and provided a pathway for invasive species into the park ecosystem: “Human access made easier by logging roads leading to illegal uses (i.e. poaching) in Algonquin’s interior” (Wildlands League, 2000).
Psychological / Philosophical
The psychological and spiritual values of the park are considered by the Industry as present irrespective of the logging, where: “an average man’s wilderness, accessible where he can escape for a while from the increasing pressures of urban living” (Northwestern Ontario
Timber Operators Association, 1971).
120 Environmentalist stakeholders cite the need for recreation as escapism from a complex
and growing society as evidenced by drug use and psychological issues: “Dope addiction,
alcoholism, and neuroses are on the increase… every one of these manifestations was escape
from a complex, overcrowded type of living.” (Private Citizen, 1971). Additionally, the use of
the park as a means of expressing deep philosophical respect for the environment, quoting Aldo
Leopold’s adage of “Conservation is the development of ecological conscience” (2010
Algonquin Park Management Consultant 125479, 2009).
Education
Finally, the educational value of the park is considered by the Industry in both cases as
the potential for a better understanding of wise use by the population, and that there is a need for
better understanding of the forest Industry which they feel is misunderstood and unjustly
demonized. The growth of this value is evident in the Algonquin Park case, as the Industry
started a “Forestry Connects” program which hosts high school students in the park to see how operations are conducted “Forestry Connects – a program of the Ontario Forestry Association – spent three days in the field learning about the value of forestry to Algonquin Park and the surrounding communities” (Ontario Forestry Association, 2013).
The Environmental group views the educational value of the parks as a potential destinations for school programs which develop and nurture outdoor skills, and teach environmental and ecological lessons to help create a healthier interface between society and nature: “This was a group of students that were given the opportunity to go to the park and build some kind of stamina and learn how to live by themselves...we feel that just this alone justifies in keeping this a wilderness area.” (United Steelworkers of America, 1971). In the case of Algonquin, the potential of the park as a vehicle for environmental education was expressed succinctly by
121 CPAWS (n.d): “It has the potential to inspire millions to be conservation advocates”.
4.4.4 Legal
In Quetico, concerns of advocates vary by group, with Industry stressing licenses and
Environmentalists stressing the mandate of the provincial parks system. In Algonquin, Industry
began to stress mandate more, although licenses continued to be a frequent theme.
Environmentalists stressed mandate in the Algonquin park case with few exceptions.
Mandate
When citing the mandate of Ontario’s parks system, and each park specifically, Industry
advocates tended to stress the aspect of it which concerns it benefiting the public of Ontario,
extrapolating with the utilitarian perspective that if it is to benefit the average Ontarian, it should
be used, and used in ways in which the benefits reach as many as possible. This is well put in the
Canadian Institute of Forestry brief on Quetico (1971): “The order in council designating
Quetico as a Natural Park implies that the total park environment be maintained for the benefit
advantage and enjoyment of the people of Ontario in that order. To obtain these benefits, “use” is
implied … The objectives of management must be selected with great care that one use should
not be so important as to exclude all others.”. In the Algonquin case, the mandate arguments
stressed the Algonquin Park Multiple-use mandate as well as the mandates of AFA (2016) with regards to sustainability:
Vision: To achieve the highest standards of sustainable forest management practices, in order to maintain park values for future generations. Mission: To ensure the long term health of Algonquin’s forests while producing a sustainable supply of forest products for the forest industry of the region
Environmentalists on the other hand stressed Quetico’s mandate as a nature preserve, which they state is incompatible with logging:
122 The Order in Council which established Quetico Provincial Park in 1913, describe it as ‘a public park or forest preserve – health resort and fishing ground for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of Ontario’ …The logging operation in Quetico Park is incompatible with the above statement. (The Lambton Wildlife Trust, 1971)
In Algonquin park, Environmentalists cited international standards for protected areas, questioning the parks ability to live up to the name of a protected area. Environmentalists also pointed out that if only one park was allowed to log as an exception, it clearly wasn’t an activity in line with the provincial parks mandate, and directly contradicts the 2006 Provincial Parks and
Conservation Reserves Act, which dictates ecological integrity should be the guiding principle of park planning and operations:
Wildlands League is worried that this latest move by the government is symptomatic of a larger problem: the province is turning its back on ecological integrity—which is the stated priority of its own Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act—an act that was widely applauded by Wildlands League and others when it was passed in 2006. (Wildlands League, 2012)
Ultimately, Environmentalists ask, what is a park by definition of its mandate, and whether
Algonquin meets these criteria.
Treaties
Industry advocates in the Quetico case suggest that treaty rights and traditional ways of life should be preserved: “I suggest they be given every encouragement to continue their way of life” (Private Citizen, 1971).
Some Environmental advocates in the Quetico case agree with this sentiment, while others state that making exceptions on park policy for some people and not others represents undesirable privilege: I consider that the aboriginal people or Indians, whatever we would like to call them, are as much citizens of this country as I am”(Private Citizen, 1971). In the case of
Algonquin, Industry advocates remind those claiming alternative sources of wood exist outside
123 the park that land claims by Indigenous peoples exist in these geographical areas.
Licenses
Finally, in Quetico licenses are cited as legal channels for resource extraction which are legitimate and should be upheld by Industry, and contrastingly shown as evidence of corrupted interest and profit driven motives infiltrating parks values by Environmentalists. In Algonquin, the various conditions included in licenses to ensure sustainability and accountability, such as audits and certifications for tree markers were important to Industry advocates:
Furthermore, forestry operations in the park are subjected to a series of independent audits assessing sustainability. When selecting trees for harvest, tree marking crews in the park use paint to designate which trees should be harvested. All tree markers are certified through the Ontario Tree Marking Program administered by the MNRF and must be re- certified every five years (Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014)
4.4.5 Information
Arguments considering the production and distribution of information are employed by both Industry or Environmental advocates to varying degrees.
Public Opinion
Concerning public opinion in the both cases, some Industry advocates note a “silent majority” who would prefer the sound economic interest of harvesting in the park who are up against a very “vocal minority” of Environmentalists. Others caution that public opinion is subject to fickle whims, and is often uninformed, warning that the government cannot make important decisions based on emotion alone: “The logging in controversy has stirred up a lot of interest and while much of the criticism against logging has been blind and emotional it has been valuable in bringing the matter out in the open.” (Private Citizen, 1971)
Environmental advocates in both cases note that the government is supposed to represent
124 the will of the people, and that the massive social movement of environmentalism reflects a new standard by which the government’s actions will be judged. All that said, many advocates on both sides commend the government for an increasing will to incorporate public opinion in the decision-making model in Quetico. In Algonquin, Environmentalists employed arguments about public opinion by suggesting the consultation only regards how logging should be done rather than whether or not it should be done at all, as well as suggestions that the Government intentionally keeps matters about industrial activity in Algonquin quiet because they know the public wouldn’t react favorably:
Why remind anyone that more than half of what's touted as a wilderness gem is open to logging… In fact, the Algonquin Wildlands League, formed in 1968 to eliminate logging, has lobbied so effectively for improvements that controversy has greatly diminished. (Anonymous, 2010)
The second part of this quote, noting the reduction of controversy at the hands of effective lobbying refers to the changes in regulatory parameters which have kept the logging out of sight, and made operations more environmentally stirring less controversy than more obtuse operations like clear cutting.
Expertise
In Quetico, regarding arguments about expertise, Industry advocates claim expertise through their experience in forestry, suggesting they know what’s best for the forest based on experiences: ”The circumventing of professional knowledge by public will and whim can be a dangerous game in the light of tomorrow's need for the application of all our hard-won scientific information to the solution of resource shortages, land-use conflicts, and budgeting of the land.”
(Canadian Institute of Forestry, 1971). In Algonquin, the Industry advocates argued that the other side of the issue had made up their mind about the philosophy of logging in a park, and choose to ignore the science which in their opinion clearly justifies it “The report make these
125 recommendations from a position that appears to lack proper consideration of the science, research and social and economic opportunities that currently exist in the practices surrounding wood harvesting activities in the park.” (Renfrew County, 2014).
Environmental advocates cite their expertise in understanding of ecology, biology and other natural sciences, in addition to recreational experience, which they claim makes them uniquely qualified to speak on issues about the conflict between harvesting and recreation in parks: “The protest about Quetico has been from a minority, but the minority protesting includes those who use the park most, and who are best qualified to assess the quality of the recreational experiences the park offers.” (Private Citizen, 1971)
Misinformation / Misconceptions
Industry and Environmental advocates both express concern for misinformation and misconceptions regarding logging in parks. Industry stakeholders tended to be concerned that the
Environmental rhetoric was sensationalist, likening their use of parks to atrocities like “rape”, and generally felt that the idea wilderness was diminishing was exaggerated, as was the negative impacts of logging:
At times one would almost think that Quetico Park is going to be “raped” and “plundered” tomorrow and the last remaining “wilderness” in Ontario is about to disappear forever. This is simply not true. The fact is there is an abundance of wilderness in Northern Ontario (Ontario – Minnesota Pulp and Paper Company, 1971).
In Algonquin, they accuse Environmentalists as deliberately misrepresenting their operations, such as the comparison of the logging roads in the park to highways and city streets and that generally speaking “Traditionally the Ontario population has been fed a diet of misinformation about forestry in Algonquin” (2010 Algonquin Park Management Plan Consultation Respondent
142590, 2009).
126 Environmental advocates felt that the economic impact of removing logging from parks was drastically exaggerated: “According to press report… a ban on logging in Algonquin and
Quetico provincial parks would mean an annual loss of almost 50 million dollars to the provincial economy, and that thousands of jobs would be lost in the process. What is the reality?” (Private Citizen, 1971). The representation of logging as necessary for maintaining a forest ecosystem was also questioned, especially given, as they note, forests have existed without the assistance of man forever. In Algonquin, Environmentalists accuse the government of allowing the misconception that Algonquin is truly protected environment to persist, as well as the confusion created by the zoning, including claims protection had increased more than it did in the 2010 Management plan:
The amount of Algonquin designated "protected" is to increase from 22 to 35 per cent. For those who think the park ‘ought to be left in its natural state, this is positive; it adds 100,000 hectares to the area where logging is absolutely prohibited. But the gain is less than it seems. Other parts of Algonquin have long been designated "not available" for logging. These now cover 23 per cent of the park. The amendment cuts them to 14. These lands don't have absolute protection; how much they'll get remains to be decided. (Private Citizen, 2010). Interest Conflicts
Finally, conflicting interests and corruption were concerns expressed by both Industry and Environmentalists. Industry downplayed the conflict of interest between recreational values and logging, even stating that when the two directly conflicted spatially, it was important that recreation values took precedent: “Logging must be secondary to recreation where the two conflict, but it should not be restricted to winter only. It can be carried out in the summer in approved areas where it will not degrade the recreational experience” (Ontario Forestry
Association, 1971). In Algonquin, industrial advocates cited the conflict of interest in the media coverage, where the media is intentionally vague or misleading for their own gain: “The media is
127 primarily concerned with stories of possible exploitation by different companies bent on resource extraction. But there are also stories that are overlooked, stories of exploitation by groups with political or social agendas.” (McRae Lumber, 2009).
Environmentalists on the other hand, stressed that these values directly conflicted, as any logging directly reduced the recreational value of the park, and furthermore its status as a wilderness area. Others noted the conflict of interest for the Department of Lands and Forests: “It has long been our view that the management of forests and the management of parks are incompatible to a large extent and that they should come under the jurisdiction of separate government departments.” (Kingston Field Naturalists, 1971). In the Algonquin case, this is clearly stated by Evan Ferrari of CPAWS (2009): “You can’t simultaneously manage for ecological integrity and profit. It doesn’t matter if you’re doing the best forestry management in the universe, you’re not managing for ecological integrity”.
Qualitatively, we can see that while values and concerns expressed by opposite sides of the issue fell into very similar categories neatly, they were employed and interpreted in vastly different ways in pursuits of policy aims.
4.5 Indigenous Advocacy
Because there were only a select few documents found in the Quetico and Algonquin text samples which were written explicitly as advocacy as/on behalf of local Indigenous people, they were not included in the above data. That said, while the sample of Indigenous advocacy was too small in both cases for a quantitative analysis to be valuable, some of the most interesting and compelling perspectives were addressed in these small samples and should be explored qualitatively.
128
4.5.1 Quetico Provincial Park
Regarding economic arguments made, tourism arguments centre around employment for the local Indigenous communities, citing great financial need and disadvantage stemming from historical mistreatment. In terms of employment economic coded texts Indigenous advocates mentioned guiding businesses which have provided employment for some of their community, though they expressed concern that the increased protection offered by a primitive classification would remove the bulk of their business as motorized vehicles would be banned from use in the park. Indigenous advocates emphasized that their immediate substantive needs, especially concerning the challenges of poverty, and that these needs should be considered over the luxury of wilderness recreation demand: “Let these in need of such comfort dwell upon the undeniable fact that all of northwestern Ontario contains miles and miles of primitive forest accessible by canoe upon which their thoughts can be focused in awe and wonder. Our needs are more immediate. Given the opportunity for the physical comfort that accompanies a full stomach, an adequate roof overhead and clothes to keep us warm, perhaps we too would derive comfort from spiritual thought” (Indians of Rainy River District, 1971).
In terms of ecological arguments, Indigenous advocates noted that the fauna in the park are gifts of nature, which when used in moderation can maintain the health of the forest, in addition, that as long as trees were allowed to reach their potential in terms of maturity, they should be available as gifts for use “Researchers have proved that it is desirable to use the gifts of the forest in moderation. Trees, animals, and fish grow old and die like people, and it is a waste not to make use of these as they are ready, as long as enough is left to replenish the land and in its turn grow to maturity” (Indians of Rainy River, 1971). That said Indigenous advocates
129 acknowledged that the heavy machinery and increased scale of modern timber harvests degraded the land, but felt that moderation and traditional techniques could allow logging while preventing this degradation. They also noted note that they have been living as part of this “wilderness” for thousands of years, and that the park cannot be separated from its inhabitants: “We are generally considered to be primitive people, yet no single section of land totaling a million and a quarter acres has been set aside for us in order that we may remain primitive. We seem to be able to foster this illusion on far smaller acreage of wilderness than it takes for the white man.” (Indians of Rainy River District, 1971).
The Indigenous group, understandably, was greatly concerned with their access to the benefits of the park and this was expressed thoroughly in their social arguments. In line with
Industry consideration, tended to believe these recreational values could coexist with logging, stating “It is our opinion that scientifically controlled harvesting of the natural resources of
Quetico park, particularly in remote areas, will have little to no effect on the enjoyment of the park but those in search of recreation and natural environment”(Amik Association, 1971). They also noted that previous encroachments on their land has already disadvantaged their community, and that limiting their livelihood further was unjust. Local Indigenous groups noted the responsibility to their future peoples, whose health and well-being is dependent on the decision to allow their livelihoods to continue, and stressed that access to smaller parks closer to the population is a better distribution and provides better access than one large park farther away.
Finally, Indigenous advocates express concerns that while meeting abstract psychological needs is great, that the minimum of sustenance should be attained before such concerns are considered, in addition to spiritual connections to the gifts of the land.
Legal arguments by Indigenous advocates were primarily concerned with their treaties
130 and land rights, reminding policy makers that their traditional ways of life are supposed to be guaranteed by treaties, and are compatible with preservation considering the generally positive condition of the area for thousands of years of use prior to European contact. A license related legal argument was made concerning the license acquired by the Lac La Croix First Nations as it represented an opportunity to step out of severe poverty, and the desire for the license to be honoured is expressed with great passion. Information wise, Indigenous advocates were concerned that the available surplus of merchantable timber near to the park was a misrepresentation, given their experience failing to secure timber limits in those areas.
4.5.2 Algonquin Provincial Park
The Algonquins of Ontario are in the midst of an ongoing land claim with the Ontario government, the territory of which includes Algonquin Park. Under the agreement in principle, the park would remain under its current institutional structure and control: “Nothing in the Final
Agreement will affect the jurisdiction of Ontario in relation to Protected Areas” (Algonquins of
Ontario, 2016 9.1.3). With regards to the issue of forestry in the park, the agreement implicitly accepts the practice, only stating ways which Algonquins can become more involved. Given the emphasis on a presence of Algonquins in the decision making structure of the park and of the
Algonquin Forestry Authority, it can be assumed the concern for the Indigenous stakeholders in this issue is the access to the benefits, and meaningful participation in decision making concerning the natural resources in their territory.
The economic arguments concerning logging in Algonquin Provincial Park center upon the opportunity for Algonquins to participate in the land use and derive benefits from it. In the
Algonquins of Ontario Land Claim Agreement in Principle (Algonquins of Ontario et al., 2016),
131 logging in the park is referred to in terms of this opportunity: “Ontario will support measures designed to increase Algonquin employment and participation in the Forest Industry” (Section
7.1), “Ontario and the Algonquin Forestry Authority will provide notice to the Algonquins of government contracts and job opportunities in the forest industry in Algonquin Provincial Park”
(Section 7.2.7). It is understandable that the advocating done with regards to forestry within the land claim would emphasize the access of the benefits, including that of employment, to
Algonquins given the historical disadvantages of the Algonquin people. The link between the forestry industry and the Algonquin way of life is recognized by the Algonquins of Ontario on their website: “Forested areas have been integral to the Algonquin Way of life since time immemorial…The commitment reflects the importance of forestry to the culture, economic stability and prosperity of the AOO” (Algonquins of Ontario, 2013). The ability to reestablish the use of the resources in the park to contribute to the Algonquin livelihood seems to represent continuity from the past for the Algonquins: “We were once wealthy, we lived well off the land”
(Fagan, 2016).
While the Algonquin Land Claim AIP has clear emphasis on the institutional participation of indigenous values with regard to park management, there is the inclusion of ecological values as well. Section 9.1.2 states: “The Parties agree that the maintenance of
Ecological Integrity shall be the first priority in the management of Protected Areas in the
Settlement Area.” (Algonquins of Ontario, 2016). The inclusion of the ecological value within the forestry operations rather than in opposition to them is also expressed on the AOO website:
“the AOO are committed to working in partnership with Ontario and our neighbors to foster a sustainable forestry industry built on a foundation of economic prosperity, conservation and stewardship” (Algonquins of Ontario, 2013). There doesn’t appear to be any concern in the few
132 documents concerning the forestry in the park by AOO that there is an inherent conflict between the forestry industry and ecological values.
In terms of the social values evident in the Algonquin Land Claim with regards to the management of the park and land use, the AIP includes a section on Cultural Recognition in
Protected Areas. These initiatives include the addition of “entrance features, including storyboard landscaping reflecting the Algonquin culture” (Algonquins of Ontario et al., 9.1.22,
2016), as well as the protection of the rights of use of “cultural or ceremonial gatherings and the operation of such sites” (Algonquins of Ontario et al., 9.1.21, 2016) for the Algonquin people.
The social value of education is also represented in the agreement, as there is a provision for “a cultural centre, museum, or other tourist destination consistent with park values”
(Algonquins of Ontario et al., 9.1.24, 2016). This acknowledgement of the historical and cultural significance of the people on the park landscape, presents an opportunity for the education of visitors on the significant role of the Algonquin’s in the region before and after the park’s establishment: “It is important the Algonquins have the recognition that they are Algonquins, that they exist today… we were here before the Europeans. Our history must be recognition.”
(Whiteduck, 2012).
Some of the strongest influence of the Algonquin of Ontario Land Claim on Algonquin
Provincial Park is the establishment of decision making power concerning park management and forestry within the park specifically. Section 9.1.8 states “that the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry will appoint at least one person nominated by the Algonquins to the Ontario Parks
Board of Directors”, while section 7.2.8 stipulates that “Ontario appoint at least one person nominated by the Algonquins to the Board of Directors of the Algonquin Forestry Authority”
(Algonquins of Ontario, 2016). The establishment of this decision making participation for the
133 Algonquin peoples provides an opportunity for the use of resources in a way that helps ensure
the Algonquin peoples receive access to the benefits and opportunities within the park. This
reestablishment of the connection between the peoples and the land provides an opportunity for
the strengthening of the Algonquin culture in Ontario.
4.6 Cottaging Advocacy
I chose to integrate the pro-cottaging advocates into the quantitative data of Industry
group in the Algonquin Park case study. Given the cottagers support an alleged non-conforming
use, and the relationships between forestry and cottaging advocates, including those of the
Algonquin Park Residents association, Friends of Algonquin Park, and the Algonquin Forestry
Authority, this seemed appropriate for the quantitative data. From a qualitative perspective
however, observation of the arguments made by the cottaging group isolated from forestry arguments provides a more nuanced understanding of the perspectives of these stakeholders.
The focus in arguments for and against cottaging certainly differed by group. Economic arguments made by the cottagers included their role within the Muskoka economy, both in their participation during their residency, and their creating new tourist opportunities
We have taken care to properly introduce Algonquin to many visitors, through the Park’s Interpretive programmes, on hikes, canoe trips and wolf howls. One early leaseholder, J.R. Dymond, was one of the founders of what has become Algonquin’s award winning NHE Programme, and a Founder of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists (now Ontario Nature). (Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006).
They also argued the cottages are only one use on a surplus of territory in Algonquin “There are far too many leases in Algonquin Park taking up a significant portion of the Park. [In} reality there are only 304 cottage leases in the Park on 19 out of more than 2000 lakes, and most of these leases are on lakes adjacent to the Highway 60 corridor or railroad rights of way. Cottage
134 leases collectively occupy less than 1/6000 of Algonquin's total area.” (Algonquin Park
Residents Association, 2006). The environmental position, which aims for a policy phasing out cottage leases, suggest that the taxpayer subsidizing the cottages is unfair economically.
Ecological arguments by cottages were that their impacts were minimal, “Cottaging in
Algonquin is a very low-impact activity. Nearly all of the buildings are of modest size and construction, set back from the shore to blend in with the surrounding forest, and have no road access and no hydro. Outboard motors are limited to 20 hp, and the use of "sea-doos" as well as activities like water-skiing are not permitted. The vast majority of cottages are used only half of the year, and Algonquin leaseholders are presently engaged in (and supporting) a septic system re- inspection project.” (Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006). Environmentalists cite a
2014 Government of Ontario study which suggest this is mischaracterizing the ecological risk cottages pose to Algonquin Park, stating that the report warned of “Risk to health of headwaters of Central Ontario’s Rivers, Threats to Lake Trout and Brook Trout through lower water quality, spawning beds damage, and invasive fish species, and increased predation on nesting birds and baby turtles by common animals that benefit from human habitation such as red fox, skunks, raccoons, and ravens” (Wildlands League, 2000).
Social arguments by the cottagers included benefits to recreationalists “Algonquin
Cottagers have a positive and constructive relationship with Park officials, and a past Park
Superintendent has agreed that we have earned the right to stay. We have provided assistance to canoeists, inexperienced campers, those who are lost or injured, and those who are engaged in fire-fighting activity throughout the Park. Beyond this, most Park users don’t even notice us.”
(Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006). They also stressed contribution to local communities, “Algonquin leaseholders make a significant, long term contribution to local
135 communities. APRA [Algonquin Park Residents’ Association] makes regular annual contributions to the Friends of Algonquin, and to the Huntsville Memorial Hospital Foundation.
We have every intention of continuing this. Our continued support of local businesses in
Haliburton County, Madawaska Valley and North Nipissing is estimated to exceed $800,000 per annum in direct expenditure. Using an economic multiplier of 3.5 these expenditures result in an overall impact of $2,800,000.” (Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006). Environmentalist argue the cottages aren’t socially justified, as they privatize a public good: “Less than 10 percent of Ontario is protected and the province wants to give part of this away to 300 privileged cottagers who hold private cottage leases in Algonquin Park.” (Wildlands League, 2013).
Legally, cottagers argue that exceptions exist and there is no law saying each park must have the same management plan: “Ontario has wisely chosen a flexible approach to preserving the unique characteristics of each park within the parks system. It has long been entrenched in
Ontario park management that Regulations need to be tailored to the needs of each park. This applies to cottage leaseholds too, according to the MNR’s 1985 Statement of Philosophy of
Integrated Resource Management. (Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006). In terms of information the cottagers stressed that misinformation about them was prevalent, even including a Myth vs Reality introduction to their most significant brief on 2017 cottage lease extensions, for example:
Myth #1 Cottage Leaseholding is not compatible with Park Objectives. Reality: Algonquin Park is a Natural Environment Park, not a wilderness. That means there are multiple uses there, such as recreation services including stores, a fast food outlet and a restaurant, nature services, logging, private summer camps for children, private lodges, scientific research facilities, AND cottage leases. Cottage leases are no less compatible than any of the other current uses. (Algonquin Parks Residents Association, 2006).
136 4.7 Social Constructions of Nature
Through a qualitative analysis of these quotes, much is revealed about the perceptions of
the human relationship to nature. This addresses the third research question of this thesis
concerning the influence of social constructions on values and policy aims. Social constructions
were observed specifically concerning two main foci: what the role of parks are, and how forests
work for each side of the issue. Themes emerging in arguments about the duality of humans and
nature, continuity vs stasis, and stewardship versus custodial role of humans all help us to
understand the perception of the stakeholder concerning what nature is. By comparing the
quotations from stakeholders on each side, and looking at the way they changed over time by
comparing the difference in arguments made by each side in each case, we can better understand
the social constructions of nature which underlie the values and beliefs of stakeholders in the
discourse of this particular issue.
4.7.1 The Role of Parks
The way that different advocates perceived the role of parks in society underlies the types of arguments made and values expressed concerning the issue of logging in the park. Industry advocates in the Quetico case mostly refer to the role of parks within the context of a service meant to provide recreation opportunities, and stressed the mandate of parks to be utilized in a way which benefits the people of Ontario: “ the total park environment be maintained for the benefit, advantage, and enjoyment of the people of Ontario. In order to obtain these benefits,
‘use’ is implied.” (Canadian Institute of Forestry, 1970). Given this view of the role of parks in society, it’s not surprising that this leaves room for resource extraction, as in theory, the forestry can be performed in a way that doesn’t diminish the recreational value of the park, while the
137 forestry providing employment and resources to society falls while under the mandate of parks benefiting Ontario, extracting value from parks.
In the Algonquin case, one Industry advocate made an interesting point about the way that the park, and the access within created by the logging roads, has changed the way that people experience nature, and thus, have brought concerns to the public arena:
With the increase in vehicle use and the development of roads came the ability for more people to explore areas that were previously difficult to access. The ease and simplicity afforded by the increase in mechanization helped to soften the edge of nature and allow for greater access. With greater public access came opportunities for conflict over how resources should be utilized. Our wood basket has always been the area in and around Algonquin Park. Over the past century we've seen a great deal of conflict but, fortunately, we've also seen greater instances of resolution. The greatest aid to conflict resolution also arose as a result of the evolution within society and the forest industry. The rise of forestry science and the systematic management of the forest was instrumental in helping to quell many of the debates. The ability to manage for a host of different values and interests has allowed for the three pillars of a sustainable forest to flourish (McRae Lumber, 2016).
This is an interesting point about the relationship between access and conflict, and the way that the forestry which the environmental advocates rally against is intrinsically linked with their ability to enjoy those nature experiences.
Furthermore, the theme of balancing values described by McRae Lumber (2016) was consistent throughout the Algonquin Case study industry text samples: “Algonquin Park is a great example of how we manage our forests for a variety of values.” (Forest Ontario, n.d). This balance of values, ensuring a variety of benefits are distributed to Ontarians is a new take on a similar argument used in the Quetico case. This objective of the balancing of values in the forest management makes an implicit argument that all the types of values described belong in the park, and doesn’t leave room for the discussion that while balanced values is good, careful consideration should be given to which values shouldn’t impact management and planning in
138 parks. The argument continues the dualism of humanity, nature as nature is to be utilized as a
means to the end of value for humans.
In the Quetico case study, environmentalists hold a different view of parks than the
Industry stakeholders, seeing the preservation of the parks ecology as the purpose of the park,
with the recreational value as a means of experiencing that ecology: “It presents an opportunity
for one to travel in relative peace under his own power through … haven for wildlife which
would otherwise succumb to the changes wrought on the forest by man’s industrial activities”
(University of Toronto Erindale College, 1971). Largely, the sentiment that human imposition on
the environment in modern times was becoming too significant, and that parks posed as an
opportunity to counter this phenomena by designating areas which would be free from the
motives of profit and the degradation associated with resource exploitation and development:
“pause in the midst of the dirt, nose and frantic rush of 20th century city and take heart from the thought that there are places unspoiled by man, where the air and water are clean and pure, and where plants and animals are free to live their lives according to nature’s plan away from the interference of man” (Private Citizen, 1971). This perspective is also one which is derived from the dualism of humans and nature, aiming to segregate the influence of one on the other.
In the case of Algonquin Park, environmentalists continue these same sentiments, and in a way are validated in their proclamation of ecological values as paramount when new
Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (2006) established the ecological integrity of the park as the first priority. Additionally, within the context of social awareness regarding anthropogenically accelerated climate change, Environmentalists argue that protection of natural areas has added significance, as “Protected areas in an age of climate change are a buffer against extreme weather events and add resiliency” (CPAWS, n.d). In this perspective, duality of
139 humans and nature is emphasized as the areas serve as havens from human mistakes. This seems to be done in a way which better acknowledges the intertwined fates of human in nature in a way which was less evident in the Quetico case, in which nature was being saved by man, whereas in a more absolute sense, these natural areas in the context of this quote provide security to humans.
4.7.2 How Forests Work
In addition to the role of parks in society, much can be revealed about the social constructions of nature underlying a stakeholder’s values and beliefs from comments regarding the way that forests work. The different ways which the forest is discussed, including themes of continuity and stasis, as well as dualism, and stewardship versus custodial role of humans therein.
Industry advocates in the Quetico Case present a very custodial view of the way that forests work. In the advocacy, there is evidence that the industry believes the forestry operations enhance the quality of the forest rather than degrade it: “Natural ecosystems are very seldom able to maintain themselves in a stable state…The goal of the complete protection of wilderness areas by man is usually based on the erroneous assumption that the ecosystem would, if sufficiently protected, maintain itself more or less in balance.” (Ontario Professional Foresters Association,
1971). This is reflective of the way the forest is understood from the industrial perspective, as the measure of quality is the output, and natural disturbance like fire, windthrow, and insect infestation, while all a part of complex webs of the parks ecosystem, are all viewed as degradation by industry advocates. The need for a custodial role with regards to forests is expressed by the Canadian Institute of Forestry (1971) “Left unmanaged, nature can be cruel.
Wildfire will devastate that which people cherish. True, in time, nature will regenerate the forest
140 as it has in the past. Surely we cannot wait this long, for man is impatient, even in his recreational pursuits.”, revealing the imposition of human need on the perception of what a forest should be from the industry perspective. Thus, forestry advocates cite the removal of dead wood, and “over-mature trees” as helping to maintain the quality of the forest, as they allow for the type of outputs associated with a healthy forest from this perspective. This view shows an understanding of continuity regarding the forests, as it acknowledges the forest is always changing.
In the Algonquin case, Industry stakeholders maintain the custodial view expressed in the
Quetico case, but add the dimension that the management of the parks forests have contributed to the current landscape, tying the human use in the area over time to the quality of the forest itself:
“There is a reason why we have the largest concentration of natural, self-sustaining brook trout lakes in the world. It’s because sustainable forestry practices have protected those values…sometimes when I hear some of these groups come forward to say we need to stop it because these values are threatened, well, how are they still here after 180 years of logging?” (Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2015).
While there is still plenty of duality of nature and humans expressed in the Algonquin case study industry advocacy, this presence of a narrative where human use and nature are intertwined represents a break from the other constructions of nature expressed in Industry advocacy concerning what a forest is.
In the Quetico case, Environmental stakeholders very much adopted a steward perspective with regards to the human role within the forest. It was consistently expressed by
Environmentalists in this case that forests and wildlife habitat were under attack in modern society at the hands of human development: “If present trends continue, the human population of the world will double in another thirty years and a major proportion of animal species will become extinct” (Private Citizen, 1971). This is the idea that nature and human impacts run
141 contrarily to each other, with the human impact beginning to threaten the natural world, establishing the need for humans to protect nature from ourselves. A more static view of the forests was also propagated by Environmentalists in this case, with objectives of preserving the state of the forest as “primitive” and segregated from human influence: “Wilderness is a place where neither the permanent addition of artificial objects, nor the removal of natural objects should result from human use” (Algonquin Wildlands League, 1972). Within this perspective, there is no overlap of humanity and nature. This was also expressed as the desire for the preservation of the park as a living museum, where recreationalist can enjoy the shade from the same trees as the voyageurs who came before them. Of course, eventually those trees would die, and thus this objective lacks the nuance of the dynamic perspective of how forests work.
Environmentalists in the Algonquin case study present a more complex understanding of the way forests work, with an increased emphasis on the need for disturbance and the dynamic nature of forests, as well as a more bidirectional understanding of a dualist perspective on nature and humans. Environmentalists in this case posit that while the industry claim that disturbance is necessary in ecosystems is scientifically sound, they challenge the notion that the human disturbance of logging adequately emulates natural disturbances in a way that provides the benefits of the real thing. One example of the deficiency of man-made disturbance was well put by Wildlands League (2000) who state: “Logging can be especially hard on soils. The use of heavy machinery and equipment often results in soil erosion, compaction and degradation, especially on slope and loose soils. Natural disturbance on the other hand, improves soil conditions by adding ash borne nutrient or nutrients from decaying vegetation”.
Environmentalists advocated for the reestablishment of fire in the park “A first priority is the re-establishment of fire as an agent of natural disturbance and renewal.” (Wildlands League,
142 2000). The former view of stewardship, that nature would be threatened by anthropogenic
influence was expressed with more understanding and nuance in this case, with the
acknowledgement that the preservation of these areas is wrapped up in the need for resiliency in
the face of climate change, in which ultimately humans are threatened by nature: “Ontario's
protected areas network plays a critical role in maintaining and restoring ecosystems and
biodiversity. Protected areas in an age of climate change are a buffer against extreme weather
events and add resiliency” (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2012).
Overall the qualitative differences in arguments made by advocates of both positions in
both cases illustrate the different perspectives and understandings of the way that forests work
and the role that parks play in society, and thus illuminate of the constructions of nature which
shape the worldview of the opposing advocates.
5. Discussion
5.1 Values Changing in Context
Discourse is a product of the social context within which it is produced. The values held
by stakeholders, and the specific issues and concerns expressed with regards to an issue are the
product of the historical context, as are the baseline of facts which make up the value judgement
of stakeholders (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Conceptions of modernity and progress contribute
to the constructed meaning of forest (Braun, 2002). Changing contexts over time are also
important concerning the forest values, views, and concerns represented in research (Marald et
al., 2016). As expected, this phenomenon was evident in the results, more specifically the changes in values and concerns expressed, the way which these issues are navigated differently by each side of the issue, and the benefit or detriment of such. This changing of concern and foci
143 of the issue over time is explicitly expressed by CPAWS (2012): “The province did not have more than 200 endangered species in 1905… A lot has changed since 1905”. Changes in arguments between cases evident of changing contexts include arguments concerning American use, the shift in information argument from public opinion centered concerns to those of misinformation, and arguments concerning the mandate of Provincial Parks.
In the case of Quetico Provincial Park, the American use of parks was part of the social arguments expressed by both sides of the issues, making up 7.4% and 4.3% of social arguments made up by industry and environmental advocates respectively. Killan (1993) also notes that there was a deliberate effort not to oversaturate the issue of American use in the park so as to not alienate or antagonize the strong American support for protection, so there was potential for it to make up an even larger part of the discourse in the Quetico case study. While these aren’t large proportions of the social argument employed, they are notable with regards to changing contexts over time as they are completely absent in the discourse on Algonquin Park from both sides. The issue of American use was a concern during the Quetico case study period as a general fear of
Canadian sovereignty being in jeopardy at the hands of the massive economic and cultural influence of the United States. The politicization of foreign investment in the period 1969-1971 inflated concerns about American influence, with previous optimism about the positive economic influence of these investments changing to a fear of political influence from a country unaware and unconcerned with the interest of the Canadian public (Murray & Gerace, 1972). The perception of a dominant American influence in the North American continent contributed to an anti-American sentiment, a sentiment uniting Franco and Anglo Canadians, serving as a point of cohesion for Canadian nationalism, in that we are what we are not, and we are not American
(Baker, 1973; Redekop, 1976). These issues and pervasive cautious attitudes towards American
144 influence were evident in the Quetico case, with the Industry advocates arguing that Quetico’s
recreational market was largely American visiting via the Boundary Canoe Waters, and that extra
protection at the cost of locals dependent on the logging for the sake of American users was a
manifestation of this type of influence: “To designate the whole of Quetico at present as a
primitive park would serve a multitude of Americans and very few Canadians” (Private Citizen,
1971). Environmentalists on the other hand argued that the profits of the operations in the park
were for the benefit of major American companies Boise-Cascade and Domtar, ultimately giving
up Canada’s beautiful landscape at the hands of American economic influence. While a
deliberate strategic decision to avoid alienating American environmentalist allies prevented this
from becoming a major part of the discourse for the environmental side, both stakeholder groups
were able to effectively wield the social concern of American influence on Canadian culture and
economics held at the time to influence the public and decision makers, a context and sentiment
that was not present in the Algonquin case, evidence of the advocate discourse changing with the
social context of the time.
The changes in information based arguments by advocates on both sides of the issue, from concerns of public opinion in the Quetico case, to those of misinformation in the Algonquin case, represent the effect of changing temporal contexts on the discourse of the issue. Regarding public opinion arguments in Quetico, 43.5% of information arguments for industry and 54.6% for Environmentalists, are in line with a period where traditionally top down governments began to consider ways in which public participation can contribute to the decision making process.
Early efforts at citizen involvement in decision making consisted largely of consultation and have been criticized as being merely tokenism, since the public could only comment on a narrow aspect of the issue at hand, with the decision ultimately made by authorities, who either
145 considered the opinions expressed or didn’t (Arnstein, 1967). That said, these early consult and decide type efforts at public participation, such as the 1974 Berger Inquiry regarding the
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline contributed to advancements towards participatory decision making and efforts at governance in environmental issues (Smith, 1982).
The value of public opinion in this era might be inflated, as there is novelty to contribution to the process, especially considering the relative inaccessibility to the decision- making process in Canada up until the mid-1980s (VanNiijnatten, 1999). The consultation by the
QAC was seen as real opportunity to be heard, meaning it was an aspect of the issue that needed to be explicitly addressed by both sides. Killan (1993) as well as the availability of documents and overwhelming support of the environmental advocates in the briefs Quetico Advisory
Committee used in this study suggest the public largely supported protection for Quetico. The industry expressed concern regarding the merits of public opinion in decision making, cautioning that the whims of the public are often emotionally driven and short sighted: “Much of the criticism against logging has been blind and emotional”. Environmentalists on the other hand mobilized the public, provided information to shape public opinion, and the discourse included the merits of public opinion, and reminders that the government represented that collective will.
The issue of public support remained a part of the discourse in the Algonquin Park case study, appeared less frequently for both sides (Industry: 30.9 % Environmental 40.7%).
Finally, a major change in the legislation of Ontario Provincial Parks in the form of the
Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act in 2006 seems to have had an effect on the mandate arguments made by each side. Given this legislation outlines the legal mandate and structure for the policy guiding the planning and operations of the Provincial Parks, it had an influence on the way the legal concerns of the case were argued by each side. In the Quetico
146 case, legal arguments made up 3.1 % of all coded segments for Industry, and 3.9% for
Environment. In the Algonquin Case legal arguments made up 9.8% of all arguments made by
Industry, and 9.1% of Environmentalists. Of those legal arguments, the proportion of those coded mandate was 14.5% higher for Industry in the Algonquin case than the Quetico case, and
23.2% higher for Environmentalists. Much of these arguments directly reference the Article 12 section 5 (2) of the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, which outlines ecological integrity as the highest priority of parks. In the Quetico case the arguments of mandate of parks debated the priority of management, with Industry arguing the benefit of Ontarians was the highest management priority and that diverse uses including industrial ones ensured the park accomplished that mandate, and environmentalists arguing the protection of natural features was the priority.
In the Algonquin discourse, with priority of ecological integrity being an official legislated mandate of parks, the frequency in which mandate arguments occurred increased, and the framing of the issue of mandate in parks changed. Industry advocates, accepting of the confirmation of the understanding of Provincial Parks’ mandate expressed by Environmentalists in the Quetico case regarding a priority on the biocentric values of the park, reframed their argument to the understanding that logging practices could be conducted in a way that incorporated the principles of ecological integrity. This would involve using the best possible sustainable forestry standards, ensuring the minimal possible negative impact on the park’s ecology. Environmentalists on the other hand claimed that ecological integrity and commercial logging were fundamentally incompatible, given the ultimate motive of profits, and the endless incentives to circumvent ecological concerns. The differences in mandate arguments observed in the discourses of the two cases illustrate the way that stakeholder adjust to the changing context
147 of a policy debate.
There are differences in discourse of the case studies, specifically how American use is perceived, information arguments, and mandate centered arguments. This demonstrates the influence of pervasive social attitudes and dynamic political conditions can have on the way that an argument is made for the same desired policy output. In one sense, these discourses reproduce these attitudes by the unconscious biases towards understandings reached under a contemporary baseline of facts expressed in their discourse, contributing to that understanding in its repetition.
In another sense, these discourses likely were intended to actively appeal to pervasive world views and understandings held at the time of their production, as the aim of policy output incentivizes the expression of values and concerns which will resonate with decision makers and potential advocates in the public at large.
In this study in particular, we can see that the opposing sides of the issue both adjust to the context, but their approach differs in the way that it addresses the best possible justifications for their policy aim, for instance the industry interpretation of ecological integrity as something that could be incorporated within their framework for harvesting in the park. These adjustments could be seen as opportunities to gain or lose influence in the effectiveness of their advocacy, as they represent potential instabilities in the status quo conditions of the policy debate. Thus, advocates would do well to understand the changing social contexts surrounding debates concerning environmental policy, and the implications of these for the issue, so that deliberate efforts can be made to make the more effective adjustment to contemporary policy conditions.
5.2 Diversification of Values in Industry Discourse
Another important difference in the discourse between the cases was the way that the
148 values and concerns expressed by Industry advocates changed. This phenomenon was particularly evident in the embracing of the economic value of tourism, the consideration of the social arguments, and the evolution of the ecological arguments made.
Regarding the changes in discourse between the case studies, the embracing of tourist economic values illustrates the major adjustment made by industry stakeholders in their advocacy. In the Quetico case study, industry advocates downplayed the potential for the park as a tourist destination, and the issues represented only 6.3% of economic arguments they made. In the Algonquin case study, tourism represented 13.8% of economic arguments made by industry, and Industry advocates actively endorse the parks contributions to local economies in tourism, and even boasted about contributions to the tourism in the tourist attractions of a Logger’s Day and the Logging Museum in the park. Given the strong presence of Industry with local economies, it’s not surprising that this value of tourism is embraced in the Algonquin case since the service industry in communities adjacent to parks are boosted by recreational tourists (Adams
& Hutton, 2007). While not a surprise, it does contribute to the trend of the diversification of values present in the discourse, as while economic, it is a non-timber value embraced and even enhanced by the industry. This appeal to a wider range of values and concerns may make the status quo of permitting logging more palatable from the perspective of some stakeholders.
The inclusion of more diverse social appeals in the Algonquin case is further evidence of the diversification of values expressed in the Industry discourse. While social concerns in the
Quetico case centered largely around access to benefits, local benefits, and recreational use, in the Algonquin case concerns regarded long term responsibility, historical and cultural significance, and education. Responsibility made up 14.4% more of the social concerns expressed in the Algonquin case than in Quetico, and rather than simply expressing the concern
149 for the long term viability of local mills, the discourse reveals pride in the contribution to
sustainability in forestry industry wide through the silviculture research and development taking
place in the park.
In the Quetico case, historical and cultural significance composed 7.7% of social
arguments, while in Algonquin Provincial Park that number increases to 14.8%. In the Quetico
case, mentions of cultural and historical values by industry largely consisted of acknowledging
the value, but downplaying the incongruency between those values and logging. In the
Algonquin case on the other hand, a clever turn is made in the discussion of this value, in which
the logging in the park is actually a large part of the historical and cultural heritage of the park
itself. In this way, industry legitimizes their place in the park, citing duration of their
involvement in the park, contribution to the natural features, and the ways that the loggers in
Algonquin park and the Ottawa Valley are a part of the national myth of the interaction between
Canadians and nature, tacking on to the same appeal made about parks (Henderson, 1992;
Vaccaro et al., 2013). These complex social appeals to the industry policy aim might be more
effective with those stakeholders not directly tied to the financial appeals concerning the
distribution and access to benefits and local benefits, and represent the effective widening of
values expressed in the Industry discourse. Additionally, textual descriptions of the story of the
park, including the logging history, limits the interpretative experience of visitors, and
incorporates those timber values into their understanding of the park, potentially emphasizing the
past land use for city dwelling visitor proponents of protection, which can drive the acceptance
of future industry use (Baker, 2002; Berenger et al., 2010).
Finally, the value of education roughly doubled in the proportion of social argument from
3.5% in the Quetico case to 7.4% in the Algonquin case. While this is still a small proportion,
150 more interesting than the increase in the frequency of the argument is the evidence that the
industry embraced education, specifically in the Forestry Connects program which brings in high
school students from all over Ontario to experience logging operations in Algonquin, and
educates them on sustainable forest management in the park. This is reminiscent of the program
described by Environmental advocates in the Quetico case. While individually, the changes of
argument by industry concerning responsibility, historical/cultural and educational significance
do not represent major shifts in discourse, the collective change in the three values represents the change in strategy by industry advocates, embracing non-timber values and effectively arguing
for the inclusion of logging in the park as something that enhances these values.
Finally, the differences in the ecological arguments made in the Algonquin case illustrate
the way that Industry advocates put forth more diverse and intricate arguments to support their
policy aims. While overall ecological arguments were less frequent in the Algonquin case than
the case of Quetico, making up 2.8% less of the total arguments, and represented in 18.2% less
of all Industry texts, the increase in proportion of fauna and wilderness/protection based concerns
and qualitative observations about the way these arguments were framed reveals the industry’s
more diversified value discourse in the Algonquin case. The proportion of ecological arguments
concerning fauna and habitat increased from 6.8% in Quetico to 16.7% in Algonquin. These
arguments actually claim that the logging is of ecological benefit, supporting habitat in the form
of cutover, and questioning how they could threaten ecosystems when logging has persisted so
long and yet manifestations of those ecological values, such as self-sustaining brook trout lakes,
persist.
In terms of wilderness and protection centered concerns, the proportion of all ecological
concerns expressed by Industry advocates increased substantially, from 9.6% in the Quetico case
151 to 31.5% of those made in the Algonquin case. As previously discussed, the 2006 Provincial
Parks and Conservation Reserves Act mandating ecological integrity as the first priority in the parks may have compelled Industry stakeholders’ hand in this regard, but the value is discussed at length in their discourse. These arguments center around ways protection can be incorporated in the practices of loggers in the park, and how protection values can be balanced in the parks zoning. While these appeals are likely reactive to the changing political contexts, they remain representative of a clear pattern of diversification of concerns expressed by Industry advocates in the Algonquin case, and show the way that industry has insulated the status quo policy with agreeable values reaching a wide range of concerns.
In my opinion, this represents a successful change in strategy by industry stakeholders, potentially learned from past failures such as that of the prohibition of logging in Quetico Park.
Research has shown that support for environmental protection is often greater among urban inhabitants (Bliss, 2000). Whereas in the case of Quetico the concern was largely local in nature, such as employment and the local benefit of the policy, the discourse in the case of Algonquin make better appeals to city populations, potentially reducing the controversy and changing minds. Sabatier (1988) notes that secondary beliefs of stakeholders are more likely to be compromised in efforts to achieve policy aims, and one might interpret the changes in the concerns expressed by Industry advocates as the adjustment of expressed secondary values to better support their policy aim than past strategies.
Particularly effective in this is the change in the way historical and cultural arguments are made by Industry in the context of Algonquin Provincial Park. Given that visitors of the park build their interpretation around the narrative portrayed in the textual descriptions of the park, the inclusion of loggers in the historical and cultural depictions of the park frame the land use as
152 some sort of endearing tradition of our wilderness taming forefathers which lives on through todays operations. Environmental advocates would be wise to consider the strong and more intricate discourse adapted by the industry side in the Algonquin case, especially given the next trend to be discussed as evidence of a comparison of environmental discourse in the two cases.
5.3 Specialization of Ecological Values in Environmental Discourse
In the Algonquin case study, Environmental advocates, possibly emboldened by the confirmation of the mandate for ecological integrity in Provincial Parks, focus specialized on ecological arguments concerning the true costs of logging in the park. Given that the biocentric values held by environmentalist define that type of stakeholder, its unsurprising that these arguments make up a significant portion of the appeals made in the advocacy efforts, with a
32.7% of all the communication by Environmental advocates in the Quetico case value coded as ecologically focused, and ecological values appearing in 87.5% of all environmental advocacy documents in that case. That said, the increase in the emphasis on ecological values, on top of the existing emphasis, is significant, with a majority of all arguments made by Environmental advocates in the Algonquin case (51.1%) being ecological values. This is clear quantitative evidence that the Environmental advocates have become increasingly specialized in their discourse towards the ecological values.
Of those more frequent ecological arguments made by environmentalists in the
Algonquin case study, there is also a change in the proportional importance of particular concerns, and the framing observed qualitatively in the content analysis. Fauna based arguments made up over ten percent more in Algonquin than their proportion in the Quetico case, changing from simple arguments about the direct consequences of logging in terms of habitat destruction
153 from the removal of stands and the roads necessary for extraction. In the Algonquin case fauna
arguments include both of those points of emphasis in the Quetico case, but have widened to
expressions of concern about the uncertainty of impacts on an ecosystem, direct and indirect.
These concerns run counter to the Industry claims of environmentally friendly practices, as the
imply that even with a policy of careful, science driven practice, the multitude of potential
consequences of the harvests are relatively unpredictable and unknown.
Another concern which made up a larger portion of ecological arguments in the
Algonquin Park case study was old growth at 12.8% compared to 3.8% in the Quetico case
study. One contributing factor to this phenomenon is the advocacy text samples from the Ancient
Forests Research and Exploration, who found a 400 year old tree in a logging zone in Algonquin
during one of the studies of the old growth forests found in the park. In addition to this particular
stakeholder’s direct focus on the concern of old growth trees, this observation sparked comment
by their other stakeholders concerning the appropriateness of logging the park. Overall, the
preservation of old growth trees becomes a much more prevalent argument for
environmentalists, whereas arguments concerning degradation received less attention, pointing to
a more nuanced environmental argument. It is also interesting to see the way that the discourse of the time, ‘climate change’ in this era of environmental concern, as environmental advocates illustrate that “Algonquin is an important park because old trees store more carbon than younger forests, and are incredibly important for biodiversity” (Wildlands League, 2019), an argument concerning greenhouse gases and the wider consequences of human impact on the environment.
Overall, the increased presence of old growth in the discourse for the park is one piece of evidence indicative that the increased focus on ecological values in the environmental discourse for the Algonquin case study is also a more nuanced and multiple concerns are addressed.
154 Interestingly, the increased focus on ecological arguments in the case of Algonquin is also argued in the social codes concerned with responsibility and long term interests, as the way the instrumental value of protection is portrayed in this discourse is more abstract in the case of
Algonquin than Quetico. In Quetico, responsibility codings largely concerned the long term presence of wilderness for the enjoyment of future generations as it “could serve as a living museum for our children and future generations. Let me ask for your foresight and overall perspective in reserving a small percentage of the land of Ontario free from commercial exploitation so that maybe the ones who have not been born yet can enjoy some of the beauty of
Ontario” (Federation of Ontario Naturalists, 1971). The obvious instrumental implication of this a less abstract connection to human benefit than those described in the Algonquin discourse, such as “Ontario protected areas network plays a critical role in maintaining and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity. Protected areas in an age of climate change are a buffer against extreme weather events and add resiliency” (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2012).
This instrumental type of value, where long term resiliency is valued, still as an instrumental anthropogenic benefit, is less clear and tangible than the idea that one’s grandchildren can view the same landscapes as them, and is representative of Norton (1986) concept of long term values of protection ultimately being understood as instrumental rather than simply biocentric. Once again, this is qualitative evidence of a more nuanced and focused ecological arguments made by environmentalists in the Algonquin case.
It is possible that the increase of ecological arguments is actually a strategic response to the diversification in the industry discourse, as it becomes the main differentiator. Given the way ecological integrity is emphasized in the current legislation and the pervasive concern about the climate crisis, it’s not necessarily surprising that environmental arguments approach the
155 discourse in this manner, although it doesn’t seem to be as effective as the more diversified approach. This is congruent with Warecki’s (2017) finding that early efforts at environmental advocacy were too scientifically focused, justifications which often had little political value when compared to more utilitarian justifications. Even some of the most famous leaders of early preservation, such as Leopold, efforts were wary of intrinsic justifications without clear instrumental value. Even John Muir, one who staunchly argued for the intrinsic values of preservation used religious and spiritual imagery and arguments to make clear the instrumental value in experiencing wilderness for the soul: “In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks” (Muir, 1918 p 179).
Recent research has shown that the oversaturation of environmental concern can contribute to apathy with regards to actual environmental behaviour. Fear based appeals to action have diminishing returns, with each appeal risking desensitizing the receivers (O’Neill &
Nicholson-Cole, 2009). Confronting environmental issues can cause apathetic seeming reactions as a paralyzed response to the size of these types of problem, and the feeling of an infinitely small impact that can be made by an individual (Lertzman, 2008). While this is one is one particular issue where the scope might be considered more manageable than issues like a hole in the ozone layer or climate change, the mentions of climate change by advocates in the discourse may contribute to this effect. Other research has found associations between fear based arguments concerning, and self-reported learned helplessness, also suggesting that these appeals might not be effective in inspiring pro-environmental behaviour. Given these findings, the specialization of ecological arguments in the Environmental discourse may be ineffective in accomplishing the type of mobilization of concerned members of the public to create enough awareness of the issue to have political capital for decision makers. It would be wise for
156 environmental advocates to consider an approach that balances ecological concerns with other justifications, especially given the propensity for scientific justifications to be dense and inaccessible.
In addition to these difference noted between the two cases studies, there were differences between the way that the sides address the concerns and values discussed in the discourse, including the custodial and steward perspectives that underly arguments of the opposing sides, the difference in the economic assumptions made by either side, the framing of ecological integrity, cottager perspectives, and Indigenous perspectives.
5.4 Custodial and Stewardship Perspectives
The relationships portrayed by Industry advocates between humans and the environment in the discourse could best be described as a custodial mentality to the responsibilities with regards to the treatment of nature, while the environmentalist discourse could be described as one of the stewardship perspectives. The custodial perspective implies the responsibility to help upkeep and maintain nature, in this case through the logging practices in the park maintaining the aesthetic appeal of rot free forests and optimizing the health of the forest. On the other hand, the stewardship approach to the human relationship with nature implies humans must protect the environment from degradation at their own hands, as they are charged with keeping the environment healthy for future generations, as we are only borrowing the environment from those who come after us. The long term motives of industry of predictability and production, as well as the environmental long view aim of resiliency are evidenced in these perspectives, especially in the way the well-being of the forest is portrayed. It is also important to note that these perspectives both represent a dualism between humans and nature, viewing nature as what is separate from man, rather than consideration for the ways that our social constructions of
157 nature coproduce the environment. These opposing views are both built on this dichotomous premise, as evidenced in the arguments concerning disturbance arguments made on both sides.
Regarding disturbances in the forest, Industry argued that the forest is a dynamic landscape which involves the need for disturbance and succession to maintain the health of the forest landscape. Given the practice of forest fire suppression in the park, to mitigate the threat to nearby communities, industry advocates argue that logging fills this niche, and helps the forest maintain natural processes despite the lack of fire disturbance. In these arguments, the implication is that humans are able to upkeep the forest in these conditions. Some advocates went as far to say human interference was necessary to keep ecosystems in a stable state:
Natural ecosystems are very seldom able to maintain themselves in a stable state…The goal of protection of wilderness areas by man is usually based on the erroneous assumption that the ecosystem would, if sufficiently protected, maintain itself more or less in balance (Ontario Professional Foresters Association, 1971).
This objective of stability here can be interpreted in terms of predictability of a landscape, a long term goal described in Norton (1986). Additionally, the understanding that the forests can be broken down into components, and manipulation of those components by humans being possible is evidence of the interpretation of the word nature in the sense of the “nature of”, the singularity of nature’s manifestation rather than as a general force towards the present (Williams, 1976). In the Algonquin case study, Industry advocates cite the continued presence of species in the park as evidence this strategy of maintaining the park forest is working: There is a reason why we have the largest concentration of natural, self-sustaining brook trout lakes in the world. It’s because sustainable forestry practices have protected those values… sometimes when I hear these groups come forward to say we need to stop it because these values are threatened, well, how are they still here after 180 years of logging?” (Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2015). Thus,
158 in this case, Industry advocates are wielding ‘nature’ as a means to argue for a policy aim
(Braun, 2002), ensuring natural components of the landscape, such as the presence of
disturbance, are maintained through human influence. Overall, it is evident in the discourse
concerning disturbance that industry take a dualist perspective of the human relationship with
nature in which humans help maintain natural landscapes.
Environmental advocates acknowledge the need for disturbance in forests, but staunchly
argue that the profit motives of logging and the limitations in its ability to emulate natural
disturbance mean that the operations inevitably degrade the natural landscape. Many
environmental advocates argue for controlled burning and other changes in fire suppression
policy in the park: “a first priority is the re-establishment of fire as an agent of natural disturbance and renewal.” (Wildlands League, 2000). The concern of the influence of the motives of profit, in the selection of stands to cut which are profitable and proximal to reduce associated costs, irreparably shape the landscape in a way which is contrary to the path of nature, in other words, human interference knocking nature off its course. This is of wielding of nature towards a policy end (Braun, 2002), in which ‘nature’ is the general force described in Williams
(1976), and logging represents interruption of this natural course by human action.
5.5 Divergent Economic Understandings
Another major difference between the discourse of industry and environmental advocates was the economic assumptions which underly the arguments put forth by each side in support of their policy aim. Largely, there is dichotomy of short term vs long term biases concerning economic arguments made by Industry and Environmentalists respectively. This bias is evidenced in the understanding of the distribution of costs and benefits of each of the policy
159 outcomes.
From the Industry perspective, the cost and benefits understanding is very much understood from a local and outsider dichotomy. In this understanding, Industry advocates understand the cost of prohibition of logging as one that is borne by local communities dependent on the logging as their economy, both for employment and for indirect economic benefits through demand for service industry in communities which employees of operations work and reside. These arguments are more effective in times of economic distress (Kelly,
2014), such as those during the downturn following the 2008 housing market bubble .On the other hand, benefits of protected areas apply more to city populations that do not experience natural forested landscapes as frequently as the rural populations which depend on the logging economically. In addition to these benefits, Industry advocates express that the benefits of their logging are far reaching, including stimulating local and regional economies, and providing the raw materials needed for infrastructure and products appreciated all over the province, and the assurance that those materials were harvested in a way which provided value in its environmentally friendly extraction when compared to other sources. Additionally, the research outputs concerning sustainable forest management from the park are substantial in reducing the negative environmental impact of forestry nationwide. Beyond this, the costs of their continued operations in the park are largely understood by industry advocates as non-existent or that these operations could even beneficial in terms of the park’s ecosystem. These assessments of the costs and benefits of either policy outcome, prohibition or continuation of logging, by industry advocates illustrate a relatively short term outcome, concerned with subsistence needs of contemporary individuals, communities and companies as a cost that cannot be borne.
Environmental advocates on the other hand have a very different assessment of the
160 benefits and costs of each policy outcome, and this understanding is shaded by a bias towards a longer term. In the event of prohibited logging, Environmental advocates argue a wide far reaching benefit in the form of biodiversity and resiliency, and the preservation of a representative wilderness landscape. The value of biodiversity and resiliency is understood as a benefit which applies to all of Ontario and even Canada, especially in the context of uncertainty concerning the particular effects of climate change on landscapes, and the preserved wilderness in Algonquin provides a benefit highly accessible to the Ontarian public given its location
“within a day’s drive of about 40 million people” (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, n.d).
These benefits are more abstract and long term than those discussed by industry advocates, and tend to minimize local and short term concerns, such as this example in the Quetico discourse:
“people who live close to the park feel it has some sort of special significance for them, but I submit really that this park is so important, is so rich, is so unique, that we must consider it as an asset for the people of Ontario at large” (Algonquin Wildlands League, 1971), and “Quetico represents a recreational resource of national significance, while the economic returns, as we have just argued, are of very local significance” (Toronto Field Naturalist Club, 1971). The costs of the prohibition of logging are placed in a longer term context in the Environmental discourse, which poses economic challenges as normal in the context of resource dependent economies, are reduces the individual scale concern about particular people losing employment opportunities.
Essentially, Environmentalists argue that the costs of prohibiting logging are costs which are inevitable, as the communities dependent on the park are sustaining on an economy reliant on one resource, for which markets might be volatile, harvests are variable, and generally, one resource simply does not make for a strong and stable economic base for a community. One respondent to the 2010 management plan consultation even went as far to consider the
161 economies of localities dependent on logging in the park as false economies: “With the forest
industry continuing in free fall all around the park, the time to set new social and economic goals
for these communities, weaning them off the false economies of logging a park – are long
overdue” (2010 management plan comment 142590, 2009). The Environmental Commissioner
of Ontario Gord Miller (2014) questioned the idea of a policy debate centring around the supply
to particular mills, when “mills come and go”. This long term perspective taken on by
Environmental advocates helps to downplay the costs to local economies of prohibited logging in
the park, and better highlights the benefits of their own desired policy aim.
Overall, there are local/outsider as well as short term/long term perspectives help shape the perception of the benefits and costs for each side. Industry advocates are guided by a bias towards short term localized analysis of the cost and benefits, while it seems the environmental focus is on longer term concerns and province wide perspectives. In terms of effectiveness, short term needs might have more political capital than abstract future contexts, and one wonders if the dismissive tone towards local economies might be seen as callous by potential allies of increased protection in the park.
5.6 The issue of Ecological Integrity
As previously discussed, the 2006 PPCRA has potentially had significant impact on the discourse observed from the Algonquin Park case study. The difference in the interpretation of ecological integrity by the sides of the issue is another interesting division in the discourse and framing of issues by advocates. Industry advocates incorporate the value of something of ecological integrity as something to be included, in the way that EI is integrated into the sustainable forestry practiced in Algonquin, whereas for Environmentalists, EI is a first principle
162 and is meant to guide all management decisions, in other words, uses should be determined if they can be included under EI. These differences are evident in arguments coded mandate.
The Industry interpretation of ecological integrity is one in which it can be incorporated under their model of forestry. Rather than a determination of whether logging itself is antithetical to ecological integrity, the idea is to consider ways in which the logging practice can integrate ecological integrity by incorporating research and environmentally friendly techniques. This is evident the in Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) vision statement: “To achieve the highest standards of sustainable forest management practices, in order to maintain park values for future use”, where ecological integrity would be one of the values the operations aim to maintain. This use of the word “maintain” is interesting when one considers the custodial view discussed previously. The AFA mission statement: “To ensure the long term health of Algonquins Forests while producing a sustainable supply of forest products for the forest industry in the region”, discusses the value of the forests health, which might be interpreted as an appeal to ecological integrity, although it is placed in equal standing with the goal of wood supply, and health is interpreted from perspective of industry, which might not be the same as the vision of environmentalists (Norton, 1986). This incorporation of ecological integrity as a value, to be included in their practices as per the legislation, is very different than the Environmental perspective described henceforth.
On the other end of the spectrum, for environmental advocates, ecological integrity is at the very center of the management principles for the park. In this conceptualization, the parks mandated value would allow for the inclusion of other values, but any land use in the park would have to be congruent with the first goal of ecological well-being of the park. From this perspective, an extractive land use like logging simply doesn’t have any place in the park, as the
163 fundamental aims of the use is economic incentive of profitable operations. The fundamental
incompatibility of logging with ecological integrity as it is understood by environmentalists is
succinctly put by CPAWS (2009): “You can’t simultaneously manage for ecological integrity
and profit. It doesn’t matter if you’re doing the best forestry management in the universe, you’re
not managing for ecological integrity.” Furthermore, the continuation of logging and cottages in
the park has concerned environmentalists that the commitment to EI in the 2006 PPCRA wasn’t
really a major commitment to protection: “this latest move by the government is symptomatic of
a larger problem: the province is turning its back on ecological integrity – which is the stated
priority of its own Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act – an act that was widely
applauded by Wildlands League and others when it was passed in 2006” (Wildlands League,
2012). Clearly, there is no shared understanding of ecological integrity in the discourse
concerning logging in Algonquin Provincial Park.
The lack of shared understanding concerning ecological integrity has consequences in
seeking resolution to the issue of logging in the park. Shared understanding of issues, policy
aims, and the consequences of policy aims as keys to cooperative interaction between
stakeholders (Duinker et al., 2010; Robson & Kant, 2006). For Industry, the Environmentalist perspective of ecological integrity is similar to fortress conservation, where they are prevented from accessing long accessed benefits from the park in the name of protection at the benefit of others. For environmentalists, the industry interpretation of EI is akin to the token inclusion of ecological concern to what is ultimately an endeavour to profit at the exploitation of the
environment. Under these parameters, it is difficult to picture innovative solutions toward the
total prohibition of logging in the park. Industry must make EI fit under the paradigm of
operations of logging the park because for many of the shareholders this is a bottom line issue
164 for them, they either have a supply of wood and employment or they don’t. The park represents a
potential infinite timber source which perfectly addressed their fundamental long term concern of
predictability. On the other hand, for environmentalists, logging in the park is also a black and
white issue, as they feel that either biodiversity and ecology is being protected, or that they are
being exploited. This fundamental understanding was even described by Wildlands League
(2000) as an issue of name, if the park included forestry, it simply wasn’t a park. The implication
of this interpretation of the findings is fairly clear, in that a real legal definition of ecological
integrity must be explicit and avoid vague sentiments in favor of a clear outline of what uses
might constitute this value and which might not.
The current definition of ecological integrity given in the Provincial Parks and
Conservation Reserves Act is “a condition which biotic and abiotic components of the ecosystem
and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities are
characteristic of their natural regions and rates of change and ecosystem processes are
unimpaired.” (Ontario, 2006 c. 12 s. 5(2)). By this definition, there is room for interpretation,
especially concerning its congruence with land uses like logging. One might assume that
extractive use is prohibited, because it would inevitably compromise rates of change of
ecosystem processes and the ecosystem composition, while others might consider disturbance of
logging contributing to maintaining natural rates of change in the face of fire suppression.
Ultimately, this definition is vague as a first priority for parks, and it’s possible that a clearer explanation of the way extractive and consumptive uses like logging fit into this framework, as this is a major barrier to shared understanding and therefore cooperation and even collaboration in the policy system.
165 5.7 Indigenous Discourse
While few examples of explicit advocacy on the issue by Indigenous stakeholders in each case existed, some interesting points were made by Indigenous advocates, and the differences between their arguments and those of Industry advocates, who ultimately shared the policy objective of allowance for logging in the respective parks. For Indigenous advocates, themes opportunities for self-determination and sovereignty, the righting of historical wrongs concerned with access to benefits, and the telling of the history of the parks, including the portrayal of their involvement in culture as part of the territory on which the park is imposed.
In terms of opportunities for self-determination Indigenous advocates expressed that while natural pristine landscapes are lovely, they represent a territory which provided for its inhabitants, and the removal of this access to these people shouldn’t produce spiritual comfort via the sentiment of the inherent value of wilderness. This is put well by the Indians of Rainy
River District (1971) in the Quetico case, in which they state that despite the benefits of primitive forest “Our needs are more immediate. Given the opportunity for the physical comfort that accompanies a full stomach, and adequate roof overhead and clothes to keep us warm, perhaps we too would derive comfort from spiritual thought”. While this quote emphasizes short term need like Industry advocates, the argument seems to imply the contribution of historical disadvantages to this precarious position. In the Algonquin case study, this implication is echoed more explicitly: “we were once wealthy, we lived well off the land” (Whiteduck, 2016).
These understandings that the atrocious historical mistreatment and marginalization of
Indigenous people have directly led to the current issues of welfare in these communities are significant in the issue of logging, as one might understand that continued prohibition of access of indigenous peoples to the natural resources on their traditional territory as highly problematic.
166 For the small Indigenous Amik Association in the Quetico case, a recently granted license shortly before the QAC hearings represented self-determination of the economic fate of their community. In the case of Algonquin, it was an important aspect of the Algonquins of Ontario
(AOO) land claim agreement in principle that the operations in the park would continue, but with increased involvement and opportunities for Algonquins, including positions on the Ontario
Parks, and Algonquin Forestry Authorities Board of Directors. This strong decision making influence is a conduit for Algonquins to access the benefits which were tragically taken from them, and thus the self determination of their communities. For these communities, the opportunity to participate in the forestry in the park is directly connected to their traditional way of life: “Forested areas have been integral to the Algonquin way of life since time immemorial.
The commitment reflects the importance of forestry to the culture, economic stability, and prosperity of the AOO” (Algonquins of Ontario, 2013), and represent a reclamation of the wealth the Algonquin experienced when they could sustain on their traditional land.
Indigenous advocacy around logging in both parks can be compared to the Canadian
Boreal Forest Agreement negotiations. Lee (2011) noted that the Indigenous groups involved were not given the courtesy of the treatment of nation to nation discussion with a sovereign government, but rather the Indigenous groups were treated as another stakeholder group. The
Joint Proposal for the Lightening the Footprint of Logging in Algonquin Park (2009) described
Indigenous participants as “Aboriginal communities and stakeholders” (p. 5), and while
‘Aboriginal consultation’ is mentioned in the report, the language in the report lacks an acknowledgement of the sovereignty and nation-to-nation relationship described by Lee (2011).
Additionally, West et al. (2006) find that in protected areas contexts, traditional ecological knowledge is often considered as a supplement to scientific knowledge, and thus less valuable as
167 paradigms are imposed on Indigenous decision makers, such as the dichotomous portrayal of man and nature. Both the treatment of indigenous nations as simple stakeholder rather than nation to nation relations, and the tendency for traditional ecological knowledge to be subordinate to scientific knowledge in these frameworks should be noted as a potential barrier for their influence on policy, and therefore their potential to access the benefits of logging the park.
The theme of the telling of history was also a very salient point in the indigenous discourse. Algonquin Chief Kirby Whiteduck stressed the importance of historical identity of his people, stating: “It is important the Algonquins have the recognition that they are Algonquins, that they exist today… we were here before the Europeans. Our History must be recognized.”
(Talaga, 2012.) The need for the cultural history of the Algonquin peoples to be told in the park is also evident in the AOO Land Claim in section 9.1.24 which designates for the consideration of “a cultural centre, museum, or other tourist destination consistent with park values”
(Algonquins of Ontario et al., 2016). This connects well to the concerns in Grimwood (2018) about the way that the Algonquins have been portrayed in interpretative texts on the park as a historical relic, with the name honoring a group that had existed in the area that had unfortunately fallen to conflict with other indigenous groups. The reality of course, was the destabilizing impact of colonial presence of traditional economies, coupled with the preferential treatment of settlers in land disputes, and the establishment of the park itself essentially ensured the people would lack access to the wealth of resources to which they had always had access
(Grimwood, 2018). The disingenuous portrayal of the history of the Algonquins in the territory and the downplaying of historical injustices have contributed to misconceptions about the place of Algonquins in the park, including the contributions to the landscape as it was experienced at
168 the founding of the park in 1893, and as it is experienced today. Given this historical occupancy and the influence of colonial society in the removal of these people from their territory, it is understandable that more accurate retelling of the story is desired on the part of the Algonquins of Ontario.
The issue of cottages in Algonquin Park provides an interesting angle to the Indigenous issues in the park. Research by Puppe (2015) illustrates that the community of cottages in Brent in the northern section of the park contains many Indigenous inhabitants, all of which are descendants of individuals who lost their status acquiring logging employment and the leases to their cottages. This sheds interesting light on this issue, as the desired eviction of the cottages by
Environmentalist advocates doesn’t necessarily account for the occupancy of people who might rightly consider the park their position, as it obscures the question of whether the cottages are a privilege or a potential right to traditional land, included in a modern land claim. Parks have long contributed to the coercive removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands (Peluso, 1993), as is the removal of local autonomy in the face of the potential consequences in favor of decision makers who are unaffected by these concerns.
Overall, the Indigenous advocacy in the case studies reveal that while the policy aim of permitting logging in the park territory is the same as that of Industry advocates, these arguments were made in very different ways, especially concerning the presence of historical injustices when it comes to the needs of their communities, and in the portrayal of their history in the park.
The small sample size of Indigenous advocacy texts were a major limitation in the understanding of this discourse, and future researchers would likely find many insights in the interviewing of
Algonquins and cottage leaseholders in Brent, and future research on the Indigenous perspectives on the logging in the park might well contribute to shared understanding which could help
169 contribute to collaboration, and in the best case, inform park policy in a way that provides an avenue for reconciliation.
6 Conclusion
This thesis examined the discourse surrounding the issue of logging in two Ontario
Provincial Parks, focusing on the different understandings of parks and forests by pro and anti- logging stakeholders. The values and concerns expressed in advocacy documents illuminate these differences, and a comparison of the discourse in two different case studies, the reclassification of Quetico Provincial Park in 1972 and the resulting prohibition of logging and the ongoing debate concerning logging operations which persist in Algonquin Provincial Park, help to establish an understanding of the way these discourses differ by policy aim and case study context.
The findings outlined in this thesis address the three central research questions proposed in the introduction, including differences between the discourse presented by each advocacy group, the differences between case studies, and the evidence of underlying constructions of nature driving policy aims.
Research Question #1 What differences exist in values and concerns that are presented in the discourse in support of or against logging in parks in each case?
Qualitative and quantitative differences were observed in the results in the ways that
Industry and Environmental advocates supported their respective policy aims. These differences were pronounced in the understanding of the economics of the issue, the understanding of the mandate of Ontario Provincial Parks, and the understanding of logging in the context of ecological processes. In terms of the economic value related discourse, Industry leaned towards a shorter term perspective, focusing on current employment, immediate needs of mills, and the
170 costs being imposed on local communities. Environmental advocates economic discourse focused on the strength of tourism related benefits of protection as a means of diversification for local resource dependent economies. Regarding the difference in understanding of the mandate of parks, earlier advocacy in Quetico Park suggests that industry advocates viewed the main priority of the parks as benefiting the people of Ontario. Clarification of ecological integrity as the main priority of parks in the 2006 Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserve Act led to a change in Industry discourse, to one in which logging was permissible if it could incorporate the values of ecological integrity in their practices. This is a major difference in the understandings held by the opposing sides, as ecological integrity is understood by environmentalists as a priority which fundamentally excludes intensive extractive uses like logging, and couldn’t simply be incorporated under the framework of the logging operations. Finally, the understandings of logging in the context of the ecological processes of the forest differ between sides, as industry argues that logging emulates the natural disturbances necessary for a healthy forest which are absent in the context of fire suppression. By contrast, Environmentalists highlight the economic incentives at play in forestry, and the complexity and uncertainty in natural processes contribute to major differences between natural disturbance and logging. This specific difference is indicative of a larger, fundamental difference in understanding in what constitutes a healthy forest, with industry concerned about production, and Environmentalists primarily focused on biodiversity and resiliency. These observable differences in the discourse by industry and environmentalists concerning the economic, mandate, and ecological arguments, provide context behind the different understandings of how forests and parks work.
Research Question #2 What differences characterize the discourse of the contemporary case study in Algonquin Park from the historical case study in Quetico Provincial Park?
171
Differences in the arguments made by each side between the historical case study of Quetico
and modern case study in Algonquin were observable in the results, specifically with regards to
the diversification of argument on the part of Industry stakeholders, and the focus of
environmental advocates arguments on ecological justifications. In the Quetico case study, the
arguments of Industry were focused on the local implications of the issue, largely those
concerning economic well-being, while Environmental advocates presented a multitude of social,
ecological, and economic arguments, which supported the prohibition of logging in the park. In
the Algonquin case, we see the Industry advocates adopt more diverse values and concerns,
while Environmental advocates focused a majority of their arguments on ecological values,
increasing the frequency of the value coding and the diversity of the emphasis of specific
ecological concerns. This difference in advocacy approach concerning discourse, where Industry
is able to argue about the contribution of logging in Algonquin Park to the park’s historical and
cultural and tourist values, and education, while Environmental stakeholders appeal to a more
narrow range of values, may help to explain the persistence of the status quo policy of logging in
the park. The results suggest that Industry stakeholders have insulated their interests by
appealing to a wider breadth of values, potentially softening the edges of the controversy
regarding the practice of logging the park.
Research Question #3 What influences of social constructions of nature are evident in the discourse presented by the opposing sides?
The different social constructions of nature which underlie the understandings of how forests work and the role of parks within society are evident in the way values and concerns were
172 expressed by advocates on the opposing side of the issue. The influence of these constructions is evident in the custodial perspective held by industry and the stewardship paradigm of environmentalists contained in the discourse. Industry advocates understand logging as a necessary tending to the forest landscape, which renews the forest in a context where natural disturbances like fire are unable to. From this perspective, logging helps the forests continue its natural process by emulating a component of it, and strengthens the health of the forest as it removes dying old trees and renews the forest with young growth, strengthening local economies in the process. Claims that the logging was actually improving the forest landscape and ecosystems rather than degrading them were not uncommon in the Industry discourse. The idea that nature could be broken down into component parts, such as disturbance, and the nature of that aspect could be altered or replaced by human action in a predictable way is one which differs greatly from the Environmentalist understanding, in which nature is a fundamental force which is intricate and complex, and that human influence is a diverts this course in a multitude of unpredictable ways. In this paradigm of stewardship, protection provides an opportunity to save areas from these complex and uncertain influences, and loggings ability to emulate natural disturbance is questioned.
Ultimately, both discourses are evidence of a persisting dualist social constructions of nature, where humans are understood as separate from the environment, rather than understanding landscapes as the product of cocreation of anthropogenic influence and natural processes. As
Braun (2002) asserts, this understanding of the relationship between man and nature limits the deliberate negotiation of values for long term creation of landscapes which maintain biocentric and anthropocentric instrumental value in sustainable balance.
The mixed methods approach enabled a comparison of instances where the same values are
173 expressed and framed differently by stakeholders with opposing policy aims, and the illuminated
underlying assumptions, such as those about the relationship between humans and nature, which
produce these different understandings. The selection of the two case studies, one current and
one historical, allowed for the consideration of the way that discourses are dynamic, are
influenced by the social context in which they are produced. The Quetico Advisory Committee
hearings and written briefs, and the ongoing portrayal of the issue in media and on stakeholder
websites made Quetico an ideal case study from a discourse perspective. The media coverage of
the debate in Algonquin, and events which re-sparked interest in the issue, ensured that the
Algonquin Case also had appropriate data availability to make a useful case study concerning discourse. Events which sparked activity in the discourse surrounding the Algonquin case study included an inflammatory op-ed article in 2005, the Joint Proposal for Lightening the Footprint of Logging in Algonquin Park in 2009, and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s condemnation of logging in the park in 2014 which received many responses from stakeholders.
The case studies also allowed the opportunity to compare a case where environmental advocates contributed to a successful effort in the prohibition of logging to one which the practice persists.
While important contextual differences between the cases exist, such as the institutionalization of the practice in Algonquin through the Algonquin Forestry Authority and the Canadian ownership of the forestry companies operating in the park, the differences in discourse by case study suggest strategies have changed by time and geological context. Industry advocacy in Algonquin
differs from the Quetico advocacy in the adoption of more diverse values and concerns, while the
Environmentalist group has elected to focus largely on concerns of ecological values, a different
strategy than the one of diverse values and concerns observed in the Quetico case study. To what
degree this difference contributes to the current policy is hard to determine, but the findings
174 suggest a change in discourse of the advocacy of environmental advocates would be advisable in future efforts.
The limitations of this thesis include the subjectivity involved in coding, limitations in the statistics presented in the quantitative content analysis in describing the data, the difficulty in generalizing insights from case studies, and the small presence of Indigenous perspective. Large text samples by particular focus driven actors may skew the data for that actor’s party towards their concern. The comparison of a dataset comprised largely of purposed briefs in Quetico with a data set consisting of mostly media clippings in Algonquin also poses a limitation, as in purposed briefs the author selects what is included and excluded, whereas in a news story the author takes the words of the actor and includes and excludes content based on the needs of their story. These limitations are mitigated by the use of the quantitative data as a supplement to the qualitative observations rather than as findings in isolation.
The use of two different parks with their own geographical context is a further limitation to this study, as the influence of the difference in these contexts, namely the relative isolation of
Quetico compared to Algonquin, influences the discourse and advocacy membership of the case.
Temporal differences in context also limit the findings, as discourse that had previously been successful might not apply in today’s political climate, and the public level of understanding and engagement on environmental issues has changed over time. Importantly, the thesis does not establish direct causal links between the communications by advocates and policy itself, it does however examine the similarities and difference in the discourse in each case, and notes the assumptions that underlie these beliefs and arguments.
Despite the limitations of this thesis, the findings of this thesis help to add nuance to the understanding of the discourses in the case studies. They also present an actionable step by
175 Environmental advocates in their efforts to prohibit logging in Algonquin Park, and illustrates
the similarities and differences in the constructions of nature which underlie the values, concerns and policy aims of stakeholders in the context of the industrial use of a protected area.
The dualism understanding of the relationship between humans and nature present in the discourse for both Industrial and Environmental advocates suggests that an intensive examination of Indigenous perspectives on the issue might reveal a different social construction of nature. Research on the Indigenous perspective on the issue, using more direct data such as interviews, would help build on the understanding of discourses and paths forward for the issue, including the potential for Indigenous involvement in park management through clauses in the
Algonquins of Ontario Land Claim, and the inclusion of Indigenous values and culture in the interpretive depictions of the park. Given the recent decision by Parks Canada to comanage the
Obadjiwan-Fort Témiscamingue National Historic Site with Timiskaming First Nation, parks might serve as a tool in reconciliation with Indigenous, and allow for the inclusion of diverting
constructions of nature in management (Stefanovich & Romualdo, 2019). The upcoming
Algonquin Park Management Plan for the 2020-2030 period also provides an opportunity to
build on this research, as an analysis of the plan for the presence of values and concerns
expressed by advocates might provide insight on the influence of advocacy on policy, and help to
explain the current policy in the park with regards to ecological integrity, social, and economic
values. Finally, a study focused on the impact of the advocacy on policy on the persistence of
logging in Algonquin when relative to other factors such as the presence of the AFA and
Canadian owned operators would build on the understanding of the current policy paradigm, and
opportunities for resolution between staunchly opposed views concerning land use in the park
and the understanding of the mandate of ecological integrity mandated to drive policy decisions.
176 This study has furthered the understanding of both the transition of Quetico Provincial Park to a primitive classification and the ongoing debate concerning logging in Algonquin Provincial
Park in an examination of the discourse surrounding those cases, as well as in the understanding of the implications of the values of Sustainable Forest Management as they take place in a
Protected Area, and the way social constructions of nature underlie the values and concerns expressed in the discourse.
The policy transition to primitive classification in Quetico Provincial Park is understood as a milestone in the transition of the Provincial Parks system, both from the disorganized early parks which were managed individually, to a network with parks of different classification carefully managed to meet a wide range of stated objectives, and from a utilitarian centered institution run on a doctrine of multiple use to one which genuinely stood to protect ecological values, even at the cost of industry loss (Killan, 1993). Previous research has suggested that a strong campaign in the media by the Algonquin Wildlands League led to an outpouring of public support pressuring decision makers to ultimately prohibit logging in the park (Killan, 1993). This study involved a closer look at the advocacy documents produced in this mass of public support to examine the discourse of how environmental and industry advocates framed their arguments, the presence of values in their arguments, and the specific concerns which they addressed. This closer look revealed that in addition to a larger stake of public support in the appeals made to the
Quetico Advisory Committee, the Environmental advocates did a better job of justifying their policy aim than Industry, using a wide range of values and concerns, emphasizing the larger scale of social and economic concern than that of the local and contemporary issues. The discourse also revealed that the same concerns and values are framed in entirely different ways by the opposing sides, evidence of each side wielding those in aims of their policy objective in
177 the way that best fits their overall understanding of how forests work, the role of parks in society, and ultimately the relationship between humans and nature. The custodial and stewardship perspectives expressed by Industrial and Environmental advocates respectively both represent a dualist construction of nature in the separation of humans and the natural environment.
The persisting debate concerning the appropriateness of logging in Algonquin, the last park to include the use, is better understood with regards to the discourse employed by the opposing sides, and the potential implications of those arguments made with regards to promoting change in policy or the status quo. The findings of these studies suggest that in the ongoing discourse,
Industry advocates have actually done a better job at diversifying the values and justifications they express, while Environmentalists seem to have taken the 2006 Provincial Parks and
Conservation Reserves Act to heart and have focused and specialized in making ecological arguments. It seems that there are lessons to be learned in order for Environmental advocates to generate the public awareness necessary to promote change in Algonquin Park policy. Equally important to the potential alienation of supporters caused by a focus on ecological concerns at the expense of other values is the effectiveness with which Industry has adopted social arguments. For example, the social value specific concern of historical and cultural significance, has been effectively harnessed by Industry advocates who celebrate the history of logging in the park as part of the national myth concerning the relationship between humans and the wilderness. This pattern of discourses establishes a narrative which is undoubtedly internalized by visitors and contributes to their understandings and experiences in the park. Thus, the findings of this study suggest that a rather effective discourse by the Industry advocates and the rather ineffective strategy of focus on biocentric concerns by environmental advocates may be contributing to the persistence of the status quo in that case.
178 In terms of the contribution to understandings of the compatibility of sustainable forest management and those of protection, the discourse in the Algonquin case study illustrates the limits to the shared understanding of the health of the forest, and of the mandate of ecological integrity for Ontario Provincial Parks in particular. For many Industry stakeholders there are clear consequences concerning their livelihood, and therefore for these advocates ecological integrity must be fit within the framework of logging the park. Ecological values, are represented in their practices and discourse, ensuring that logging can still be considered congruent with the
Provincial Parks mandate. For Environmentalists the issue is equally black and white. While increases to the proportion of the park protected from logging are celebrated, ultimately the discourse suggests that the only acceptable policy with regards to logging under the mandate of ecological integrity is prohibition, as logging is inherently an extractive activity driven by profit motives, and ultimately is a very disruptive human use which has far reaching and unpredictable consequences for ecosystems. Under these parameters and diverged understandings of the central concept of Ecological integrity, collaboration has hard limits at mitigating the impact of logging in the park and incremental progress in the increasing proportion of protected area within the park. The incorporation of SFM within the contexts of a protected area clearly consists of incompatibilities and tradeoffs which are incredibly difficult to navigate, with a win-win solution seemingly very unlikely.
Finally, in terms of understandings of values and concerns expressed in discourse as they relate to social constructions of nature, the case studies in this thesis provide examples of the way that while fundamental differences in policy outcome and understanding exist on either side of the issue, the same underlying assumption can shape the perceptions of both sides. In this study, the conceptual separation of humans and natural landscapes, or a dualist construction of
179 nature, shapes both the custodial paradigm of industry and the stewardship perspective held by
environmentalists. The fundamental differences in the understanding of the issue shows little potential for establishment of meaningful collaboration between sides in Algonquin. Even the cottage leaseholders in the park, who one might assume would align with Environmentalist interest, engage in a discourse which doesn’t fully overlap with the anti-logging contingent, despite their interest in keeping logging away from their cottages as they consume ‘nature’ in a similar way recreationalist park visitors do. The differences in these perspectives are still rather pronounced in terms of the way that issues and concerns are understood differently by each side, but ultimately, the imposition of the dualist perspective limits the number of desirable outcomes for each side. That said, the identification of the values, concerns, along with evidence of the
assumptions about how forests work and the roles of parks revealed in the discourse represents a
better, more complete, understanding of the issue, and perceptions of stakeholders on either side
concerning logging in Provincial Parks.
The findings of this thesis contribute to literature regarding environmental policy and the
way the communication of values and concerns of stakeholders differs by policy aim, and how
discourses change over time. Protected areas policies are reflective of the values and concerns of
the public and decision makers, and thus, Ontario Provincial Parks are landscapes of conflict and
change. This thesis provides detail about the discourses used by advocates in pursuit of the
inclusion or exclusion of logging in protected areas, and illustrates the way the same values and
concerns can be understood and expressed in vastly different ways by the opposing parties in a
policy dispute. This builds on understandings of the specific case studies, providing details about
the discursive history of Ontario Provincial Parks policy which had previously had not been
specifically examined. More broadly, the findings of this thesis might be useful concerning cases
180 of the integration of timber value in protected areas, building on literature focused on the implementation of sustainable forest management, and the integration of non-timber values in timber producing forests. This can contribute to the understanding of the general compatibility of these two management paradigms, and expands the understanding of the relationship between protected areas and sustainable forest management as our means of managing our forests landscapes.
While this thesis illuminates much about the discourse surrounding the issue of logging in provincial parks, both in the successful prohibition in Quetico and the ongoing debate in
Algonquin, future research might fill gaps not addressed in this study, including, missing understandings of Indigenous perspectives on land use in the parks, the inclusion of values in the
Algonquin Park Management Plan for the period of 2020-2030 and associated public consultation, and the potential and limits of collaboration in this particular issue
Regarding the gap in understanding of Indigenous perspectives of logging in the park, future research might consist of interviews of Algonquin peoples concerning the land use issues in the park. The text based study was not advantageous in acquiring the perspectives of Indigenous advocates, as the availability of such texts was minimal, whereas a methodology utilizing interviews for data source might better illuminate the nuances in the indigenous perspectives on park policy. Issues which might be worth exploring include the alleged occupancy of non-status
Algonquins in the Brent cottage community, the support or opposition to logging in the park and the justifications behind that view, and the potential of a partnership with AFA as a potential for reconciliation and the inclusion of indigenous values, traditional ecological knowledge, and even a different, less dualist social construction of nature to the management operations in the park.
The upcoming 2020-2030 Management Plan for Algonquin Provincial Park also serves as
181 a potential data source for future research, both in the contents and impression of the plan itself,
and of the public perceptions expressed in the consultations which are ongoing at the time of this
writing. A similar methodology could be employed to compare the relative presence and absence
of values and concerns in the new management plan when compared to previous plans,
illustrating the general direction of the policy from that perspective. The comments produced in
the consultation process for this plan also might provide future researchers with a data set with
which to understand how the discourse surrounding the issue continues to evolve as we enter the
third decade of the 21st century.
Finally, future research should concern angles for potential cooperation and collaboration in developing the land use policy in Algonquin Park. While consult and decide models of decision making incorporate stakeholder values, cooperative endeavors, such as the Joint
Proposal for Lightening the Footprint of Logging in Algonquin (Ontario Parks, 2009) promote shared understanding and relationships between opposing sides, helping work towards amicable solutions. While the Joint Proposal was an example of an attempt at this, ultimately industrialists
became concerned with the loss of harvestable area, while environmentalists were unhappy that
the prohibition of logging was not included. As logging in the park became incrementally less
damaging, the controversy surrounding the issue is reduced, meaning that while ultimately more
landscape is protected, the goal of a park without logging all together may be becoming more
distant, as the Industry insulates itself from concerns by environmentally friendly practices and
clever spatial fixes in zoning which prevent exposure of operations to recreationalists
experiencing the park. The black and white depictions of the issue on both sides also can become
a barrier to collaborative efforts, as from this perspective environmentalists are trying to take
industry livelihood opportunities away and industrialists are destroying the park. This dynamic is
182 not exactly the bedrock of a productive collaborative effort. Future research might concern with potential avenues for shared understanding of the issues, potential policy aims, and their consequences in a way which is productive for this case. In the mind of this researcher, under the current boundaries it seems very difficult to imagine a compromise which would satisfy both parties, in providing Environmentalists with the prohibition of industrial use in the park, and industry with a reliable source of forest products. That said, potential fixes might include a reimagining of the park boundaries in a way that spatially aligns protected zones and significant landscapes inside the park with those adjacent to it, and doing the same for industrial zones, focusing the industry in intensive areas allowing for adjustments in harvesting and felling timing which might help to offset costs imposed on the Industry advocates, the result being an
Algonquin Park of similar size free from logging, with intensive industrial zones in suitable regions adjacent to the park, zoned in a way which encourages the connectivity of protected areas. The practical complications which might arise from such a suggestion are potentially preventative, but future research would be wise to consider innovative solutions and potential avenues for ensuring that the value of protection for the park is upheld through the prohibition of logging accomplished in a way that ensures reliable livelihood opportunities for those who rely on the logging operations in the park.
183 References
Adams, W. M., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and society, 5(2), 147.
Algonquins of Ontario. (2013) Algonquins of Ontario: Who are the Algonquins of Ontario? Retrieved at: https://www.tanakiwin.com/algonquins-of-ontario/who-are-the-algonquins- of-ontario/
Algonquins of Ontario, Ontario & Canada. (2016) Agreement in Principle.
Arnstein, S. (1967). Citizen Participation: Rhetoric and Reality.
Attiwill, P. M. (1994). The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservative management. Forest Ecology and management, 63(2-3), 247-300.
Baker, W. M. (1973). The Anti-American Ingredient in Canadian History. The Dalhousie Review.
Baker, J. (2002). Production and consumption of wilderness in Algonquin Park. Space and culture, 5(3), 198-210.
Banks, H. (2009). Lakes and Streams. Eds. D. Euler and M. Wilton, Algonquin Park-The human impact. Espanola, Ontario. Algonquin Eco Watch, 244-277.
Barry, J. M. (2011). Mobilized bias and multistakeholder protected-area planning: a socio- institutional perspective on collaboration. Society & Natural Resources, 24(10), 1116- 1126.
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14.
184
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of. Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Berninger, K., Adamowicz, W., Kneeshaw, D., & Messier, C. (2010). Sustainable forest management preferences of interest groups in three regions with different levels of industrial forestry: An exploratory attribute-based choice experiment. Environmental management, 46(1), 117-133.
Bliss, J. C. (2000). Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of forestry, 98(12), 4-9.
Boivin, J. (2011, March 28). The “Great” Recession in Canada - perception vs reality. Remarks at the Montreal Chartered Financial Analyst.
Boutilier, R. G., & Svendsen, A. C. (2001). From conflict to collaboration: Stakeholder bridging and bonding in clayoquot sound.
Braun, B. (2002). The intemperate rainforest: nature, culture, and power on Canada's west coast. U of Minnesota Press.
Burnham, P. (2000). Indian country, God's country: Native Americans and the national parks. Island Press.
Carlson, M., Wells, J., & Jacobson, M. (2015). Balancing the relationship between protection and sustainable management in Canada’s boreal forest. Conservation and Society, 13(1), 13-22.
Canadian Constitution Act (1982) c 92A
Corbett, C. (1994). White pine management and conservation in Algonquin Park. The Forestry Chronicle, 70(4), 435-436.
185
Couture, L., & Macdonald, R. (2013). The great US recession and Canadian forest products. Statistics Canada, Economic Analysis Division.
Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness. Environmental history, 1(1), 20-25.
Dhital, N., Raulier, F., Asselin, H., Imbeau, L., Valeria, O., & Bergeron, Y. (2013). Emulating boreal forest disturbance dynamics: Can we maintain timber supply, aboriginal land use, and woodland caribou habitat? The Forestry Chronicle, 89(1), 54-65.
Duinker, P., Wiersma, Y. F., Haider, W., Hvenegaard, G. T., & Schmiegelow, F. K. (2010). Protected areas and sustainable forest management: What are we talking about? The Forestry Chronicle, 86(2), 173-177.
Duinker, P. N., deGooyer, G. K., & Miller, C. A. (2015). Harnessing Compass to Gyroscope in Protected Areas Planning in Nova Scotia, Canada: The Colin Stewart Forest Forum. Conservation and Society, 13(1), 62.
Eagles, P. F. (2007). Review of the Ontario Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006. In Sixth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, Wolfville, NS.
Erdle, T. A. (1999). The conflict in managing New Brunswick's forests for timber and other values. The Forestry Chronicle, 75(6), 945-954.
Fabig, H., & Boele, R. (2003). Timber logging in Clayoquot Sound, Canada: community- corporate partnerships and community rights. In Transnational corporations and human rights (pp. 188-215). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Fagan L. (2016, October 19). Land, money in proposed land claim just a start, says chief. Retrieved at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/algonquin-ontario-land-claim-
186 whiteduck-1.3810559
Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1995). False forest history, complicit social analysis: rethinking some West African environmental narratives. World development, 23(6), 1023-1035.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Grimwood, B. S., Muldoon, M. L., & Stevens, Z. M. (2019). Settler colonialism, Indigenous cultures, and the promotional landscape of tourism in Ontario, Canada's ‘near North’. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14(3), 233-248.
Harshaw, H. W., & Tindall, D. B. (2005). Social structure, identities, and values: A network approach to understanding people's relationships to forests. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 426-449.
Henderson, N. (1992). Wilderness and the nature conservation ideal: Britain, Canada, and the United States contrasted. Ambio, 394-399.
Hodgins & Cannon (1998). The Aboriginal presence in Ontario Parks and other protected areas. Changing Parks: the history, future and cultural context of parks and heritage landscapes. John Marsh and Bruce Hodgins (Eds). Hignell Printing Limited. Canada.
Hodgson, C. (2003). Stealing in by the Window: Ojibway-government Relations in the Quetico (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University).
Howlett, M., Rayner, J., & Tollefson, C. (2009). From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. Forest policy and economics, 11(5-6), 383-391.
Huitema, M. (n.d). Historical Algonquin Occupancy Algonquin Park. Elders Without Borders.
187
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Kant, I. (1784). Answering the question: What is enlightenment. Berlin Monthly. Berlin: Berlin Monthly.
Kelly, E. C. (2014). Cultural entrenchment: Explaining gaps between ecosystem-based management policy and practice in the forests of Newfoundland. Forest Policy and Economics, 46, 10-18.
Killan, G. (1993). Protected places: A history of Ontario's provincial parks system. Dundurn.
Killan, G. (1998). Ontario’s Provincial Parks and Changing Conceptions of “Protected Places”. Changing Parks: the history, future and cultural context of parks and heritage landscapes. John Marsh and Bruce Hodgins (Eds). Hignell Printing Limited. Canada.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
Lane, M. B., & McDonald, G. (2002). Towards a general model of forest management through time: evidence from Australia, USA, and Canada. Land Use Policy, 19(3), 193-206.
Lavallee, L., & Suedfeld, P. (1997). Conflict in Clayoquot Sound: Using thematic content analysis to understand psychological aspects of environmental controversy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 29(3), 195.
Lawson, J. (2001). First Nations, Environmental Interest and the Forest Products Industry in Temagami and Algonquin Park. York University Doctoral Dissertation
Lee, K. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment Washington DC.
188
Lee, D. (2011). Windigo faces: environmental non-governmental organizations serving Canadian colonialism. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 31(2), 133.
Lertzman, R. (2008). The myth of apathy. Engaging with Climate Change, 117-33.
MacKinnon, D., et al. "Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: understanding ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ in the context of the broader target." Biodiversity and conservation 24.14 (2015): 3559-3581.
Mann, M. K. (2013). 'Clearcut'Conflict: Clayoquot Sound Campaign and the Moral Imagination (Doctoral dissertation, Université Saint-Paul/Saint Paul University).
Mårald, E., Langston, N., Sténs, A., & Moen, J. (2016). Changing ideas in forestry: A comparison of concepts in Swedish and American forestry journals during the early twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Ambio, 45(2), 74-86.
McDiarmid, M. (2012, December 6). Greenpeace says boreal forest agreement no longer working.
Messier, C., & Kneeshaw, D. D. (1999). Thinking and acting differently for sustainable management of the boreal forest. The Forestry Chronicle, 75(6), 929-938.
Miller & Wilson (2013). Ecological impacts of cottages in Algonquin Provincial Park. Green Analytics.
Muir, J. (1918). Steep Trails. California, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, The Grand Canyon.
Murray, J. A., & Gerace, M. C. (1972). Canadian attitudes toward the US presence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(3), 388-397.
189
Natural Resources Canada. (2017). State of Canada’s Forests: Annual Report 2017.
Nelson, J. (2009). Quetico: near to nature's heart. Dundurn.
Norton, B. G. (1986). Conservation and preservation: A conceptual rehabilitation. Environmental Ethics, 8(3), 195-220.
O'Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won't do it” promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379.
Ontario (2013). Ecological impacts of cottages in Algonquin Provincial Park. Queens Printer for Ontario.
Ontario. (2016). State of Ontario’s Natural Resources Forests 2016.
Ontario Parks (2019) Quetico Park. Retrieved at https://www.ontarioparks.com/park/quetico
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (2017). Evolving Roles: From Department of Lands and Forests to Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (2017). From Timber Administrator to Steward of the Forest: Forestry and the Evolution of Forest Management
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (2017). “One of the finest park systems in the world”: Managing Ontario’s Provincial Parks and Protected Areas.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (2018). Quetico Provincial Park Management Plan.
190 Peluso, N. L. (1993). Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global environmental change, 3(2), 199-217. Peterson, A. (1999). Environmental ethics and the social construction of nature. Environmental Ethics, 21(4), 339-357.
Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act (2006) S.O ch 12 Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06p12
Puppe, I. S. (2015). Conduits of Communion: Monstrous Affections in Algonquin Traditional Territory.
Quinn, N. (2009). Analyzing Human Impacts on Wildlife in Algonquin Park. Algonquin Park: The Human Impact. Algonquin Eco Watch, 220-243.
Rabson, M. (2017, August 9). Logging took place in Canada’s protected caribou habitat, environment groups say. Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/08/09/logging-took-place-in-canadas- protected-caribou-habitat-environment-groups-say.html
Raymond, L., & Olive, A. (2009). Ideas, discourse, and rhetoric in political choice. Polity, 41(2), 189-210.
Redekop, J. H. (1976). A reinterpretation of Canadian-American relations. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 9(2), 227-243.
Reid, R. (2014). The Canadian boreal forest agreement: Unlikely allies pursuing conservation and sustainable development in Canada’s boreal regions. The Philanthropist, 26(1).
Robson, M., & Kant, S. (2007). The development of government agency and stakeholder cooperation: A comparative study of two Local Citizens Committees'(LCCs) participation in forest management in Ontario, Canada. Forest Policy and Economics,
191 9(8), 1113-1133.
Robson, M., & Davis, T. (2014). Evaluating the transition to sustainable forest management in Ontario’s Crown Forest Sustainability Act and forest management planning manuals from 1994 to 2009. Canadian journal of forest research, 45(4), 436-443.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy- oriented learning therein. Policy sciences, 21(2-3), 129-168.
Sellars, R. W. (2009). Preserving nature in the national parks: a history: with a new preface and epilogue. Yale University Press.
Smith, L. G. (1982). Mechanisms for public participation at a normative planning level in Canada. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 561-572.
Spielmann, R., & Unger, M. (2000). Towards a model of co-management of provincial parks in Ontario. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 2, 455-486.
Stephanovich & Romualdo. (2019, July 14). Parks Canada strikes 1st agreement with Indigenous group to run national historic site. Retrieved from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stefanovich-romualdo-obadjiwan-fort-temiscamingue- 1.5209461
Sumner, J. (2015). Boreal Forest Update: Why renewing the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement is taking so long. Alternatives Journal, 41(1).
Tabachinick D. (2017, November 21). Who has the right to Ontario’s Algonquin lands? Retrieved at https://www.tvo.org/article/who-has-the-right-to-ontarios-algonquin-lands
Talaga, T. (2012,June 1). Historic Algonquin Claim of Ottawa area nearly done. Toronto Star.
192 Timoney, K. (1996). The logging of a world heritage site: Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada. The Forestry Chronicle, 72(5), 485-490.
Tittler, R., Messier, C., & Fall, A. (2012). Concentrating anthropogenic disturbance to balance ecological and economic values: applications to forest management. Ecological Applications, 22(4), 1268-1277.
Vaccaro, I., Beltran, O., & Paquet, P. A. (2013). Political ecology and conservation policies: some theoretical genealogies. Journal of Political Ecology, 20(1), 255-272.
VanNijnatten, D. L. (1999). Participation and environmental policy in Canada and the United States: Trends over time. Policy Studies Journal, 27(2), 267-287.
Wall, G., & Marsh, J. S. (Eds.). (1982). Recreational land use: Perspectives on its evolution in Canada (Vol. 126). McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Warecki, M. G. (1989). Protecting Ontario's Wilderness: A History of Wilderness Conservation in Ontario, 1927-1973 (Doctoral dissertation).
Warecki, G. (2017). Environmental Coalitions and the Limits of Science: Wilderness Advocacy in Ontario during the 1970s. Ontario History, 109(1), 60-88.
Wedeles, C. (2009). Impacts of roads on Algonquin Park wildlife. Algonquin Park: the Human Impact. 1st ed. Espanola (ON): Algonquin Eco Watch: p, 278-313.
West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 35, 251-277.
White, R. (1985). Ontario, 1610-1985: A political and economic history (Vol. 1). Dundurn.
193 Wiersma, Y., Duinker, P. N., Haider, W., Hvenegaard, G. T., & Schmiegelow, F. K. (2015). Introduction: Relationships Between Protected Areas and Sustainable Forest Management: Where are We Heading? Conservation & Society, 13(1), 1-12.
Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society (London: Fontana). Croom Helm.
Williams, J. S. (2009). Moving towards sustainable forest management. Algonquin Park: the Human Impact. 1st ed. Espanola (ON): Algonquin Eco Watch: p, 174-219.
Winfield, M. (2012). Blue-green province: The environment and the political economy of Ontario. UBC Press.
Woolgar, S., & Latour, B. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zachrisson, A., & Lindahl, K. B. (2013). Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. Forest policy and economics, 33, 39-46.
194 Appendix I – Tables and Figures
Figure 1. Case Study Areas
195
Figure 2. Overview of old growth, logging, and protected areas in Algonquin Park. (2015, October 10). Ancient Forests. Retrieved from: http://www.ancientforest.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/algonquin.jpg
196 Table 1. Timelines of significant events by case study
Quetico Provincial Park Algonquin Provincial Park
1909 Established as Quetico Forest Reserve 1893 Established as Algonquin National Park under Ontario Forest Reserves Act of Canada under Algonquin National (1898) with long term timber supply Park Act, with allowances for logging of driving land use policy pine
1910 Lac La Croix and Sturgeon Lake First 1905 Algonquin opens to cottage leases Nations to be forcibly removed from park territory, though scope of enforcement is uncertain
1911 – Extensive logging in the territory by 1910 Munn Lumber Company stirs 1945 Mathieu Lumber and Shelvin-Clark controversy with highly visible Company infractions on logging regulations in the park
1913 Officially established as Quetico 1931- Superintendent McDougall establishes Provincial Park under the Provincial 1941 multiple use policy, spatially segregating Parks Act (1913) logging and recreation to reduce controversy
1927 Quetico-Superior Council advocates to 1973 Minister of Natural Resources Leo challenge utilitarian values in the park Bernier announces policy of logging in Algonquin will be included in 1974 Master Plan
1946 – Cessation of logging due to decline of 1974 Establishment of the Algonquin Forestry 1961 merchantable timber in the area Authority as an operational enterprise Crown agency charged with overseeing all forestry in the park
197 1950 Boundary change officially absorbs 2006 Provincial Parks and Conservation Sturgeon Lake reserve, officially the Reserves Act confirms Ecological land was never surrendered Integrity as the mandate of Provincial Parks, as well as a legal exception to the prohibition of logging in parks for Algonquin Provincial Park
1967 Mathieu Lumber of Fort Frances 2009 Joint proposal for Lightening the acquires license in the park, footprint of logging in Algonquin Park Classification Policy provides new and 2010-2010 Management Plan pathway for prohibiting non- preparation and consultations conforming uses
1971 Formation of Quetico Advisory 2015 Algonquins of Ontario Land Claim Committee, holding of public hearings, Agreement in Principle reached Moratorium on logging during decision making process begins
1973 Official decision made to classify 2017 Cottage leases extended until 2038 Quetico as a Primitive Park, prohibiting logging in the park permanently
1991 Lac La Croix Land Claim filed for 2019 Preparation and consultation for 2020- territory contained in the park, 2030 Management Plan Ontario Government offers apology for the treatment of Lac La Croix and Sturgeon Lake First Nations
198 Table 2. Text samples used in this research by source and type
Media Clipping Prepared briefs / Self-published (blogs, Correspondence with newsletters, pamphlets, web decision makers pages etc) Source Quetico Algonquin Quetico Algonquin Quetico Algonquin
John Ridley 0 0 292 0 0 0 Library (Quetico Provincial Park)
Lakehead 9 0 2 0 0 0 University Archives
ProQuest 17 52 0 0 0 0 Canadian Dailies Database
Google 0 16 0 2 0 3 Search Queries
Stakeholder 0 0 0 14 0 15 Websites
Ontario ERB 0 0 0 27 0 0 Registry 010- 8824 Total 26 68 294 43 0 18
199 Table 3. Coding levels used in the Identity coding process
Code Level Coding Categories
1 Advocacy Coalition
Environmental Industry Indigenous
2 Organization / Affiliation
3 Individual Speaker / Author
200 Table 4. Values used to categorize the text and the specific concerns within each main level code
Code Level Coding Categories 1 Main Level Value Codes Economic Ecological Social Information Legal
2 Sub-codes – Specific Justifications / Concerns
Tourism Degradation Recreation Public Opinion Mandate
Employment Old Growth Aesthetic Expertise Treaties
Need/ Demand Disturbance Responsibility/ Conflict of Licenses Term Interest Interest
Surplus Wilderness / Local Benefit Misinformation / Protection Misconception
Research American Use
Fauna / Habitat Historical / Cultural
Regeneration Public Access / Distribution of Benefits
Psychological / Spiritual Education
201 Table 5. Guide for coding (categorizing) the content of text samples
Main Code Sub-code Identifying Directions
Economic Arguments related to monetary concerns, as well as concerns of distributing scarce resources with market mechanisms (supply & demand)
Tourism Arguments concerning the potential monetary value of tourism in the area KEYWORDS: Tourism, Tourists, Visitors Surplus Arguments stating a surplus or accumulation of a resource Could be applied to supply of land, timber, wilderness areas, etc. KEYWORDS: Surplus, Availability
Need / Demand Arguments about a lack of a resource, monetary or otherwise. This could be refer to demand for timber, wilderness areas, or financial need. KEYWORDS: Lack, Demand, Need, Rely
Trade Economic arguments concerning Canada’s trade and export of lumber with other nations KEYWORDS: Trade, Exports
Employment Arguments concerning livelihood opportunities and losses associated with policy. KEYWORDS: Employment, Jobs, Livelihoods, Employees
Ecological Instances within the text where advocates make arguments concerning the well-being of the ecosystems of the park, and the progress of scientific understanding of the environments.
Wilderness Concerns related to areas which are not influenced, or minimization of the impact of man KEYWORDS: Wilderness, Pristine, Human interference
202
Regeneration Arguments about the process of regeneration post harvest and its overall impact on the landscape health KEYWORDS: Regeneration, Planting, Restoring
Degradation Arguments concerning the deterioration of natural features in a way which leaves them in a less healthy or more vulnerable state due to human decision making KEYWORDS: Degradation, Damage, Destruction,
Old Growth Arguments addressing the value (or lack thereof) of mature and old growth stands KEYWORDS: Old Growth, Over Mature, Maturity, Mature Stands
Fauna / Habitat Arguments concerning the well being and impacts on animals in the park and their habitats. KEYWORDS: Habitat, Animals, Fauna, Habitat Loss
Disturbance Arguments about the necessity of disturbance in forest regions, and the ability for harvesting to replicate this natural process KEYWORDS: Disturbance, Fire, Succession
Research Arguments about the usefulness of the park in developing more sophisticated understanding of natural processes found therein, including the value of baseline environment untouched by humans KEYWORDS: Scientific, Research, Study, Survey
Information Arguments concerning the production, distribution and legitimacy of facts in this particular issue .
203 Public Opinion Arguments about the generally held opinion concerning the issue by the public. KEYWORDS: Public opinion,
Expertise Concerns about the quality of the opinions held on the issue. This is expressions that expertise in the issue may be more important than what beliefs are generally held. KEYWORDS: Experts, Inexperience, Uninformed
Misinformation Arguments which claim that information being distributed by the opposition is inaccurate or outright false. KEYWORDS: Misinformation,
Conflict of Interest Arguments which claim that the self-interests of an actor or decision maker are contributing to their position on this issue KEYWORD: Conflict, Interest, self-interest, incentives
Legal Arguments about legal aspects of the issue, including the political mandate of administrative bodies, outstanding harvesting licences, negotiated treaties with indigenous and other nations, and regulations and policy
Mandate Arguments about the official responsibility of Parks as outlined in legislation and policy. KEYWORDS: Mandate, Purpose, Legislation, Act
Treaties Arguments concerning treaties and agreements which impact the legality of logging and resource extraction in the park, with a particular emphasis on treaties with Indigenous communities. KEYWORDS: Treaties
204 Licenses Arguments concerning the existing licenses to harvest within the park, this may refer to their legitimacy, or how their termination might be compensated. KEYWORDS: Licences, Annual cut
Social Arguments concerning the social impacts of policy in the park. These tend to be arguments about how the decisions about the park impact humans.
Recreation Argument concerning the opportunity for recreational use as it is impacted by the decision at hand. KEYWORDS: Recreation, Canoeing, Camping
Aesthetic Arguments about the appeal of the appearance of the area KEYWORDS: Aesthetic, Beauty, Solitude
Responsibility (Long- Arguments which state or imply that there is a responsibility to term interest) pick an appropriate policy which sustains the benefits specially for future generations KEYWORDS: Future, Future Generations, Long term, Children, Responsibility
Local Benefit Arguments regarding the appropriate benefit derived from the distribution of the resource by those living adjacent to it. KEYWORDS: Local, Region
American Use Arguments explicitly concerning the use of the parks by proximal American populations KEYWORDS: American, Subsidiary, Minnesota
Historical / Cultural Arguments concerning the historical or cultural significance of features and areas found within the park. KEYWORDS: History, Culture, Historical, Cultural
205
Public Access to Arguments which claim that the scope of those impacted by the Benefits decision include those beyond those residing proximally to the park is affected by the decision made for park policy KEYWORDS: Public, Taxpayer, Canadians, Nation, Ontarians
Psychological / Arguments concerning the impact of park policy on the Spiritual psychological and spiritual well being of public. Including direct benefits such as restorative experiences in nature, and even the vicarious benefit from the need to know there exists untouched land. KEYWORDS: Psychological, Spiritual, Soul
Education Arguments about the potential benefits or hinderance for educational opportunities in the park derived from policy decision KEYWORDS: Education, Educational Opportunities, Educational Experiences, School, Learning
206
Table 6. Questions for consideration in Qualitative Analysis.
# Questions for Consideration
1 Is this a common application of this value or concern for the advocate’s group in this case study?
2 How does the use of this value differ from use by the opposing group?
3 How is this value used in a manner similar to the opposing group?
4 What is the narrative being proposed and how does it contribute to the advocate’s aim?
5 What does this quote say about how the advocate perceives how forests and parks work?
207 Figure 3. A flowchart depicting the methods used in this thesis
208 Table 7. Identified unique actors by group for Quetico Provincial Park Case Study
Environmental Members Industry Members Indigenous Group
Total Unique 216 42 3 Members
Total Samples Coded 250 66 6
Citizens to Prevent Canadian Libertarian United Steelworkers Prospectors and Union of Ontario the Destruction of Movement of America Developers Indians Quetico Association
Students of Merivale Margret Nice St Paschal Friary Domtar Pulp and Indians of Rainy River H.S in Ottawa Ornithological Club Paper District
Minnesota Friends of the Huntsville Naturalist Ontario Forest Amik Association Environmental Wilderness Club Industries Association Control Citizens Association
John Lefarge House McllWraith Field Guelph Pollution Ontario Forestry Naturalists Probe Association
Soarboro Study Group York University Canadian White Northwestern YWCA Faculty of Water Affiliation Associated Chambers Environmental of Commerce Studies
The Ontario Canoe Ontario Voyageurs Ontario Wild Water Lake of Woods Association Kayak Club Affiliation Tourist Council
Kingston Field Quetico Superior National Campers and Sioux Lookout Naturalists Committee Hikers Association Chambers of Commerce
Thunder Bay Field Reach Protective Midland District Canadian Naturalist Club Association Camera Club Lumbermen’s Association
Grey-Bruce Pollution Midland Avenue Regional Planning Canada Veneers Probe Collegiate Institute Committee Ontario Association
Westmount Don Valley Liberal Kent Nature Club International Secondary School Association Woodworkers of Hamilton America
209 Canadian Family University of Toronto Northern Ontario Department Lands Camping Foundation Outing Club District Council and Forest Timber Branch (later MNR)
Dr. G.W William Save Quetico Group University of John C Irwin Secondary School Michigan Consulting
Woodstock Collegiate McMaster University Lambton Wildlife Town of Fort Frances Institute Trust
University of Izaak Walton League Hamilton Naturalist Fort Frances Chamber Waterloo Club of Commerce
Indiana University University of Toronto Fort William Liberal Atikokan Chamber of Erindale College Association Commerce
Northwestern Concerned Citizens of Toronto Trail Blazers Ontario – Minnesota Environmental GTA Pulp and Paper Council Company
Fisher Park H.S Oakville Trafalger H.S Field Naturalists of Hough Lake Resort Ecology Club Barrie
Midland-Penetang Upper Canada College Ontario Conservation Lumber and Sawmill Field Naturalist Panel Workers Union
Ontario New University of Toronto York Easy Riding Thunder Bay Democratic Party Faculty of Education Citizens Chamber of Commerce
Peel South Liberal York University Voyageur Wilderness Ontario Professional Association Foresters Association
Toronto Field Kitchener Waterloo Conservation Council Canadian Institute of Naturalists Club Field Naturalists of Ontario Forestry
Oshawa Naturalists Georgetown District Federation of Ontario Northwestern Ontario Naturalist Club Naturalists Timber Operators Association
University of Toronto Northwestern Ontario Sierra Club of Ontario Jim Mathieu Lumber Pollution Probe Conservation Federation
Thunder Bay District Students for Students for Richmond Hill Fish and Game Arbitration Preservation of Naturalists Association Committee Lakehead Quetico University
210 Thunder Bay District Save Quetico 17th Westminster Boy Sapawe Lumber Labour Council Committee Scouts Group
Algonquin Wildlands Winston Churchill Lakeview Outers Thompson Timber League School Ltd.
Canadian Audubon Atikokan High School Atikokan Sportsmen’s Citizens (16) Society Conservation Club
York University YMCA Camp Citizens for Quetico Natural Science Menogyn Defence Division
Ottawa Field Wilderness Society of Natural History Naturalist Club Washington D.C Society
National and Kitchener-Waterloo Sheridan Park Provincial Parks Pollution Probe Association of Canada
Wilshire Manitoba Ontario Conservation Private Citizens (124) Natural History Federation Society
211
Table 8. Identified unique actors by group for Algonquin Provincial Park Case Study
Environmental Members Industry Members
Total Unique Members 35 32
Total Samples Coded 68 61
Wildlands League Algonquin Park Residents Algonquin Forestry Association Authority
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Renfrew Forestry Services Ministry of Natural Resources
Ancient Forests Exploration and Research Ensyn Technologies Ontario Forest Industries Association
Wilderness Committee Laurentian Economics Algonquin Park Professor Superintendent Winters(1996-2011)
Gord Miller Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Mayor of Killaloe, Hagary Mayor of South Algonquin and Richards
York University Professor Algonquin Eco Watch Outdoor Adventure Canada
Sierra Legal Defence Fund Jessop Brothers Forest Canadian Institute of Products Forestry
Earthroots Renfrew Nipissing Forests Ontario Pembroke MPP
Ontario Rivers Alliance Ontario Forestry Association Martin Lumber
Private Citizens (26) Friends of Algonquin Renfrew County Provincial Park McRae Lumber Private Citizens (11)
212
Table 9. Total frequency main level value code by group and case study
Frequency
Industry Environmental
Value Code Quetico Algonquin Quetico Algonquin
Economic 238 (24.6%) 65 (15.6%) 616 (16.8%) 62 (10.1%)
Ecological 277 (28.6%) 108 (25.8%) 1199 (32.7%) 313 (51.1%)
Information 85 (8.8%) 54 (12.9%) 291 (7.9%) 55 (9.0%)
Legal 30 (3.1%) 41 (9.8%) 143 (3.9%) 56 (9.1%)
Social 339 (35.0%) 149 (35.6%) 1420 (28.7%) 128 (20.9%)
Total 969 418 3669 613
213 Figure 4. MaxMAPS visualization of main level value code frequency by group in Quetico Provincial Park
214 Figure 5. A MaxMAPS visualization of main level value code frequency by group in the Algonquin Provincial Park case study
215 Table 10. Percentage of each sides advocacy documents in which the main level value codes appeared for both case study areas
% of Documents containing at least one occurrence of given value code
Industry Environment
Value Code Quetico Algonquin Quetico Algonquin
Economic 69.2% 55.7% 70.8% 36.8%
Ecological 72.3% 54.1% 87.5% 88.2%
Information 49.2% 36.2% 46.5% 42.6%
Legal 26.2% 41.0% 30.9% 33.8%
Social 73.9% 78.7% 87.5% 66.2%
216 Table 11. Subcode occurrence by group as a proportion of main level value code
217 Table 12. Frequency of main level codes co-occurring by group and case study
Value Code Co-Occurrence by Side
Environmental Advocates
Values Total Economic Ecological Social Legal Information
QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP
Economic 663 29 - - 221 9 365 17 27 1 51 2
Ecological 966 85 221 9 - - 551 42 49 16 145 18
Social 1056 78 365 17 551 42 - - 62 11 78 8
Legal 146 34 27 1 49 16 62 11 - - 8 6
Information 282 34 51 2 145 18 78 8 8 6 - -
Industry Advocates
Values Total Economic Ecological Social Legal Information
QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP QPP APP
Economic 214 61 - x 56 10 138 40 10 4 10 7
Ecological 158 60 56 10 - x 89 27 6 10 7 13
Social 258 106 138 40 89 27 - x 14 12 17 27
Legal 31 34 10 4 6 10 14 12 - x 1 8
Information 35 55 10 7 7 13 17 27 1 8 - x
218 Figure 6. Frequency of co-occurrence of main level value code regardless of group in Quetico Park
219 Figure 7. Frequency of co-occurrence of main level code regardless of group in Algonquin case study
220 Appendix II – Qualitative Analysis Quote Selection
Value Coding Industry Advocates Environmental Advocates
Quetico Algonquin Quetico Algonquin
Tourism “The development of the tourist industry “ You stated that natural fires would need to “Wilderness is the greatest single quality “Algonquin Park is promoted throughout the is greatly to be desired and a successful be contained in order to protect existing which draws people to the Quetico-Superior. If world as a major tourist attraction because it is tourist industry, privately operated, does (Economic) infrastructure and public safety... How much that quality is gone, the magnetic drawing perceived as a pristine wilderness area,” make a large contribution to our of the park are you proposing be set aside as economy. We do not believe that Quetico power will no longer be the there, and the Wildlands League, 2010 off-limits to fire? Is it your position that Park should be exploited as a commercial wilderness traveller will have lost the proposition, either by Government or by naturally occurring fire and tourism (there “Algonquin Park is a trademark for tourism, the opportunity for solitude and peace” private operation. As far as recreation is are 1,000,000 visitors to the park each year "Algonquin experience." As a wilderness guide, concerned, with our present low and over 2,000 kilometers of canoe trails and avid canoer, I have seen the effects and Izaak Walton League 1971 population and the distance of Quetico and portages) can co-exist in the park” damage that logging in this park has done. My Park from the population centres of clients question me "why are we seeing logging Forests Ontario, 2015 Ontario, we can see little recreational use roads, when we are in a park? I thought we of the Park by Canadians at this time” “On Saturday, July 26th, 2014 we hosted our “Canada's natural beauty will be it's greatest were in the wilderness?” Fort Frances Chamber of Commerce 19th Annual Loggers Day in cooperation asset within 25 to 50 years more important than Novar Resident, 2005 1971 with the Algonquin Forestry Authority and the total logging industry. Canada will become “All these forests now are managed on Ontario Parks, attracting over 890 park the Switzerland of North America. Large “A great deal of the Muskoka economy relies visitors for an interesting day of live on tourism.” multiple use basis so people are welcome Portions of these future visitors will look for to travel there. Somebody remarked historical interpretation and entertainment.” the experience. So let's be smart and 3 of our 2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent though that they were wilder than ever before. The canoe portages have all Friends of Algonquin Park, 2015 forest land aside as a preserve, undisturbed. 125411, 2009 grown up again in trees. and hunters and “We have taken care to properly introduce and let's remember that, "setting it aside", does “Its beauty and wildlife are world renowned. fishermen Prospectors and surveyors Algonquin to many visitors, through the not that anything is lost! This is the one move, Within a day’s drive of about 40 million travel there by plane. It costs too much to Park’s Interpretive programmes, on hikes, people and receiving over 1 million visitors per hire canoe-men, or to pay crews for the which will pay big future dividends. As a time lost in canoe travel.” canoe trips and wolf howls. One early naturalist, we leave the expounding of year, Algonquin is the most natural leaseholder, J.R. Dymond, was one of the environment most of these people will ever Private Citizen 1971 immediate economic benefits of preservation founders of what has become Algonquin’s experience and serves as a mental benchmark on to the tourist industry.” award winning NHE Programme, and a for what nature can be. It has the potential to Founder of the Federation of Ontario Private Citizen 1971 inspire millions to be conservation advocates.” Naturalists (now Ontario Nature).” Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, n.d Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006
221 Employment “It is not only the matter or 225 jobs Beyond conserving the natural “Ontario could realize greater benefits from “In my opinion, there are ways to phase out directly involved in the Domtar operation characteristics of the forest and maintaining developing park-visitor opportunities than from logging in Algonquin, without decreasing wood that must be considered. According to a ecological integrity, logging also provides logging; more people residing in adjacent supply to the mills and without job loss” (Economic) significant economic and social benefit to multiplier effect used in the 1969 centres could be employed than are now Novar Resident society. Forest operations have been economic impact study of the forest engaged in lumbering” sustained within the park for over 175 years, industry, there also would be a loss of 225 Logging within Algonquin Park has Private Citizen 1971 “Today, within the greater Algonquin economic x 1.73, or 389 jobs dependent on 225 provided consumers with a locally region, which includes such towns as North Domtar jobs. So the total immediate harvested, renewable resource and has Bay, Huntsville, Whitney and Pembroke, effect of a logging ban would be over 600 supported the livelihoods of local “By their own admission, the forest is being logging accounts for less than two per cent of communities for generations families without income.” automated at a tremendous rate, and a few all employment, and it is shrinking.” Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2015 Ontario Forest Industries Association highly skilled workers are replacing many Janet Summer Canadian Parks and Wilderness 1971 What's more, this industry supports rural relatively unskilled men. In fact, the number of Society, 2005 communities by providing direct jobs will be cut by unskilled men. In fact, the “Livelihoods of Ontario citizens must employment opportunities to 420 people and number of jobs will be cut by 50- receive first consideration, and cannot be more than 2,400 people indirectly through “Logging could be phased out over time, 70%according to Mr Nielson of Canadian Pulp subordinated to the recreational desires of mill and processing facilities. For these substituting government subsidies to the forest and Paper Association. It soon becomes a minority. There is a danger of this reasons and more, Ontarians should also be industry for initiatives that would support proud to use and support local, sustainable apparent that the company is the only real maintaining or even increasing other forms of occurring for people in this area as forest product winner here and that an economy founded on employment in surrounding communities.” Quetico constitutes 1/4 of the whole logging is doomed from the outset.” Rainy River District. From the standpoint Trees Ontario, 2013 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, n.d of employment on a continuing and The OFIA, the Algonquin Forestry Private Citizen 1971 perpetual basis, wood is the main natural Authority (AFA), and the Ontario Ministry "As logging became more mechanized — as of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) resource in this area because it is a trucks replaced horses (1930s) for hauling, have all established that further reductions to renewable crop that can be harvested. We chainsaws replaced axes (1940s), and the available forest management area would will show later that at least half of mechanical skidders (1950s) replaced horse be detrimental to both businesses and teams in the woods — a new era of industrial Quetico should supply wood to support livelihoods and would irrevocably damage logging began. These new machines increased the economy of the present and future current and future sustainable economic the speed at which trees could be cut, generation” development opportunities in communities contributing to an increase in the volume of throughout central Ontario . Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Paper wood cut while continually reducing the Company 1971 Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2015 number of workers required to cut it (a trend that continues to this day).”
Wildlands League, 2000
222 Surplus “Comprising 25% of the Rainy River “Harvesting activities take place on “feel that within this figure quoted by Mr. “Your article stated there is plenty of land District, Quetico Park is too large an area approximately one per cent of the forested Laughlan that Quetico inevitably appears as a outside Algonquin available for logging. The (Economic) to be designated a primitive park and area of Algonquin Provincial Park in a given minuscule, a tiny fragment of that total sum. provincial government can protect Algonquin year.” dedicated to single use. To meet the need We stand strong on the idea that the economic Park and still offer up plenty of our national for wilderness a more sensible approach Justine Lewkowicz MNR, 2015 impact of this particular small operation in the heritage to the logging industry. Does every
would be to designate a portion of “The cost of putting fourth this proposal to park here is minimum in the total picture.” square kilometer of our province need to be Quetico as primitive zone along with date is high, close to 1 million dollars. This open for business? Is nothing sacred anymore” National and Provincial Parks Association of other smaller areas widely distributed in is a lot of money that could have been better Canada 1971 Toronto Resident, 2005 the Precambrian Shield country of spent educating students on the importance of managing our resources wisely through Ontario.” Sustainable Forest Management as Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper demonstrated through the forest certification “On the one hand we hear from Queens Park “There is plenty of land in Ontario outside of Company 1971 process.” that we are an incomparably wealthy province Algonquin Park that is available for logging.” Management Consult Respondent 142376, with unlimited potential for growth and Janet Summer Canadian Parks and Wilderness 2009 development of more and more natural Society, 2005 resources and industry. On the other hand hear “There are only 304 cottage leases in the that we are so impoverished, resource wise, that Park on 19 out of more than 2000 lakes, and it is necessary to log off our few areas of park most of these leases are on lakes adjacent to “As well, all old growth forests should be land.” Private Citizen, 1971 the Highway 60 corridor or railroad rights protected. With so many losses, here and of way. Cottage leases collectively occupy around the world, we cannot do too much to less than 1/6000 of Algonquin's total area.” save what is being taken by consumerism and
Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006 selfishness.. Save everything we can...before we are too late.”
Management Plan Consultant 125407, 2009
223 Need/Demand “The O-M has never cut any timber in the “All I want to know in the first paragraph of “Studies of outdoor recreation have clearly “Can she help the local communities diversify park, but with the new $45,000,000.00 that tenure reform policy is a guarantee of a indicated the growing demand among our their economies to make them less reliant on minimum of 24 million cubic metres of kraft mill currently under construction, modern urban populace for this scarce, unique forestry? We need to help these communities (Economic) industrial fibre for the province of Ontario together with the present mill we will going forward,” “If they want to remove type of recreation environment. Due to its get out from under the tyranny of single- need all the spruce and jack pine that can large tracts of land, as long as you’re scarcity and low carrying capacity it is industry towns. We need to protect the park by replacing it with large tracts from be grown on a sustained basis in the imperative that we preserve available protecting the interests of the people who somewhere else so we can get the industrial Rainy River District, and as well we will wood fibre, fine. But guarantee it, whether wilderness parks.” depend on it. We can't exclude those whose require additional quantity from other we’re using it today or not...as that’s future livelihood depends on the park and concentrate economic opportunity for all of us in this University of Michigan Professor 1971 more remote areas.” only on those who use it for recreation. province. Let’s face it, anything we want to Algonquin needs protection, yes, but let's do it Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper do, whether it’s the primary forest industry or the value-added forest industry, they all right. Let's show the forest industry how it Company 1971 have one thing in common: you need wood" should be done with respect. Phase out logging Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2009 and develop communities into robust, “It's very important for the communities diversified economies. We've been "hewers of around the park. We don't have the GMs or wood and drawers of water" for way too long.” the high-tech industry around here,” Alan Pickersgill, 2007 Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2009
“wood from the park accounts for 45 per “Yes wood has to be supplied to those mills. cent of the Crown land harvest in areas of That’s a given. But you know, mills come and Ontario south of North Bay—and area go. There is a long term commitment here. The sawmills depend on its quality as they manufacture a variety of appearance grade question is if these mills shut down for other products from both the softwood and reasons, do we take away their wood supply hardwood species harvested from the park. that they were getting from the park or do we There is an ample supply of pulp wood, but change the terms of operation? I don’t know” sawlogs, utility poles, and veneer quality logs are in short supply throughout the Gord Miller ECO, 2014 region.”
Logging and Sawmilling Journal, 2009
“At the same time, it provides the wood we need to make a wide variety of products such as the lumber we use in our homes, utility poles to transport electricity to our schools, and even firewood that we burn to keep warm during the winter”
Forests Ontario, n.d
224 Trade “There is another long-term effect which "The second you start taking it away, where “At what level of unemployment should we “other companies are adding more value to is not obvious at the present. World are you getting those forestry products from? commit the trees in our parks to the gross wood by taking it much further toward a (Economic) demand - as forecast by competent It could come from Russia, China, national product. I submit that if we ever finished end product before exporting it from authorities - for products of the forest Indonesia. No human rights, no become so destitute that the need is the region. In the Algonquin region, the local probably will quadruple by the year environmental concerns.” overwhelming, the relatively little bit of timber company Madawaska Doors Inc. of Barry’s 2,000. At present, Canada is not using its in Quetico will not help us” Bay employs 95 people and uses approximately Renfrew Forestry Service Employees, 2009 allowable cut; but, by the year 2,000, it 400 m3 of wood per year.11 Contrast the Algonquin Wildlands League 1971 will be using all the forest area possible to number of jobs produced by Madawaska Doors produce enough to maintain its position in with a typical pulp mill — 233 jobs in the door “These costs will most likely be ours to bear, world tirade. Every acre of productive plant versus 2.4 jobs in the pulp mill per 1,000 the Ontario and, North American markets in forest land withdrawn from timber cubic metres of wood consumed. Multi-layer general, are not in great economic shape and harvesting will tend to reduce the total hardwood flooring, Mills should be encouraged have little capacity to absorb any price allowable cut and tend to increase costs.” to manufacture more valuable products that use increases in wood commodity products.” less wood. log cottages, window frames, trusses Ontario Forest Industries Association Management Palan Consult Respondent and panelized wall sections are among the new 1971 142588, 2009 building and consumer wood products that
could be developed in the Algonquin region and shipped to nearby Southern Ontario and
U.S. markets.”
Wildlands League, 2000
225 Fauna/Habitat “The canopy of the tall older forest shuts “We use models to project harvest volumes “The participants of that conference adopted 28 “The park’s abundant biological diversity, off the sun preventing growth of food and wildlife habitats and old growth 100 recommendations. The introductions to over 20 which includes at least 16 species at risk, has years into the future. And those models are plants for wildlife. Cutting creates sunny of these stressed the need for reservation of become increasingly important given the (Ecological) what we use to determine what a sustainable mounting threats to biodiversity in openings which permits the growth of areas in such statements as “.. the urgent need harvest level is….There is a reason why we Ontario…These roads cause a number of food for game and animals and warm have the largest concentration of natural, to constitute on a world scale a systematic problems in the Park, damaging habitat, self- sustaining brook trout lakes in the nesting places for birds - in short the collection of type habitats, as varied and as harming wildlife and acting as pathways for world. It’s because sustainable forestry biological succession which follows the representative as possible, which could be invasive species.” practices have protected those values,” timber harvest.” permanently protected and so serve as Gord Cumming Algonquin Forestry Gord Miller ECO, 2014 standards for the future ..... " or stressed Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper Authority, 2015 “hey will never become standing dead trees and society's needs” Company 1971 “In addition, these partial cutting systems be homes to woodpeckers. Never will they will should not be referred to as "cutovers," as Private Citizen, 1971 fall over and support living communities as The age distribution in the timber is also they maintain forest cover on the landscape they decay on the forest floor.” an important factor in wildlife population at all stages of management. This diversity Guelph Resident, 2005 of an area. A well balanced distribution of in forest age and structure provides many “I cannot stress too strongly that the flora and age classes, from recent cutover to mature benefits to the abundant wildlife that relies “The construction of these roads causes on these forests and ensures the development fauna in our parks should be entitled to forest, encourages a denser more deposition of sediment into the lakes and of future healthy growth” preservation and protection: where small plants consistent and yet more varied wildlife streams. This effects water quality and Trees Ontario, 2013 and bush are destroyed by bulldozers, the small temperature and destroys fish habitat and population than the extensive even age game, insects, and birds die, denied their aquatic vegetation.” conditions associated with uncut forests.” “It is well documented that active forest natural habitat, and with that dies the management has been shown to have a Novar Resident, 2005 Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce positive impact on many of the wildlife possibility of … learning first-hand about “There are unique populations of brook and 1971 values that occur in the park and beyond. nature and its interdependence with man and Examples include wolves, whip-poor-will, lake trout in the park's waters. Moose, deer and the privilege of seeing and experiencing olive-sided flycatcher, a host of songbirds bears still live in the woods. But eastern elk and that depend on younger forest conditions, wilderness life.” woodland caribou that once roamed freely beavers that are keystone species that create within the park's boundaries have disappeared, ______, 1971 habitat for many other wildlife and plants, driven north or to extinction by the chainsaws and the monarch butterfly.” and logging roads…The sooner the government Forests Ontario, 2014 starts closing logging roads, the more likely it is that elk can be reintroduced to the habitat “This practice of natural disturbance pattern they enjoyed for millennia before settlers came emulation ensures natural forest cover is to Canada. And the better the chance that maintained, diversity in forest age and isolated populations of brook and lake trout structure is created, and essential habitat and ecosystem characteristics are protected.” will survive”
Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2014 Wildlands League, 2005
226 Regeneration "Artificial reforestation of areas where a “The Algonquin Forestry Authority(AFA), “we have only to compare a natural, untouched “Section by section, forests are laid waste by forest is desirable and natural which manages logging and forestry forest area with a reforested project, and to clear cutting, and then absurdly reconstructed to regeneration of former or existing stands operations in the park, employs carefully consider the healthy and widespread forests meet the needs of whatever corporation (Ecological) selected processes to ensure that as trees are happens to be doing the exploiting. We should is not occurring naturally. should not be that existed prior to the arrival of the industry removed from the park, new forest is call it what it is: tree farming. In this way, planted with trees. Natural meadows or in Canada. I understand soil conditions in regenerated in its place and that harvesting is biodiversity is lost forever. It should also be barrens. Only species native to the area gradual and mimics natural processes…In Quetico are such that regeneration is an pointed out that something as complex as a should be used for reforestation or similar addition, trees which have a strong capacity exceptionally slow process” forest is not even well understood.” plantings.” to provide seed are excluded from harvesting Private Citizen, 1971 Tom Roschkov Edmonton Journal, 2011 so they can support the planting of Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce replacement trees in the park” “Mr. Cumming states that "forestry is actually 1971 very compatible with the Algonquin wolf," by Algonquin Forest Authority,2014 regenerating the forest. This is true in some
“We planted over half a million trees this aspects, but in this small area, a natural “The entire area that has been cut has summer and we do that every year” regeneration is highly beneficial over the destructive impacts of forestry” been re-seeded by the Department of Gord Cumming Algonquin Forestry lends and forests. In these areas the trees Authority, 2015 Novar Resident, 2005 are reaching a height of six feet. I must “Logging provides a disturbance mechanism “A study of eastern white pines in Northeastern compliment thorn on a good job of re- that is needed to regenerate pine.” Ontario found a serious reduction in genetic seeding, with a special compliment going diversity when two white-pine stands were Trees Ontario, 2015 to the hardy women of Atikokan who partially cut. The study found that shelterwood planted them". (This is in regard to the ""Shelterwood"" and ""selection"" are the harvesting led to a reduction in the genetic two primary harvesting systems used in diversity in seedlings that grew up in the logged current cutting Algonquin. Both processes are based on the stands (when compared to the parent trees). program). “ principle of gradual removal of trees in a This was thought to be a result of the fact that manner that imitates natural disturbances logging, unlike sub-canopy fire, removes the Private Citizen 1971 and allows new forest to regenerate. The adult trees before they have an opportunity to selection system marks for harvesting pass their genes on to the next generation." mature or diseased trees which cannot serve Wildlands League, 2000 as habitat or seed sources.”
Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014
227 Degradation “ Just leaving it standing there subject to “You can’t over harvest or you will lose “Whether the logging is done by a regular “If wilderness protection and other stated all the hazards to which it is subject, will your AGS to exposure or disease. It’s a logging outfit using its birth classification to do values were important when Algonquin was mean its certain death. To say that tricky process, but right now we can see our so, or a commercial logging outfit or whether first created, how much more vital are they now (Ecological) next harvest already and it will be better in a world of precipitous decline in wild areas Quetico Park should not be used and Lands and Forests gives its cutting rights to a quality than what we are harvesting today.” and biodiversity?” should be preserved for future regular logging outfit, doesn't make any generations, or not used at all and not Contractor for Martin Lumber, 2011 difference. The end result is the same, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2011 exploited for either economic or ecologic “In fact many of them are utilized by ecology will be transformed, the marks will “Being a comparatively small area, all forestry purposes, is equivalent to saying: "This is canoeists and other recreation seekers. There stay there for many, many years and you will in the park, has a greater effect. Unfortunately, a beautiful red tomato and I shall put it on has been more impact on wildlife from park have disturbed the biological ecosystem with Algonquin has been so heavily roaded and users than there has been from logging” logged, that its capacity for continuous logging the back of this shelf for my grand its fragile and interrelated living things to one is well past.The ecological integrity of the area children." It shall not be there when we Laurie March Outdoor Adventure Canada, of commercial manipulation.” has been compromised, so using Algonquin as come to use it unless we build it up “ 2005 Wilderness Society of Washington, D.C, 1971 a site for comparison with other areas for forest "The second you start taking it away, where sustainability is highly eroded. While the park Fort Frances Chamber of Commerce, are you getting those forestry products from? may appear to be "wilderness," compared to the 1971 It could come from Russia, China, suburban and urban landscapes that surround it, Indonesia. No human rights, no the roads, the cutting/harvesting and the environmental concerns.” associated impacts have degraded its health as an ecosystem” Renfrew Forest Services Employee, 2009 Novar Resident, 2005 “The CIF/IFC would like to point out that the AFA plans road construction such that “In reality, however, the park is being damaged ecologically or socially sensitive areas are and degraded due to threats from within avoided, in order to minimize negative because of logging and road building,” It is the effects on wildlife and habitat. These roads only park in Ontario where logging is are often decommissioned after operations to ensure critical areas, such as species at permitted. The group says it’s time Ontario risk habitat, are not negatively affected by caught up to the latest science and recognized unauthorized access. In addition, the re-use that logging is incompatible with a protected of existing roads is a common practice, area. “Even the most careful operations can which helps to minimize the impact of the threaten species at risk and compromise road system within the Park. Interior roads ecosystem values. Protected areas must provide within the Park are also closed to public a haven from such threats” transportation for the protection of Park values. This not only reduces the risk of Wildlands League 2013 introducing invasive species, but it also reduces traffic and any associated threats to wildlife mortality.”
Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2014
228 Wilderness " Rationalization of the size and location “These management plans include numerous “Now, what do we mean by a wilderness? “You can't simultaneously manage for of wilderness areas to be preserved is prescriptions to conserve biological Well, wilderness implies an area where there is ecological integrity and profit. It doesn't matter diversity, maintain forest health and if you're doing the best forestry management in needed and on any rational basis it is productivity, protect soil and water or has been no significant human interference (Ecological) the universe, you're not managing for excessive to allocate 25% of the entire resources, ensure habitat protection, with the natural plant and animal communities maintain aesthetic qualities of the forest, as ecological integrity." Rainy River District to this single purpose or any man caused alteration of the landscape. well as sustain social and economic values" use entire merely because it designated on It implies the absence of any man made CPAWS, 2009 Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2014 the map as a Park almost 60 years ago” structures and above all the absence of the “To fully protect Algonquin, logging must be “Forest management objectives in noise and smell of machines. Man may pass phased out. The parks board has done a good Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper Algonquin Park are not about "maximizing job by recommending that we increase profits for corporate friends," but rather through but only in small numbers and by Company 1971 protection immediately without affecting any providing a balance of environmental, social natural means; by foot, by canoe, snowshoeing, and economic benefits -with more than half logging jobs." without destroying the wilderness quality. of the 251 sustainability indicators in the Wilderness does not mean just any unpopulated Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2007 “There is a great need for wild areas for Algonquin Park Forest Management Plan being ecologically-base" “Forest Ontario area. Force land that has been clear cut or been ecological re- search, for preservation of “This should open our eyes to the fact that no believes that the forest management subjected to other management practices is not matter what it's called, that doesn't mean it's scenic wonders, for canoe routes, historic practices currently in place in Algonquin wilderness.“ protected…"ensure precious provincial parks features and places to get away from it all. Park are consistent with the principle of maintaining ecological integrity and that are protected forever." But what is protected in The problems arise in providing for these existing management techniques are among Citizens For Quetico’s Defence 1971 the eyes of this government” and other demands within a reasonable the best in the world.” Novar Resident, 2005 distance, at a reasonable size and at a Trees Ontario, 2013 reasonable cost.” “Backed by extensive scientific study, countries "Harvesting activities take place on approximately 1% of the forested area of around the planet have recognized that Ontario Forest Industries Association the Park in a given year.To date, the ECO protected areas are the one place where a 1971 has remained unable to make the case that genuine effort may be made to protect forest management is compromising the biodiversity. Logging has no place in them ecological integrity of Algonquin Park” regardless of the practices being used.” Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2014 Paul Wilkinson York University, 2005 “The historical significance and future efficacy of Algonquin Park’s silvicultural "Call us crazy, but we think that if it's called a legacy cannot be overlooked. Algonquin park, then it really should be one, and that Park’s forestry operations deserve much means it should be managed in a way that credit for their contribution to the protects it for its ecological integrity. sustainability of the regional and global Wilderness parks exist for a reason - they are forestry sector. Algonquin Park is a world- class example of multi-use land intended to be anchors of biodiversity within stewardship” the sea of human civilization that is rapidly depleting our planet's resources.” Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2014 Wildlands League, 2005
229 Old Growth “A good continuing park doesn’t just “One day in the future governments will be "Logged trees will never live to become happen. Trees have a life span like willing to spend a fortune to restore what they giants…Worse, the forest itself will never (Ecological) people. Rarely do stands survive 150 are now willing to see old tree in 10 years or 20 really mature because the best trees are never years and in our surveys, we class a tree years or even 100 years. When one of these allowed to get old.” as being past its prime or overture at 100 beautiful old trees is gone for good and no Guelph Resident, 2005 years of age. Mortality takes place amount of money can buy it back” constantly among individual stems and is "In addition, all remaining old-growth stands Private Citizen 1971 increasingly noticeable among those from in Algonquin Park must be protected 60 - 70 years old. The much publicized permanently from logging - old growth in production of oxygen from healthy Algonquin amounts to less than 1% of the growing forest stands is slowing down by park’s total forest and species such as Beech this time. Breakage, wind-throw, insect and Hemlock are facing broad decline in infestations, disease, all combine to make Ontario. An end to old-growth logging is openings.” necessary to preserve biodiversity across the province" Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper Company 1971 Earthroots, n.d
“It’s significant old growth. Algonquin is an important park because old trees store more carbon than younger forests, and are “incredibly important for biodiversity,” “A number of species dependent on old-growth are becoming more rare as that type of forest disappears.”
Dave Pearce Wildlands League, 2019
“Based on mapping we’re pretty sure significant tracts of very old forest have also been logged in the past 10 years, or are currently being logged,” “There are very few of these old, pristine forests in Ontario,”
Mike Henry Ancient Forests Research, 2019
230 Disturbance “A road system, however, is a "We use sophisticated modelling to grow the "You say it means only a light and careful “One of the largest impacts of industrial fundamental need for forest management. forest out over time based on the tree species touch, that in the cleaning up of blow downs, or forestry is the accompanying wildfire When timber stands age and mature, that are there, the natural effects on those spruce bud worm infestation, that it would be suppression program, designed largely to (Ecological) tree species and, essentially, how they live, protect commercial timber supplies. Fire has become progressively weaker and done only on the advice of ecologists. Well, I grow and die,” he said. “Our intervention played a key role in the evolution of eventually die. They become prime can't conceive of an ecologist with his the harvesting in this case mimics the Algonquin’s forests and its suppression has had targets over -mature for fire and disturbance that was here before settlement, background and being concerned about a rare the greatest ecological impact on the park’s breeding grounds for insects. Access by including fires, windthrow and so on.” ecosystem, a rare ecological area, that he would natural communities.” “Under a natural fire road is necessary for control measures suggest that these things be done. This area, as regime, the park landscape would feature a mix Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2015 against fire, insects and disease as well as ecologists look at it is what is known as a fire of young, mature and very old forest. Logging “The silvicultural systems used within the tends to flatten out this age mix by constantly for other purposes. The experience in the ecology. Any of you who have been all over Park are designed to emulate natural forest taking out trees on the cusp of maturity and Adirondack New York State, where a the great north as I have, interpret the country disturbance patterns resulting from tree generally narrows the age range found in the huge blow-down occurred in a wilderness mortality, wind events, or forest fires. By as one of repeated fires going on not only for park’s forests…Logging also produces a rapid park is often quoted by foresters as classic doing so, natural forest cover is maintained, two or three centuries but for thousands of change in species composition, but it lacks the example of what can happen when diversity in forest age and structure is years . This country is as it is because of fire. It ecological attributes of natural disturbances (i.e. harvesting is not allowed.” created, and essential habitat and ecosystem may be necessary in the future if we are going fire, wind, pest infestations and old-tree death - characteristics are safeguarded. With fire to maintain the integrity, the ecological see page 15 for more details).” “The reaction of Northwestern Ontario Timber Operators suppression occurring on the landscape, wildlife populations to these different forms of integrity of this area to do burning, controlled Association 1971 logging provides the disturbance mechanism disturbance demonstrates the difference burning as the Forest Services look at it, in needed to maintain a healthy forest cover between natural changes and those caused by
that is favourable to supporting biodiversity” order to bring back the kind of vegetation that logging. Wildlife have had millennia to adapt to you see here before you now” the changes caused by natural forces, and Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2014 wildlife diversity and overall forest diversity Wilderness Society of Washington, D.C 1971 “Furthermore, curtailing forest management rarely declines significantly in the face of such does not equate to "saving the forests" as disturbances. Logging, however, can suddenly some are led to believe; neither does (in evolutionary terms) simplify the ecosystem, suppressing fires that are needed in many altering the structure, food sources and forest types to maintain ecological integrity. breeding sites that wildlife need for long-term A forest is not a museum that can be set survival.” aside indefinitely for display; forests are Wildlands League, 2000 dynamic, not static”
Trees Ontario, 2013
231 Research “That a comprehensive, ecological “Forestry in Algonquin Park, in Ontario and The scientific value of primitive wilderness is "There is a kaleidoscope of different sciences inventory of the park and contiguous across Canada, is highly regulated, complies yet unknown, for man is just beginning to connecting cause and effect. But Mike and his with provincial and federal legislation, and land-water-vegetation ecosystems be recognize that wilderness is a great natural wife Marj have been sleuthing through various (Ecological) incorporates sound science-based research” disciplines for decades, and the evidence is undertaken to provide a factual basis for laboratory where he can unravel secrets from Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2014 stacking up. The interdisciplinary nature of the measures proposed hereunder” his past and make projections into the future, their research reflects the fact that Algonquin’s “In fact, the ecological benefits of forest where he can observe un- disturbed eco- Ontario Professional Foresters management in the Park are well ecology is an intertwining web of systems and learn how he fits into his natural dependencies. Soil chemistry and rainfall Association 1971 documented , while the negative impact of such activities are not apparent . Hence the environment. This may well be the most chemistry, prevailing winds, hydrogeology, "Some of these effects are known, of recommendation to ban forestry in the Park important reason why primitive wilderness geology, logging techniques, road construction, is grotesquely unscientific and invasive species, dendrology and silviculture, course, and more is being l earned about should be preserved. Quetico may be one of the philosophical.” even glaciation: they all play a part—positively them continually by biologists, ecologists greatest natural science laboratories in the Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2015 or negatively—in the breeding success of , foresters, meteorologists, geologists and world. Should we allow it to be destroyed.“ brook trout in the park. Brook trout is a “Some of North America’s most valuable others, The point is that the wisdom of all sensitive, coldwater species, he said.” silvicultural data stems from Algonquin Voyageur Wilderness Programme 1971 is needed to determine the effects of user Park with plots initiated there in the 1950s. Ontario Rivers Alliance, n.d demands upon resources and to minimize Over 1,800 scientific papers have been the unfortunate side effects that each use published out of the research conducted “Yet, Algonquin is managed based on a 19th within the Park. An overwhelming number produces.” century anachronism, all the while ignoring of the 314 studies cited in the Ontario 21st century law, science, planning, and Ontario Forestry Association 1971 Hardwood Silvicultural Studies Database societal values” were conducted within Algonquin Park. In summary, it is not an exaggeration to state 2010 Management Plan Consult respondent that the Algonquin Forestry Authority and 142588, 2009 its predecessors have contributed more to the science of hardwood forestry than any “A complete and detailed assessment of old- other forestry operations in the world. growth forest throughout the entirety of Research projects have ranged in scope from Algonquin Park should be undertaken and chronodendrology of old growth white pine completed within the next five years. This to the growth and yield of hardwood sites needs to be done using GIS, digital FRI data, under intensive management. Countless and field inventory work. 2. Further field work researchers and graduate students including the authors of this article - have used should be conducted immediately to determine valuable data collected by silvicultural the extent and conservation value of potential researchers in the Park.As a result of this old-growth forest in the Erables Lake Area, and research, Algonquin Park’s forestry the current logging allocation should be operations have been instrumental in the reviewed in light of the results.” development of silvicultural guidelines that are now used across Ontario” Ancient Forests Research and Exploration, 2018 Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014
232 Recreation “ Now all of the canoe routes including “Cottagers are "at odds" with Park officials " The lumber companies are the people with “Impacts on our recreational experiences may the voyager routes in Quetico Park total and other users of the Park. Reality: special rights in the province. They can cut not be of the same level of concern compared to 449 miles, according to the description I Algonquin Cottagers have a positive and virtually anywhere … But the fellow who the ecological repercussions of logging roads (Social) constructive relationship with Park officials, on Algonquin Park. For hikers and canoeists just gave you. And this 449 miles is quite wants to get out and enjoy a wilderness and a past Park Superintendent has agreed however, logging roads do impinge on the and interesting and significant figure if experience where he is not going to have to that we have earned the right to stay. We quality of their wilderness experience and you consider that a canoeist might have provided assistance to canoeists, listen to outboard motors, where he doesn’t logging trucks travelling at high speeds pose a penetrate the quarter mile inland and I inexperienced campers, those who are lost or have to camp in a tent city, I submit that maybe safety hazard to both humans and animals. For doubt very much if there are many who injured, and those who are engaged in fire he derives a little but of special status, which many, Algonquin Park invokes a feeling of do so. But that area generates and area of fighting activity throughout the Park. everybody else is enjoying automatically. wilderness and epitomizes what it means to Beyond this, most Park users don’t even “get away”. Yet when cresting the top of a hill 225 square miles, or about 1/9 of the notice us.” Private Citizen 1971 or finishing a long portage, visitors are not entire park. I ask you then, why lock up always rewarded with a wild landscape, but Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006 the whole park for canoeists” instead are met with the empty, dusty expanse These roads are also used by Park staff to of a logging road.” Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper practice fire control, to rescue lost or injured Company 1971 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society campers, and to conduct scientific research Wildlands League, n.d Canadian Insititute of Forestry, 2014 Algonquin Park is a trademark for tourism, the “In fact many of them are utilized by "Algonquin experience." As a wilderness guide, canoeists and other recreation seekers. There and avid canoer, I have seen the effects and has been more impact on wildlife from park damage that logging in this park has done. My users than there has been from logging” clients question me "why are we seeing logging roads, when we are in a park? I thought we Laurie March Outdoor Adventure Canada, were in the wilderness? 2005 Novar Resident, 2005 “We’re lucky in the park that a lot of the tree species are shade tolerant, so they can be “Its website indicates its "forest operations" managed using partial-cutting systems,” will be located away from recreational park “They retain forest cover at all times, which areas such as camping sites and hiking trails; is very compatible with the recreation that that suggests to me that logging roads are being goes on in the park,” he said. “A lot of pushed ever deeper into the forest. And like people wouldn’t even know if they walked peeling away layers of an onion, sooner or later away from the canoe routes that the areas we'll have squeezed the wilderness out of were actually being managed, because the Algonquin Park, and it will be as tame and trees are still there” manicured as a city park”
Gord Cumming Algonquin Forestry Kitchener Resident, 2005 Authority, 2015
233 Aesthetic "To preserve the aesthetic values “The rustic cottages are unobtrusive and “ Portages are obliterated by road building, “Like a Hollywood set, the park’s lakes and necessary for enjoyment of nature by the aesthetically blend into the park’s natural bridges cross river canoe routes, the total result forests hide the industrial zone over the next (Social) recreationalists, canoe trippers, fishermen environment…Our environmental footprint can truly be described as a scar on the hill,” and other people, industry has operated is tiny. Collectively, all 304 leases occupy landscape, hardly in keeping with our idea of Wildlands League,2010 under restrictions imposed by the only 1/6000 of the area of Algonquin. Only aesthetics” department. These include wide areas 7 lakes have 10 or more cottages. Buildings Citizens for Quetico’s Defence 1971 reserved from cutting along water-ways are, for the most part, modest by Ontario and roads, building of roads and bridges cottaging standards, and unobtrusive. Most in more costly locations to make them are coloured brown or green to blend in “We find in it a beauty without a doubt, an less conspicuous, the building of roads with the forest, and are, in many cases, aesthetic satisfaction, and aesthetic influence, within rigid specifications concerning barely visible from the water. The principle which I submit to you, has touched and width of travelled portion and right-of- of blending in with the environs is not only a conditioned and made distinctive much which way etc. As a result, it is possible to travel building standard in the Park, but has been we find in our arts and letters; a basic beauty” for many miles within cutover areas by embraced by many leaseholders to the point water, road or water without seeing where, were it not for a dock and boats at the Algonquin Wildlands League 1971 evidence of past activity. “ shoreline, the lease would be invisible”
Northwestern Ontario Timber Operators Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006 Association 1971
234 Responsibility “The development and the wise use of our "While some would consider it ironic that “Record shows that we don’t fully understand “Every year, every month we allow logging to natural resources is important to the logging operations within Algonquin Park the environment well enough and Quetico is continue in Algonquin Provincial Park, we have contributed so much to the economic growth of this country. But the one of the few remaining undisturbed areas hand a loss of natural heritage to future sustainability of the broader provincial (Social) generations.” preservation of those precious resources forestry sector, we think it is entirely natural which could serve as a living museum for our for future generations is equally that a Park would emerge as an iconic children and future generations. Let me ask for Eric Reeder Wilderness Committee, 2017 success story about multi- use land important. Domtar Pulp & Paper Products your foresight and overall perspective in stewardship” “What Algonquin offers us is priceless; it is Limited supports public policy that ensure reserving a small percentage of the land of certainly worth more than the price of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2014 the health and survival of vital natural Ontario free from commercial exploitation so timber we extract from it. We must not resources and that also encourage “This point cannot be overstated, by that maybe the ones who have not been born compromise the natural beauty of this park for conducting forestry on our own lands here future generations.” regulated resource use.” yet ca enjoy some of the beauty of Ontario … in Ontario and using these products within Ontario, we can be confident that we are Human nature is a selfish nature of jealousy Earthroots, n.d Domtar Pulp and Paper Limited 1971 making the most environmentally conscious and greed even if that means depriving future “lease remember the extreme importance choice for the planet. Here in Ontario, our generations of a vital necessity of nature” forests are managed sustainably and with a natural forest will play as the growing human population taxes our environment with carbon “Thus it is imperative that the advisory high degree of ecological integrity… instead Federation of Ontario Naturalists 1971 of purchasing wood from other areas of the dioxide, as well as other emissions. The committee consider the long term effects world, we are insuring that our wood supply benefits of forest as you know, are truly of its recommendations on one of is environmentally sustainable. To condemn immeasurable. You don't need me to speak for Ontario’s most important industries so forestry in Algonquin, demand it be stopped the animals, trees and plants. Just to the right and then to turn around and import wood that expansion is not inhibited and thing for our great, great grandchild.” from other areas in the world to make up for existing facilities are not put at an the shortfall in supply is nothing short of 2010 Management Plan Consultant 125410, economic disadvantage” hypocritical heresy.” 2009 2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent Woodlands of Domtar Pulp and Paper “Ontario's protected areas network plays a 142594, 2009 1971 critical role in maintaining and restoring “The forests of Algonquin are thriving and ecosystems and biodiversity. Protected areas in regenerating thanks to sustainable forest an age of climate change are a buffer against management practices, many of which were developed in Algonquin Park and are now extreme weather events and add resiliency” applied on Crown land across the entire Great Lakes- St. Lawrence forest region of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2012 Ontario. Fortunately, there are many people involved in the sustainable management of “The longer we wait, the more damage our Algonquin's forests who are making an parks will endure, and the longer it will take effort daily to sustain all aspects of this for the forest ecosystems to recover” wonderful park, for current and future generations to enjoy for both recreational Wilderness Committee, 2015 and livelihood purposes.” Trees Ontario, 2013
235 Local Benefit “Domtar’s operations in Quetico park, "Our tenure policy actually ensures the “May I point out that one of the first school “Can she help the local communities diversify while important, are relatively small part collapse of communities,” “We need leaders areas to establish a challenging and worthwhile their economies to make them less reliant on of overall corporate activities. To nearby with an understanding of economic and social development.” outdoor program was Atikokan High School. forestry? We need to help these communities (Social) communities and people who live in The principal and staff of this School get out from under the tyranny of single- them, they are undoubtedly of Laurentian Economics Professor, 2014 recognized the Quetico wilderness area industry towns. We need to protect the park by considerable importance” “There still will be logging. It's very much an economic part of the community, and provided a unique opportunity to teach those protecting the interests of the people who Woodlands of Domtar Pulp and Paper absolutely essential for the community, so human and environmental values that could not depend on it. We can't exclude those whose 1971 how do we lighten the footprint, to sustain be learned in a traditional school setting” livelihood depends on the park and concentrate the ecologically sensitive areas?” “Your duty is to give consideration to the only on those who use it for recreation. views of the public in support of any land Donna Cansfield Minister Natural University of Toronto College of Education Algonquin needs protection, yes, but let's do it use policy proposed. In that regard, this Resources, 2009 1971 right. Let's show the forest industry how it Chamber suggests to your Committee that “To just cut that off would be disastrous for
the opinion of the residents of a lot of those towns that depend on that should be done with respect. Phase out logging and develop communities into robust, Northwestern Ontario is paramount in this industry. And I'm not saying that's the only “Quetico represents a recreational resource of matter and should be given much more reason we're in favour of this industry. But I diversified economies. We've been "hewers of think that it's possible to have your cake and national significance, whilst the economic weight than the opinion of other wood and drawers of water" for way too long.” eat it too in a case like this.” returns, as we have just argued, are of very residents.” Mike Wilton Algonquin Eco Watch, 2007 local significance” Alan Pickersgill, 2007 Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce “seven communities in Renfrew County 1971 Toronto Field Naturalists Club 1971 “Today, within the greater Algonquin economic have substantial employment related to the region, which includes such towns as North “The result of this is that the natural forest industry and wood processing facilities that receive approximately 40 per resources of such area are taken away Bay, Huntsville, Whitney and Pembroke, cent of the wood volume from Algonquin “It is our considered opinion that tourism can logging accounts for less than two per cent of from the people of the province whereas Park. "Many of these businesses are multi- become an acceptable alternative to logging as historically, if you will examine the park generational, with the longest running in its all employment, and it is shrinking.” concept in Canada, historically, if there seventh generation, and are heavily invested an income producer for those living in the Janet Summer Canadian Parks and Wilderness are such exclusive use areas set aside for in the sustainability of forestry in Algonquin vicinity of our parks.” Park," he added. "There are more han 2,700 Society, 2005 parks in large areas they should be paid jobs directly associated with wood McIlwraith Field Naturalists 1971 for by all of the people of Canada and not harvesting from Algonquin Park with “With the forest industry continuing in free-fall another 8,000 indirect jobs that support these primarily by the residents of all around the park, the time to set new social activities." This recommendation, if Northwestern accepted by the province, will be quite and economic goals for these communities - Ontario who live within a reasonable harmful to all communities in the county, as weaning them off of the false economies of the forestry industry's economic reach distance of this park” extends into our towns as an employer, as a logging a park - are long overdue” consumer and as a supplier of primary and Kenora and District Chamber of 2010 Management Plan respondent 142590, value-added wood products.” Commerce 1971 2009 Renfrew County Warden, 2014
236 Historical / “Quetico Park encompasses and borders “It’s a really neat event and a lot of them “because of the historical background of this "Whether they've been to Algonquin or not, it's on the early voyageur routes used to open have backgrounds in logging and forestry area, it is a fascinating area to people like one of those visceral Canadian icons. It's maple because that’s what sustains these sugar, it's the Group of Seven.” Cultural up and develop our country and in this myself although it may be a little late in life I communities. Whether it is historic logging have discovered this thing, to me it doesn't Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society sense it has historical and cultural values or modern logging, the fact is it is a make sense the fact that we and all (Social) that ought to be treasured and preserved. significant part of the park’s history,” ""These are really old trees. They started Governments across Canada are spending a lot growing, some of them, while Samuel de However this does not require locking up Friends of Algonquin Park, 2015 of money in rehabilitating old forts, building Champlain was still alive,” the whole Park” “Stand up for forestry because forestry is pioneer villages and this sort of thing, which Mike Henry Ancient Forests Exploration our history. I say this not just as it relates to are very commendable and are tremendously Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper our family, but also to the local area, our interesting … The fact that La Verendry came “One of Canada's premier parks should be Company Limited 1971 province and Canada as a whole. Canada's through this area as the first white man, or managed to protect its ecological integrity. Is forest industry was born as a result of the approximately the first white man, then the there anything more Canadian than a canoe trip Napoleonic wars, and the need for timber to voyageurs followed. I think this is in Ontario's renowned Algonquin Provincial build warships. As a result, lumber camps Park? … Our country's provincial and national tremendously interesting and well, well worth sprang up throughout eastern Canada to parks are a uniquely Canadian commitment to preserving as well as anything else, and the harvest the white pine and ship it back to the land.” Britain. This was the beginning of the only way we can preserve it is to keep it as it forestry industry in the Ottawa Valley area was as much as possible.” Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society of Ontario” Natural History Society 1971 Parks like Algonquin are a critical component McRae Lumber of our cultural identity as Canadians. Algonquin Park in particular, has widespread “Cultural history is also an important name recognition and significant world-wide component of provincial parks. One needs acclaim. only to reflect on Algonquin`s history to see that logging in a vast portion of the park is Earthroots by design and is part of the area cultural “The province did not have more than 200 value” endangered species in 1905…Today, we have Algonquin Forestry Authority lost much of our original forests, undisturbed wetland ecosystems are declining and far more “The Algonquin Logging Museum came to species are going extinct… Early park life with demonstrations, exhibitors and managers poisoned wolves and actively activities that allowed visitors of all ages a introduced non native species. As late as 1920 glimpse into historical and modern practices Park Superintendents also sold maple syrup of logging in Algonquin Provincial Park. and grazing rights for cattle in the park. Such The interpretive trail at the Logging practices would be unthinkable today. A lot has Museum hosted authentic food, entertaining changed since 1905. T perhaps more music, many genuine logging characters, a compatible with the park concept as it was model alligator and even a few hands-on understood; today, they are not.” activities for the “kids” in all of us.” Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Friends of Algonquin Park
237 Public Access "Our view is that since Quetico Park as “These changes played out against the “What is forgotten in this type of criticism is "This story underscores the scientific evidence Crown Land belongs to all the people of backdrop of changes in our society and how that such an environment has tremendous social of the human benefits of natural places. we view and interact with the forest. With to Benefits Ontario - and all Canada - it should be utility not only for the people who actually use Cottaging can fulfill some of these benefits. managed to best meet the needs of the the increase in vehicle use and the it, but even for many thousands of people who development of roads came the ability for However, protected areas are created for all people and particularly those of have never actually visited the Park. The fact (Social) more people to explore areas that were Ontarians to enjoy. Less than 10 per cent of Northwestern Ontario who are most previously difficult to access. The ease and that it is there, that it is protected and that Ontario is protected and the province wants to directly affected by the Park and by the simplicity afforded by the increase in possibly someday a visit may be made to it is way it is administered” mechanization helped to soften the edge of of immeasurable value.” give part of this away to 300 privileged nature and allow for greater access. With cottagers who hold private cottage leases in Ontario-Minnesota Pulp and Paper “Quetico is quite clearly for the people of greater public access came opportunities for Algonquin Park” Company 1971 conflict over how resources should be Ontario. l appreciate the tendency for people utilized. Our wood basket has always been who live close to the park to feel that it has “Forest Management depends on roads Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2013 the area in and around Algonquin Park. Over some special significance for them. But l for harvesting, fire control, research, the past century we've seen a great deal of submit really that this park is so important, is “I would like to see maximum protection for insect and disease control, regeneration, conflict but, fortunately, we've also seen so rich, is so unique that we must consider it as silviculture. These roads - although Algonquin Park. Nothing less. There is nothing greater instances of resolution. The greatest an asset for the people of Ontario at large.” irritating to some recreationists - would aid to conflict resolution also arose as a like it within reasonable proximity to the major be welcomed by many as a means of result of the evolution within society and the Algonquin Wildlands League 1971 population centers, and it should be protected at forest industry.” access to recreation areas… so that more all costs.” “One is tempted to answer that Americans benefit is derived for more of the people McRae Lumber, 2016 don’t use Hawaii or Florida for atomic bomb of Ontario from the Provincial Parks.” 2010 Management Consult respondent 125466, “Algonquin Park is a great example of how testing just because Canadian visit them. 2009 Ontario Forest Industries Association we manage our forests for a variety of However, clear thinking individuals will realize 1971 values…. Our ability to manage for all of that within a 500 mile radius of Quetico there “human access made easier by logging roads the benefits and values at the same time is are over eighteen million people in U.S.A and leading to illegal uses (i.e. poaching) in "To be fair I must say that we are getting what makes Ontario a world leader in only a little over a million in Canada … In fact, most of the letters from United States forestry.” Algonquin’s interior” Chambers of Commerce, Provincial and federal School children. Many say simply - "Save Forests Ontario, n.d Governments spend millions of dollars Wildlands League, 2000 our Wilderness” It is really not theirs. annually to attract Americans to Canada, and Studies have shown that more than eighty “I am not aware of the forest products I have the Quetico is among the advertised “Its beauty and wildlife are world renowned. per cent of the people using the park are used that were manufactured using timber cut in the Park. Perhaps if forest products attractions” Within a day’s drive of about 40 million people Americans… To designate the whole of were labeled in such a way that I could and receiving over 1 million visitors per year, Quetico at present as primitive park KNOW that I was buying a superior product Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Club 1971 Algonquin is the most natural environment would serve a multitude of Americans but that was sustainable harvested from within a very few Canadians. Americans use Provincial Park, I might be both more likely most of these people will ever experience and Quetico because it is accessible and to buy the product, and more likely to serves as a mental benchmark for what nature recognize the value of logging in can be. It has the potential to inspire millions attractive to them.” Algonquin.” to be conservation advocates.” Private Citizen 1971 2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent 125404, 2009 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, n.d
238 Psychological “A wilderness experience requires that "This is the one place where we have a “Commercial logging in Quetico conflicts also “People don't support the degradation of parks, the visitors should be able to reach connection to her, The cottage still has the with the very real concern of a growing number of nature, of wilderness, Parks are a place for people to escape and unwind, and to connect attractive areas within the park where curtains his grandmother stitched, the of people to know that a sufficient sampling of / Spiritual with nature.” density does not destroy the feeling of a utensils she used, and many other knick- the natural landscapes of our country shall be Wilderness Committee, 2019 (Social) back-to-earth interlude. In essence knacks she brought over by canoe. "That spared from development of any kind and kept “This issue is a difficult one for cottagers Quetico should become an average man's place has always remained the same. There instead to be used and enjoyed for their own because it’s personal. We are acutely aware of wilderness, accessible where he can is a timeless quality to it.” sakes. Quetico has become a symbol of this the emotional attachments that cottagers have escape for awhile from the increasing concern” to their leases…I sympathize with the cottagers Cottage Leaseholder, 2012 pressures of urban living” but I also know that even the most nature- National and Provincial Parks Association of conscious of cottage holders can damage a
Northwestern Ontario Timber Operators Canada 1971 lake’s ecosystem. I have seen it first-hand. In his landmark book, The End of Nature, writer Association 1971 Bill McKibben wonders whether he loves his adopted home in the Adirondacks enough to “Dope addiction, alcoholism, and neuroses are leave it-if by leaving he would help to heal the on the increase. In 1964 the United States spent physical and climatic scars his presence had wrought. This is a question all of us who care $245 million for tranquilizers and $172 million deeply for nature need to ponder about our for sleeping and drank 216 million gallons of choices, our homes, our travels.” hard liquor; 50% of the hospital beds were Wildlands League, 2014 occupied by mental cases. Every one of these “”As we think of the definitions of manifestations was escape from a complex, conservation, we can see, however, how closely overcrowded kind of living.” it ties in to the field of humanitarian values. Aldo Leopold's famous dictum that McIlwrath Field Naturalists, 1971 "conservation is the development of an ecological conscience" is of this pattern. What did he mean by an “ecological conscience” — the development of a land ethic, a feeling of morality towards the earth, reverence, and love, a feeling deep within us that we are responsible for whatever we do to the earth. Leopold was right when he said, "Conservation is the development of an ecological conscience.”
2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent 125479, 2009
239 Education "With the proper planning and control it “From the history of logging in Algonquin "There is no other point I'd like to point out at “I agree that "it is an important thing to get could become an educational adventure Park to current forest management practices, this particular time in regard to the park is that I youth on board and understand the facts about 37 students and teachers from across teaching people conservation and respect think the Chairman and Mr. Macintosh are forest management"; but we must remember (Social) southern Ontario had the opportunity to get for the wilderness, a training so badly the behind the scenes tour of forestry in one aware of the course that was inaugurated in the that forest management and forest sustainability needed to protect all our parks and of Ontario’s most popular parks. The Atikokan high school - The Outers Program. are different” students and teachers, participating in recreational areas” This was a group of students that were given Forestry Connects – a program of the Novar Resident, 2005 Ontario Forestry Association – spent three the opportunity to go to the park and build Private Citizen 1971 days in the field learning about the value of some kind of stamina and learn how to live by “So I think logging should happen on private forestry to Algonquin Park and the “That the interest and knowledge of the themselves and how to fend for themselves and land and camping and education should happen surrounding communities … Teachers from public in matters relating to the care and on public park land” previous years have indicated that past we feel that just this alone justifies in keeping wise use of their lands be given increased student participants enrolled in forestry and this a wilderness area.” Management Plan Consultant 125460, 2009 attention. by resource managers, forest natural resource careers as a direct result of their involvement with Forestry Connects” United Steelworkers of America 1971 industries, the Dept. of Education, Dept. “the park’s role as an ecological benchmark, as of Lands & Forests, Dept. of Agriculture Ontario Forestry Association, 2013 “One of the major problems that society faces a place where natural processes can evolve and and the Dept. of Energy & Resources “The single biggest problem is one of and is the question of pollution and everybody where people can enjoy and learn about nature, Management” education and information. Traditionally the in society is growing more concerned with this is being compromised” Ontario population has been fed a diet of question. Some, such as Paul Ehrlich contend Ontario Forest Industries Association misinformation about forestry in Algonquin. Wildlands League, 2000 I firmly believe that if every person in that we are an endangered species. Now, where 1971 Ontario was shown, in detail, exactly how does one, where does one learn respect for “It has the potential to inspire millions forestry in Algonquin was carried out, this “To create a better public understanding one’s environment? Where is the best place to issue would disappear and forestry in to be conservation advocates.” of forestry in all its ecological as well as Algonquin would continue as it is done learn this. Where does one learn not to drop Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, n.d commercially productive aspects.” today.” this and not to dispose of in-disposable items in the environment? Perhaps the best place to Canadian Institute of Forestry 1971 2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent 142594, 2009 learn this would be in on a wilderness trip” “That both the Ontario Department of “Moving forward, it is vital for the forestry Private Citizen 1971 Lands and Forest Industries must shoulder sector to grow its public outreach efforts their responsibilities in respect to a strong and generate greater awareness of the workings of forestry operations in Ontario. and continuing public relations Assuring the public that sustainability and programmed aimed directly at keeping the community impact are central in forestry general public informed and operations is crucial in encouraging knowledgeable about forestry practices” Ontarians to choose Ontario sourced wood products and support local economies.”
Lake of Woods Section Canadian Institute Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014 of Forestry 1971
240 “The order in council designating Quetico “Perhaps Perkel would do well to learn more The Order in Council which established “it does not even qualify as a protected area Mandate about the logging that goes on in the park as a Natural Park implies that the total Quetico Provincial Park in 1913, described it as under international standards.” and what good this multi-use park status has (Legal) park environment be maintained for the done for Algonquin, its environment and the "a Public Park or Forest Preserve - Health ”This flies in the face of the Provincial Parks local economy.” benefit advantage and enjoyment of the Resort and Fishing Ground, for the benefit, and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006, which says that ecological integrity should be the top people of Ontario in that order. To obtain Laurie March Outdoor Adventure Canada, advantage and enjoyment of the people of 2005 priority for managing and operating all parks. ” these benefits, “use” is implied, however Ontario; for the protection of the fish, birds, “While it was not good news for the Gord Miller ECO, 2015 use by people is foreign to the natural industry, they accepted it as part of the game and fur-bearing animals therein. The "Cottaging and logging have their place, but not biological processes of the area, therefore changing landscape and politics in Ontario. logging operation in Quetico Park is One thing that was clear through that process in protected areas. It's against the law to have to compensate for this use, varying of the was that logging can quite comfortably incompatible with the above statement. Many, private cottages in any of Ontario's 630 management are necessary. The coexist in the multiuse model the park is many people realize this and are no longer protected areas except Algonquin and Rondeau. operated under.” objectives of management must be prepared to accept the destructive policies of It's against the law to log in any of Ontario's John Yakabuski Renfrew MPP, 2014 630 protected areas with the exception of selected with great care that one use the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests” Algonquin. We need to put cottaging and “From early on, it was intended that should not be so important as to exclude logging in their place and take them out of Algonquin Park exemplify good forestry The Lambton Wildlife Trust 1971 all others. Within recreation itself there practices. This intention manifests itself parks” will arise conflicts of use that will have to today in the sustainable and economically Evan Ferrari Canadian Parks and Wilderness viable silvicultural operations that occur be resolved” throughout the Park” Society, 2013 “The question comes down to ‘what is a park?’ Lake of Woods Section Canadian Institute Ontario Forest Industries Association, 2014 The provincial parks act—which is how we of Forestry 1971 “The forest management planning process define provincial parks—talks about them that takes place in Algonquin Park is carried being managed to maintain ecological integrity. out in accordance with the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA)… Forest That’s the objective and purpose of Algonquin management objectives, which are outlined Park according to the legislation. There is a in the Forest Management Plan have the specific exemption in that act for Algonquin goal of balancing environmental, social, and Park because of course it doesn’t meet that.“ economic criteria, and consider a significant number of ecological indicators— Gord Miller ECO, 2014 maintaining ecological integrity is built into sustainable forestry targets.” “Wildlands League is worried that this latest move by the government is symptomatic of a Canadian Institute of Forestry, 2014 larger problem: the province is turning its back “VISION: To achieve the highest standards on ecological integrity—which is the stated of sustainable forest management practices, priority of its own Provincial Parks and in order to maintain Park values for future Conservation Reserves Act—an act that was generations. MISSION: To ensure the long- widely applauded by Wildlands League and term health of Algonquin’s forests while others when it was passed in 2006." producing a sustainable supply of forest products for the forest industry of the Wildlands League, 2012 region.”
Algonquin Forestry Authority2016
241 Treaties "I read that in 1913, the Rainy River “Logging is by no way a threat to “I don't know whether I can. I consider that the watershed, which includes Quetico, was Algonquin. He [Miller] didn’t even consider aboriginal peoples or Indians, whatever we (Legal) inhabited mainly by Ojibway Indians, that most of the large tracts of Crown land would like to call them, are as much citizens of who still lived hunting fishing and bordering Algonquin Park are to be deeded this country as I am. I am simply asking, in fact trapping, and who adhered to their to the Algonquins of Ontario.” I am already in that statement, giving them traditional tribal religion. If any of the privileges which I deny to any other citizen of Canadian Institute of Forestry , 2014 present generation still make a living that this country. So to suggest that that may be way i suggest they be given every “Myth # 12 Leaseholders accepted an smacking of discrimination, I think is an unfair encouragement to continue their way of extension of their leases to 2017 and agreed accusation.” life” to leave thereafter. Reality: Leases were Save Quetico Committee, 1971 extended following a policy review in 1986, Private Citizen 1971 and the government recognized that the policy of eventual termination, while not reversed at the time, was open to review in the future. This was evident in the government’s refusal to ask leaseholders to relinquish any further claim for extension beyond 2017. Algonquin leaseholders have never acknowledged termination as a fair or proper policy for the Park.”
Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006
242 Licenses "the Jim Mathieu Lumber License Area “a great group of people to work with. “Then what exactly are the "Interests" of "It's fine for the government to say, 'We're As this area is the l east travelled area of They're park lovers first and cottage Ontario? In the case of Quetico Park these going to extend the leases.' But what's the (Legal) the Park, due mainly to the lack of leaseholders second. These aren't cottages apparently include the granting of logging rationale? The leases last until 2017,Why isn't connecting, navigable streams and lakes, that are flipped every two, three or five rights and sanction of logging operations the government doing good public policy by and as logging can be carried out without years. A lot of these cottages have been within its boundaries. We are ultimately sitting down, doing an ecological integrity plan, destroying scenic values, and as this there for 60, 80, 100 years and have been in shocked that these have been granted to two and in the context of that, coming up with a source of log supply is vital to the the same family over that period of time.” companies notorious as devastators of the plan for the cottages? It's emotion over sawmill operational equipment: environment through-out North America” ecology” John Winters Park Superintendent, 2013 Recommend that the cutting and Lakehead University Student for Arbitration Janet Summer Canadian Parks and Wilderness harvesting of mature and over mature A key result of the silvicultural program Committee, 1971 Society, 2013 trees, continue in accordance with the (particularly in the maple forests) has been a present operational plan, and that the marked improvement in tree quality, which present cutting and operational would not have occurred if the tenure had “To ensure that the benefits of the Joint regulations, remain in full force and been left to individual forest company Proposal are fully realized, it is important that effect.” licensees. The forest managed by the AFA new infrastructure such as logging roads and is audited and certified to the CSA SFM Northern Ontario District Council 1971 bridges be prohibited in the areas that are being Standard” excluded from logging unless no other viable Canadian Forest Industries, 2015 option is available.”
“Furthermore, forestry operations in the park 2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent are subjected to a series of independent 142587, 2009 audits assessing sustainability. When selecting trees for harvest, tree marking crews in the park use paint to designate which trees should be harvested. All tree markers are certified through the Ontario Tree Marking Program administered by the MNRF and must be re-certified every five
year”
Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014
243 Public Opinion “The logging in controversy has stirred up “The forest management planning process “That is why we are here today. Until the “However, protected areas are created for all a lot of interest and while much of the that takes place in Algonquin Park is carried Algonquin Wildlands League and other brought Ontarians to enjoy. Less than 10 per cent of out in accordance with the Crown Forest Ontario is protected and the province wants to criticism against logging has been blind to light what is happening in Quetico, the (Information) Sustainability Act (CFSA). This provides give part of this away to 300 privileged and emotional it has been valuable in stringent guidelines for forest management, public had assumed that this sanctuary so cottagers who hold private cottage leases in and requires meaningful consultation with bringing the matter out in the open.” extolled in picture and word by the Algonquin Park” the public, Aboriginal peoples, and other stakeholders.” Government of Ontario was a piece of Evan Ferrari Canadian Parks and Wilderness Private Citizen, 1971 wilderness preserved. They now know that is Society, 2013 John Pineau Canadian Institute of Forestry, “Are the people of Ontario worth no more 2014 not so … Modern communication has brought “Why remind anyone that more than half of to the Government? Perhaps the what's touted as a wilderness gem is open to “Moving forward, it is vital for the forestry about an educational explosion, particularly logging… In fact, the Algonquin Wildlands Government of Ontario will be worth no sector to grow its public outreach efforts and over environmental issues. Individuals have League, formed in 1968 to eliminate logging, generate greater awareness of the workings more to the people in a very short time!” become much more aware of what is happening has lobbied so effectively for improvements of forestry operations in Ontario. Assuring and what they have allowed to happen to them. that controversy has greatly diminished." Private Citizen, 1971 the public that sustainability and community impact are central in forestry operations is To say it is a passing fad is to misjudge the Anonymous, 2010 crucial in encouraging Ontarians to choose “ The Ontario Forestry Association note situation.” Ontario sourced wood products and support “Even though policy permits logging in with alarm the increasing trend in this local economies.” Algonquin Park, the most recent Independent Bruce Littlejohn, 1971 direction and fears that the ultimate goal Forest Audit acknowledged that it is Algonquin Forestry Authority, 2014 of improved resources management to controversial. Because of the potential “Forestry in Algonquin, for the vast sensitivity surrounding this subject, there was satisfy clearly defined objectives may be majority of the residents of Ontario, is a non- no review of whether or not logging is an lost in favour of impractical and issue. Even for those that use the park acceptable practice in the park within the scope undesirable programs designed to quiet regularly, forestry is neither seen nor heard of the audit. The notable omission of this and the Park staff receive few, if any consideration by independent auditors and the the disenchanted of the moment” complaints from visitors." Algonquin Forest Authority clearly shows that the requirements of these criteria have not been Ontario Forestry Association, 1971 2010 Management Consult Respondent met.” 142590, 2009 “The ease and simplicity afforded by the Earthroots, 2009 increase in mechanization helped to soften “Yet, Algonquin is managed based on a 19th the edge of nature and allow for greater century anachronism, all the while ignoring access. With greater public access came 21st century law, science, planning, and opportunities for conflict over how societal values. Not once since 1892 has the resources should be utilized. Our wood Ontario government ever allowed a public basket has always been the area in and debate on whether there should be any logging around Algonquin Park. Over the past in Algonquin at all.” century we've seen a great deal of conflict but, fortunately, we've also seen greater 2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent instances of resolution” 142588, 2009 McRae Lumber, 2016
244 Expertise “It is impossible for sane one who is not "The report does not explicitly state how “Our biologists, for instance, should not “Logging in Algonquin is trumpeted as a well- trained in conservation or ecology to current forest management negatively assume that their scientific papers and detailed managed industry by the government through (Information) state in square miles or acres the extent of impacts ecological integrity or biodiversity, knowledge about ecological impacts, etc., are the Algonquin Forest Authority as well as by logging that should occur. A certain and leans heavily on the argument that it reading decision makers, or having an impact all the logging companies. While this may be amount of management is needed in a (logging) should simply not be allowed in on the top people in government. These true, industrial activity has no place in a park,” forest if it is to be fully productive and the any provincial park. The report makes these professionals should offer their information as Eric Reeder Wilderness Committee, 2019 amount of logging necessary for recommendations from a position that soon as it is available, in a form that is maintenance should be decided by a appears to lack proper consideration of the understandable and logical to people with “In the ecological impact summary, MNR group of specialists not by a group of science, research and social and economical practical minds.” concludes the “cumulative impacts of cottages politicians. Hopefully, but not opportunities that currently exist in the and their uses contribute to the pressures on the McIlwraith Field Naturalists, 1971 necessarily, the extent of management practices surrounding wood harvesting park’s ecosystems. Their effects represent an logging will be extensive enough to activities in the park.” “The protest about Quetico has been from a additional challenge to the maintenance and allow work for residents in the minority, but the minority protesting includes restoration of ecological integrity of the park as Bob Sweet Renfrew County, 2014 surrounding area … If the advisory those who use the park most, and who are best defined in the Provincial Parks and committee allows itself to be pressured by qualified to assess the quality of the Conservation Reserves Act, 2006” (page ii). unqualified people, some concessions, recreational experiences the park offers.” The economic study states that, “[f]or the small or large, are bound to be made” Crown to earn a fair 4% return upon the value Toronto Field Naturalists Club, 1971 of its capital stock of land, we estimate that it Private Citizen, 1971 would need to collect over 200% more revenue "The circumventing of professional than it does currently, effectively tripling fees knowledge by public will and whim can and rents” (page 48). These documents are very be a dangerous game in the light of helpful. They are intended to inform tomorrow's need for the application of all consultation and decision making process on our hard-won scientific information to the proposed extension of private cottage the solution of resource shortages, land- tenure in Algonquin Park.” use conflicts, and budgeting of the land.” Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, 2014 Canadian Institute of Forestry 1971
245 Interest “Logging must be secondary to recreation “We as citizens of Ontario, have to be very “It has long been our view that the management "But it wanted little fanfare Why remind where the two conflict , but it should not careful about all decisions made regarding of forests and the management of parks are anyone that more than half of what's touted as a Conflicts be restricted to winter only. It can be our natural resources. The media is incompatible to a large extent and that they wilderness gem is open to logging - the only one among Ontario's 361 parks and protected carried out in the summer in approved primarily concerned with stories of possible should come under the jurisdiction of separate areas where that's the case. Besides, the drawn- (Information) areas where it will not degrade the exploitation by different companies bent on government departments.” out talks led to only minor adjustments. The recreational experience” resource extraction. But there are also stories Kingston Field Naturalists 1971 government describes the new policy as a that are overlooked, stories of exploitation "balanced approach to protecting Algonquin." Ontario Forestry Association 1971 by groups with political or social agendas. “At the risk of passing an opinion on a Balanced usually translates as doing the Personally, I fear that the issue of forestry in technical matter, I submit that this suggestion is minimum required to appease all but extreme critics while ensuring the activity under Algonquin Park more resembles the latter… ridiculous nonsense and an insult to the scrutiny continues pretty much as usual. That's To condemn forestry in Algonquin, demand intelligence of the people of this province . the case here.” it be stopped and then to turn around and One forestry Professor recently told me that Anonymous, 2010 import wood from other areas in the world wilderness are "unhealthy and undesirable, that to make up for the shortfall in supply is one would not want to visit a wilderness “You can't simultaneously manage for nothing short of hypocritical heresy.” forest". These men in their efforts to serve the ecological integrity and profit. It doesn't matter interests of the pulp and paper industry really if you're doing the best forestry management in 2010 Management Plan Consult Repondent believe that intelligent citizens will swallow the universe, you're not managing for 142594, 2009 ecological integrity." such ill-disguised propaganda” “What the Parks Council said in its report to Evan Ferrari Canadian Parks and Wilderness Private Citizen 1971 the Minister shed light on the many Society, 2009 inconsistencies in the government’s “In 1978, the Ministry of Natural Resources treatment of leaseholders during the previous made the decision to ban commercial logging in 30 years. Notable was the observation that most classes of Ontario’s parks (except for Algonquin). This move implies that the procedures for the demolition of expired government believes this practice is not leases, with the attendant volume of debris, acceptable, and is unsustainable within our was at odds with regulations banning cans protected areas. Commercial forestry is and bottles in order to reduce waste in the completely at odds with the fundamental interior” principles of Ontario’s parks and the recently enacted Provincial Parks and Conservation Algonquin Park Residents Association, 2006 Reserves Act.”
Earthroots, 2009
246 “has been written and much has been said "Traditionally the Ontario population has “We ask the committee not to be misled by “The amount of Algonquin designated Misconception/ been fed a diet of misinformation about about Quetico Park recently. Most of the statements such as those recently made by the "protected" is to increase from 22 to 35 per forestry in Algonquin. I firmly believe that cent. For those who think the park ought to be publicity has been one sided highly and if every person in Ontario was shown, in manager of the Ontario Forest Industries Misinformation left in its natural state, this is positive; it adds detail, exactly how forestry in Algonquin not cognizant of the true state of affairs. Association, Mr R.B. Loughlan According to was carried out, this issue would disappear 100,000 hectares to the area where logging is (Information) At times one would almost think that and forestry in Algonquin would continue as press report Mr Loughlan said a ban on logging absolutely prohibited. But the gain is less than it is done today. The only reason this issue it seems. Other parts of Algonquin have long Quetico Park is going to be "raped" and in Algonquin and Quetico provincial parks can persist is that certain groups continue a been designated "not available" for logging. "plundered" tomorrow and the last deliberate campaign of representing would mean an annual loss of almost 50 These now cover 23 per cent of the park. The Algonquin forestry in a misleading way… remaining "wilderness" in Ontario is million dollars to the provincial economy, and amendment cuts them to 14.These lands don't This issue is not and never was about the have absolute protection; how much they'll get about to disappear forever. This simply is quality or scope of forest management in that thousands of jobs would be lost in the Algonquin. This issue has always been about remains to be decided.” not true. The fact is that there is an process. What is the reality?” the political and philosophical debate about Anonymous, 2010 abundance of wilderness in Northern forestry in Algonquin and to a larger degree in Ontario as a whole.” , 1971 Ontario” “Most people don't even realize that logging 2010 Management Consult Respondent takes place in Algonquin Park. The common Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Paper 142590, 2009 response is: "How can it be logged when it is a park? This should open our eyes to the fact that Company 1971 “That being said I was reading the article by Colin Perkel (of) about the logging roads no matter what it's called, that doesn't mean it's that criss-cross Algonquin Provincial Park. protected.” He does not portray an accurate account of Novar Resident, 2005 the situation surrounding logging in Ontario's oldest provincial park…Perkel “Now, even after significant work by the parks also should refrain from comparing a board, there is an attempt to obfuscate and lightly-travelled logging road to a city highway. Many of these logging roads are confuse most people into believing that 48% of from days gone by and many are no longer the park will be protected. To use an in use.” elementary school analogy, we are now expected to celebrate the fact that Algonquin Laurie March Outdoor Adventure Canada, 2005 will continue to get a failing grade for protection. What legacy does this leave to our “ a teacher from Cawthra Park Secondary children?” School in Mississauga, felt that the program helped to dispel many misconceptions she “as protected area is cheeky at best and had about forestry in Ontario. “There are downright underhanded at worst. This zoning many misconceptions out there including exists in no other protected area in the province, how people equate forestry with but we are somehow expected to believe that it deforestation and the idea that cutting down a tree is bad and that so much of the will provide protection. In fact, this zoning was propaganda is that ‘you don’t cut’. But to see specifically designed to permit forestry in such forethought in the planning and to hear Algonquin in the first place.” the foresters talk about sustainability and planning for the future, was eye opening.” 2010 Management Plan Consult Respondent 142588, 2009 Ontario Forestry Association, 2013
247 Appendix III – Content Analysis Sample Source Database
Code Organization Source Document
A1 Algonquin Forestry Authority Algonquin Forestry Authority. (2014, Fall). Is logging Algonquin sustainable?. Algonquin Forestry Authority Newsletter. A2 Algonquin Forestry Authority Algonquin Forestry Authority. (2016) Sustainable forest management plan. A3 Algonquin Forestry Authority Algonquin Forestry Authority. (n.d) Back in my day (lesson plan). A4 Ontario Forestry Association Algonquin Forestry Authority.(2013, October 21). Forestry Connect Program. Algonquin Forestry Authority Newsletter. Algonquin Park Residents A5 Algonquin Parks Residents Association (2006) Brief. Algonquin Park Residents Association Association A6 Algonquins of Ontario Algonquins of Ontario et al. (2016) Agreement in Principle. A7 Guelph resident Allman (2005, October) Algonquin remains overdeveloped. Sudbury Star. A8 Citizen Anonymous (2010, January 10) New logging rules do little to protect Algonquin. Toronto Star. A9 Hamilton Resident Armstrong (2014, March 1) Don’t take a chance on Algonquin cottages (editorial). The Spectator.
Algonquin Parks Residents A10 Author Unknown (2014, January 6). Cottagers balk at market value report. Toronto Star Association
A11 Auditor General Author Unknown (2014, January 6). Cottagers balk at market value report. Toronto Star A12 Novar resident Barron (2005, October). Stop all logging in Algonquin Park. Sudbury Star. A13 Novar resident Barron, (2016, April, 18) We owe it to ourselves to protect Algonquin (editorial). Bracebridge Examiner. A14 Ensyn Technologies Inc Brownlee, A (2015, August 14) Huntsville Forester. A15 environmental commissioner Brownlee, A (2015, August 14) Huntsville Forester. A16 Algonquin Forestry Authority Brownlee, A (2015, August 14) Huntsville Forester. A17 Algonquin Forestry Authority Brownlee, A (2015, August 14) Huntsville Forester. A18 Friends of Algonquin Park Brownlee, A (2015, July 26) History comes to life with Algonquin Loggers Day. Huntsville Forester. Canadian Institute of Forestry A19 Canadian Institute of Forestry (n.d) CIF/IFC defends logging in Algonquin park. Press Release
Wood Business Canadian A20 Forest Industries Canadian Forest Industries. (2015, April 1). Tenure made better.
A21 Canadian Institute of Forestry Canadian Institute of Forestry (2014, October 26). Response to Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller. Press Release.
A22 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (2012) Backgrounder: Cottage leases in Algonquin park. Society A23 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (n.d) Algonquin Park Backgrounder.
248 Algonquin Park Residents Association A24 response to article Contenta, S. (2013, January 6) Algonquin Park is no place for a cottage. Or is it?. Toronto Star. Algonquin Park Residents A25 Contenta, S. (2013, January 6) Algonquin Park is no place for a cottage. Or is it?. Toronto Star. Association Canadian Parks and A26 Contenta, S. (2013, January 6) Algonquin Park is no place for a cottage. Or is it?. Toronto Star. Wilderness Society / WLL
A27 Algonquin Park Contenta, S. (2013, January 6) Algonquin Park is no place for a cottage. Or is it?. Toronto Star. Superintendent 1996-2011 A28 Laurentian Economics Contenta, S. (2014, February 24) Algonquin Park Cottagers put ecosystems at risk: study. Toronto Star. A29 Commissioned by MNR Contenta, S. (2014, February 24) Algonquin Park Cottagers put ecosystems at risk: study. Toronto Star.
A30 Algonquin Park Residents Contenta, S. (2014, February 24) Algonquin Park Cottagers put ecosystems at risk: study. Toronto Star. Association
A31 Algonquin Forestry Authority Corbett. (2007, August 29) Algonquin park's forest are sustainably managed. Huntsville Foresters General Manager A32 Algonquin leaseholder D'Alesio , R. (2012, December 13) Cottagers spared the boot as Ontario relents on leases. Globe and Mail. Canadian Parks and A33 D'Alesio , R. (2012, December 13) Cottagers spared the boot as Ontario relents on leases. Globe and Mail. Wilderness Society A34 Algonquin eco Watch D'Alesio , R. (2012, December 13) Cottagers spared the boot as Ontario relents on leases. Globe and Mail. A35 Algonquin Leaseholder D'Alesio , R. (2012, December 13) Cottagers spared the boot as Ontario relents on leases. Globe and Mail. A36 Earthroots Earthroots. (n.d) Stop logging in Algonquin park. A37 Earthroots Earthroots (2009 February, 5) Environmental organizations ban together to appeal Algonquin sustainable forestry certification. A38 Wildlands League Ecojustice.(2010, January 13). Thousands of kilometers of hidden roads uncovered in Algonquin park. Press release.
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A39 Respondent 142588 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A40 Respondent 142590 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A41 Respondent 125189 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A42 Respondent 125173 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
A43 Respondent 125192 Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824.
249 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A44 Respondent 125194 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A45 Respondent 125193 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A46 Respondent 125402 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A47 Respondent 125404 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5 Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A48 Respondent 125407 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5 Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A49 Respondent 125410 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A50 Respondent 125411 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A51 Respondent 125431 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A52 Respondent 125460 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A53 Respondent 125464 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A54 Respondent 125466 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A55 Respondent 125468 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
A56 Respondent 125473 Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824.
250 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A57 Respondent 125475 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A58 Respondent125479 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A59 Respondent 125480 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A60 Respondent 142218 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A61 Respondent 142232 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A62 Respondent 142376 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A63 Respondent 142583 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
Environmental Registry (2012) Algonquin Park Management Plan Amendment. ERB Registry number 010-8824. A64 Respondent 142587 Retrieved from: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/searchCommentList.do?ebrNum=010-8824¬iceId=MTA4NzE5&statusId= MTc5Mzky¬iceHeaderIdString=MTA4NzE5
A65 Forests Ontario Forests Ontario. (2015, February 13). Response to ECO webinar. A66 Forests Ontario Forests Ontario. (n.d) Algonquin park, a case study. #Ittakesaforest campaign. A67 Friends of Algonquin Park Friends of Algonquin Park.(2015) Loggers Day. Friends of Algonquin Park Newsletter. Canadian Parks and A68 Gorrie (2007, November). Province pressed to cut logging. Toronto Star. Wilderness Society
A69 Gord Miller Environmental Gorrie (2007, November). Province pressed to cut logging. Toronto Star. Commissioner of Ontario A70 Mayor of South Algonquin Gorrie (2007, November). Province pressed to cut logging. Toronto Star.
A71 Algonquin Eco Watch Greenberg. (2007, May).Logging protects biodiversity of Algonquin Park (letter to the editor). Ottawa Citizen. Canadian Parks and A72 Wilderness Society Greenberg. (2007, May).Logging protects biodiversity of Algonquin Park (letter to the editor). Ottawa Citizen.
251
Ancient Forests Research and Henry & Quinby (2006) A preliminary survey of old-growth forest landscapes on the west side of Algonquin Provincial Park. Ancient A73 Exploration Forest Exploration and Research.
A74 Ancient Forest Exploration and Henry & Quinby (2018) The Hurdman Creek Old-Growth Forest. Ancient Forest Exploration and Research. Research
A75 Ontario Rivers Alliance Heron, L. (n.d) . Algonquin park brook trout populations threatened. Ontario Rivers Alliance Blog. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioriversalliance.ca/algonquin-park-brook-trout-populations-threatened/
A76 Algonquin Eco Watch Heron, L. (n.d) . Algonquin park brook trout populations threatened. Ontario Rivers Alliance Blog. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioriversalliance.ca/algonquin-park-brook-trout-populations-threatened/ A77 Natural Resources Minister Jaimet. (2009, July, 4). Logging to continue in Algonquin Park. Ottawa Citizen. Canadian Parks and A78 Jaimet. (2009, July, 4). Logging to continue in Algonquin Park. Ottawa Citizen. Wilderness Society A79 Algonquin Forestry Authority Jaimet. (2009, July, 4). Logging to continue in Algonquin Park. Ottawa Citizen.
A80 Canadian Parks and Jamiet (2009, November 11) Mixed reaction to logging proposal. Ottawa Citizen Wilderness Society
A81 Mayor of Killaloe Hagary and Jamiet (2009, November 11) Mixed reaction to logging proposal. Ottawa Citizen Richards A82 Superintendent 1996-2011 Jamiet (2009, November 11) Mixed reaction to logging proposal. Ottawa Citizen
A83 Renfrew forestry services Jamiet (2009, November 11) Mixed reaction to logging proposal. Ottawa Citizen Management A84 Jessop Bros Forest Products Kryzanowski. (2015, Mar). Careful logging in Algonquin Park. Logging and Sawmilling Journal.
A85 Logging and Sawmilling Kryzanowski. (2015, Mar). Careful logging in Algonquin Park. Logging and Sawmilling Journal. Journal
A86 Renfrew Nipissing Pembroke Levay (2014 Fall). Algonquin park logging faces criticism. The Working Forest. MPP
A87 Environmental Commissioner Levay (2014 Fall). Algonquin park logging faces criticism. The Working Forest. Ontario A88 Toronto Resident Madras, A. (2005, October) We must take care of Algonquin park. Toronto Star. A89 Outdoor Adventure Canada March, L. (2005, October). Algonquin logging part of Park Use. Toronto Star. A90 McRae Lumber McRae & McRae (2016, April 21). Stand up for forestry (editorial). Bracebridge Examiner. A91 Miller (2014, October 7). Commit to End Logging in Algonquin Park.
252 Gord Miller Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
Northern Ontario Business Staff (2009, November 6) Forestry group says jobs will be lost with Algonquin park's new protected zones. A92 Ontario Forest Industries Northern Ontario Business Association
Ontario Forest Industries A93 Association Ontario Forest Industries Association. (2014, October). Response to ECO webinar.
A94 Ontario Forest Industries Ontario Forest Industries Association. (2015, February 12). Response to ECO webinar. Association A95 Algonquin Forestry Authority Ontario Forest Industries Association. (2015, February 12). Response to ECO webinar. A96 Minister of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests (2013, July 19) Increased protection for Algonquin Provincial Park. 8
A97 Ancient Forest Exploration and Pacienza. (2006, May). Old growth trees feared at risk in Ontario park. Globe and Mail. Research
Wildlands League Pearce, D. (2014, February 24). Fate of Algonquin cottages should be determined by science base ecological integrity action Plan. A98 Wildlands League Blog.
A99 Canadian Parks and Perkel (2005, October). Logging roads criss cross Algonquin. Toronto Star. Wilderness Society A100 Sierra Legal Defence Fund Perkel (2005, October). Logging roads criss cross Algonquin. Toronto Star. A101 Minister Natural Resources Perkel (2005, October). Logging roads criss cross Algonquin. Toronto Star. A102 Citizen Pickersgill, (2007, November). Diversify economies to protect prized park. Toronto Star. A103 Citizen Roschkov (2011, August 28) Logging industry needs to rethink its approach. Edmonton Journal.
A104 Ancient Forest Exploration and Rushowy K (2019, January 18) Logging limits urged after discovery of old-growth trees in Algonquin Park Toronto Star Research
A105 Rushowy K (2019, January 18) Logging limits urged after discovery of old-growth trees in Algonquin Park. Toronto Star MNR A106 Wildlands League Rushowy, K. (2019, January 13). 408-year-old tree discovered in Algonquin park's unprotected logging zone. Toronto Star.
A107 Ancient Forest Exploration and Rushowy, K. (2019, January 13). 408-year-old tree discovered in Algonquin park's unprotected logging zone. Toronto Star. Research
A108 Ancient Forest Exploration and Rushowy, K. (2019, January 13). 408-year-old tree discovered in Algonquin park's unprotected logging zone. Toronto Star. Research
A109 Ontario Forest Industries Stewart, N. (2009, December 4) Debate over cutting rights fires up in the north. Northern Ontario Business Association A110 Sumner, J. (2005, August). Algonquin no place for logging. Toronto Star.
253 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society A111 Contractor Martin Lumber Tice (2001, November 14). Park specialist. Wood Business CIF. A112 Trees Ontario Trees Ontario. (2013, December). In defence of the forest Industry. A113 Minister Natural Resources Uhler. (2013, August, 8) . Province moves to exclude 96,000 hectares of Algonquin park from logging. Pembroke Observer. A114 Citizen Unknown Author (2006, February). Ontario fails to protect wilderness. Toronto Star. A115 Wilderness Committee Unknown Author (2017, April 30) Stop logging Algonquin Park says lobby group. Bay Today A116 Burlington resident Unknown Author (n.d) Comment. Retrieved from: https://www.myccr.com/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=21859
A117 Renfrew County Unknown Author. (2014, October 23). County urges province to protect continued logging in Algonquin park. Arnprior Chronical Guide and Weekender.
A118 Renfrew County Warden Unknown Author. (2014, October 23). County urges province to protect continued logging in Algonquin park. Arnprior Chronical Guide and Weekender. A119 CEO Forests Ontario Unknown Author. (2014, October 6). Seeing the forest and the trees. PNR Newswire. A120 Friends of Algonquin Park Unknown Author. (2015, July 22). Step back in time with 20th annual loggers day Canadian Parks and A121 Whyte, I.(2007, May) No more logging (letter to the editor).Ottawa Citizen. Wilderness Society A122 Wilderness Committee Wilderness Committee (2015) Stop Logging In Ontario and Manitoba Parks A123 Wilderness Committee Wilderness Committee (2017, April 27). Ontarians tell government to stop logging Algonquin Provincial Park. Press Release. A124 Wildlands League Wildlands League (2000) Restoring Natures Place. Wildlands League. A125 Wildlands League Wildlands League (2013, October 7). Environmental group applauds ECO's call to end logging in Algonquin park A126 Wildlands League Wildlands League. (2012, December 2017).Ontario abandons ecological integrity in Algonquin. Press Release. A127 York University Professor Wilkinson & Kelly. (2005, October) Not a good idea to log a park. Toronto Star. A128 Kitchener resident Wilkinson & Kelly. (2005, October) Not a good idea to log a park. Toronto Star. A129 environmental commissioner Zanussi R (2014, November 10) Environmental commissioner recommends banning Algonquin Park logging. Almaguin News. Q1 Algonquin Wildlands League Algonquin Wildlands League (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q2 Algonquin Wildlands League Algonquin Wildlands League (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q3 Algonquin Wildlands League Algonquin Wildlands League (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q4 Amik Association Amik Association (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q5 Amik Association Amik Association (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q6 Amik Association Amik Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q7 Atikokan Sportsmen's club Antler of Atikokan Sportsmen’s Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
254 Q8 Atikokan Chamber of Commerce Atikokan Chamber of Commerce (1971, April 6) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q9 Atikokan Chamber of Commerce Atikokan Chamber of Commerce (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q10 Atikokan Conservation Club Atikokan Conservation Club (1971, April 6) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q11 Atikokan High School Atikokan High School (1971, April 6) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q12 Algonquin Wildlands League Author Unknown (1969, October 30). Quetico said going Algonquin's way, league wants it classified as primitive. Globe and Mail. Q13 Algonquin Wildlands League Author Unknown (1970 November 13) Quetico Logging to Continue, Brunelle Says. Globe and Mail Q14 Conservation Council of Ontario Author Unknown (n.d) Logging, mining bans sought for Quetico by conservation body. Q15 Hamilton Resident Banting (1970 October 9) Logging in Parks. Globe and Mail National Campers and Hikers Q16 Bid Awa Chapter National Campers and Hikers Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Association Q17 Citizen Breckenridgen (n.d) Letter to Editor. News Chronicle.
Brereton Field Naturalists of Q18 Brereton Field Naturalists of Barrie, Midland Penetang Field Naturalists, Grey Bruce Pollution Probe, Reach Protective Association, Barrie et al. & Midland District Camera Club (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q19 Citizen Brown (1970, July 16) Plundering our parks. Globe and Mail. Q20 Domtar Pulp and Paper Came (1970, November 4) Quetico feeling run high Q21 Canadian Audubon Society Canadian Audubon Society (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q22 Canadian Audubon Society Canadian Audubon Society (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Canadian Family Camping Q23 Canadian Family Camping Federation (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Federation Q24 Canadian Institute of Forestry Canadian Institute of Forestry (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q25 Canadian Institute of Forestry Canadian Institute of Forestry (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee
Q26 Canadian Institute of Forestry Canadian Institute of Forestry (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q27 Canadian Liberation Movement Canadian Liberation Movement (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q28 Canadian Liberation Movement Canadian Liberation Movement (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q29 Canadian White River Canadian White River (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q30 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q31 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario
Q32 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q33 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q34 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario
255 Q35 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q36 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q37 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q38 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q39 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q40 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q41 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q42 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q43 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q44 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q45 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q46 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q47 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q48 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q49 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q50 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q51 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q52 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q53 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q54 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q55 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q56 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q57 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q58 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q59 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q60 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario
Q61 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 5) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Q62 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 5) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Q63 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 5) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario
256 Q64 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 5) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Q65 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 5) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Q66 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q67 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q68 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q69 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q70 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q71 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q72 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q73 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q74 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q75 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q76 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q77 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q78 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q79 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q80 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q81 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q82 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q83 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q84 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q85 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q86 Citizen Citizen (1971, April 7) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q87 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q88 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q89 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q90 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q91 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q92 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
257 Q93 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q94 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q95 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q96 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q97 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q98 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q99 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q100 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q101 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q102 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q103 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q104 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q105 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q106 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q107 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q108 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q109 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q110 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q111 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q112 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q113 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q114 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q115 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q116 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q117 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q118 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q119 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q120 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q121 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
258 Q122 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q123 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q124 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q125 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q126 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q127 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q128 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q129 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q130 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q131 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q132 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q133 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q134 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q135 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q136 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q137 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q138 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q139 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q140 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q141 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q142 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q143 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q144 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q145 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q146 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q147 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q148 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q149 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q150 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
259 Q151 citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q152 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q153 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q154 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q155 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q156 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q157 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q158 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q159 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q160 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q161 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q162 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q163 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q164 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q165 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q166 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q167 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q168 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q169 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q170 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q171 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q172 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q173 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q174 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q175 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q176 Citizen Citizen (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q177 Citizens for Quetico Defence Citizens for Quetico Defence (1971, April 6) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q178 Domtar Pulp and Paper Claridge (1971, April 15) Laughter greets forest industry view that Quetico Loggers, canoeist can coexist. Globe and Mail. Ontario Forest Industries Q179 Claridge (1971, April 15) Laughter greets forest industry view that Quetico Loggers, canoeist can coexist. Globe and Mail. Association
260 Q180 Algonquin Wildlands League Claridge (1971, April 6) Forest industry, conservations at loggerheads on Quetico Park use. Globe and Mail. National and Provincial Parks Q181 Claridge (1971, April 6) Forest industry, conservations at loggerheads on Quetico Park use. Globe and Mail. Association Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Q182 Claridge (1971, April 6) Forest industry, conservations at loggerheads on Quetico Park use. Globe and Mail. Paper Q183 Conservation Council of Ontario Conservation Council of Ontario (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q184 Conservation Council of Ontario Conservation Council of Ontario (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q185 Domtar Pulp and Paper Domtar Pulp and Paper (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q186 Domtar Pulp and Paper Domtar Pulp and Paper (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory. Q187 Domtar Domtar Pulp and Paper (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory. Q188 Don Valley Liberal Association Don Valley Liberal Association (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Ecology Club of Oakville Trafalgar Q189 Ecology Club of Oakville Trafalgar Highschool (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee High School Q190 Citizen Elliot, G. (1970, November 16) A Call For Wilderness. Globe and Mail. Environmental Studies York Q191 Environmental Studies York University (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. University Environmental Studies York Q192 Environmental Studies York University (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. University Q193 Federation of Ontario Naturalists Federation of Ontario Naturalists (1971, April 14) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q194 Federation of Ontario Naturalists Federation of Ontario Naturalists (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances Chamber of Q195 Fort Frances Chamber of Commerce (1971, April 5) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Commerce Fort Frances Chamber of Q196 Fort Frances Chamber of Commerce (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Commerce Q197 Fort William Liberal Association Fort William Liberal Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Georgetown District Naturalist Q198 Georgetown and District Naturalist Club (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Club Georgetown District Naturalist Q199 Georgetown and District Naturalists Club (!971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Club Q200 Grey Bruce Pollution Probe Grey Bruce Pollution Probe (1871) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q201 Hamilton Naturalist Club Hamilton Naturalist Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee National and Provincial Parks Q202 Henderson (1971, April 10) In area so vast, can't 3% of the land be park? Financial Post. Association Indian People of Rainy River Q203 Indian People of Rainy River District (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario District Q204 Indians of Rainy River District Indians of Rainy River District (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q205 Ingersoll Nature Club Ingersoll Nature Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
261 Q206 Irwin Consulting Forester Irwin (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q207 Isaac Walton League of America Isaac Walton League of America (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q208 Citizen Kelday (1970, December 14). No title, letter to the editor. Globe and Mail. Q209 Kent Chatham Nature Club Kent Chatham Nature Club (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q210 Kingston Field Naturalists Kingston Field Naturalists (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Kitchener Waterloo Field Q211 Kitchener Waterloo Field Naturalists (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Naturalists Kitchener Waterloo Field Q212 Kitchener Waterloo Field Naturalists (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Naturalists Lake of Woods Regional Tourist Q213 Lake of Woods Regional Tourist Council (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Council Lakehead University Students for Q214 Lakehead University Students for Arbitration (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Arbitration Q215 Lakeview Outers Lakeview Outers (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q216 Lambton Wildlife Trust Lambton Wildlife Trust (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q217 Algonquin Wildlands League Littlejohn (1970, May ) Quetico: great park or forest industry asset. Canadian Audubon Society. Q218 Algonquin Wildlands League Littlejohn (1971, January 19) Logging in Parks. Globe and Mail.
Q219 Lumber and Sawmill Workers Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Union Q220 Algonquin Wildlands League MacDonald (1971, May 14) Quetico fight not over: Conservationist. Toronto Telegram Q221 Manitou Rapids Corporation Manitou Rapids Corporation (1971, April 5) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Margaret Nice Ornithological Q222 Margarete Nice Ornithological Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Club Q223 McIlwraith Field Naturalist McIlwraith Field Naturalists (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q224 Midland Field Naturalist Club Midland Field Naturalists Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee
Q225 National and Provincial Parks National and Provincial Parks Association (1971, April 5) Oral to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario. Association
Q226 National and Provincial Parks National and Provincial Parks Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Association
Q227 National Campers and Hikers National Campers and Hikers Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Association
Q228 Natural Science Division York Natural Science Division of York University (1971, April 6) Oral personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario University
262 Q229 New Democratic Party of Ontario New Democratic Party of Ontario (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q230 New Democratic Party of Ontario New Democratic Party of Ontario (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q231 Northern Environmental Council Northern Environmental Council (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q232 Northern Lakes Girl Scout Council Northern Lakes Girl Scout Council (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q233 Northern Ontario Lumber and Northern Ontario of Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union (1971) Written Brief for Quetico Advisory Committee. Sawmill Workers Union
Q234 Northwestern Ontario Associated Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Chambers of Commerce
Q235 Northwestern Ontario Northwestern Ontario Conservation (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Conservation
Q236 Northwester Ontario Timber Northwestern Ontario Timber Operators Association (1971, April 7) Oral Brief for Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay, Ontario. Operators Association
Q237 Northwester Ontario Timber Northwestern Ontario Timber Operators Association (1971) Written Brief for Quetico Advisory Committee. Operators Association Q238 Oakville Highschool Ecology Club Oakville Highschool Ecology Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Q239 Ontario - Minnesota Pulp and Paper (1971, April 5) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Paper Ontario Minnesota Pulp and Q240 Ontario - Minnesota Pulp and Paper (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Paper Q241 Ontario Conservation Federation Ontario Conservation Federation (1971, April 5) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Q242 Ontario Conservation Panel Ontario Conservation Panel (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Ontario Forest Industries Q243 Ontario Forest Industries Association (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Association Ontario Forest Industries Q244 Ontario Forest Industries Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Association Q245 Ontario Forestry Association Ontario Forestry Association (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q246 Ontario Forestry Association Ontario Forestry Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q247 Ontario Professional Foresters Ontario Professional Foresters Association (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Association
Q248 Ontario Professional Foresters Ontario Professional Foresters Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Association
Q249 Ontario Professional Foresters Ontario Professional Foresters Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Association
263 Q250 Oshawa Naturalist Oshawa Naturalist (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q251 Ottawa Field Naturalist Club Ottawa Field Naturalists (1971, April 5) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario Q252 Ottawa Field Naturalist Club Ottawa Field Naturalists Club (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q253 Parry Sound Pollution Probe Parry Sound Pollution Probe (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q254 Peel South Liberal Association Peel South Liberal Association (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q255 Peel South Liberal Association Peel South Liberal Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q256 Citizen Peruniak (1970, November 23) Quetico Park. Globe and Mail. Q257 Pollution Probe of GTA Pollution Probe of Guelph (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Pollution Probe of Kitchener Q258 Pollution Probe of Kitchener Waterloo (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Waterloo Q259 Prevent Destruction of Quetico Prevent Destruction of Quetico (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q260 Prospectors and Developers Prospectors and Developers Association (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Association
Q261 Prospectors and Developers Prospectors and Developers Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Association Q262 Quetico Foundation Quetico Foundation (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q263 Quectico Outfiters Quetico Outfiters (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q264 Richmond Hill Naturalists Richmond Hill Naturalists (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q265 Richmond Hill Naturalists Richmond Hill Naturalists (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q266 Citizen Russle (1970, December 1). Quetico Park. Globe and Mail.
Q267 Sapawe Lumber Company Sapawe Lumber Company (1971, April 6) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q268 Save Quetico Committee Save Quetico Committee (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q269 Save Quetico Group Save Quetico Group (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q270 Save Quetico Group Save Quetico Group (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q271 Unknown Save Quetico (n.d) Save Quetico Wilderness Eternal Poster. Q272 Citizen Sawdo (1970, December 10). Quetico Park. Globe and Mail. Q273 Scarboro Study Group YWCA Scarboro Study Group YWCA (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q274 Sierra Club of Minneapolis Sierra Club Minneapolis (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Q275 Sierra Club of Ontario Sierra Club of Ontario (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario
Q276 Sierra Club of Ontario Sierra Club of Ontario (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
264 Q277 Sierra Club of Ontario Sierra Club of Ontario (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q278 St Thomas Field Naturalist Club St Thomas Field Naturalist Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Students for Arbitration Q279 Students for Arbitration Committee Lakehead University (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Committee Lakehead University
Q280 Students for the Preservation of Students for Preservation of Quetico (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Quetico
Q281 Students for the Preservation of Students for Preservation of Quetico (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Quetico
Q282 Students of Merivale High School Students of Merivale High School Ottawa (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Ottawa Q283 Study Group of Erindale College Study Group of Erindale College (1971, April 15) Oral Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q284 SYF Founders SYF Founders (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q285 Huntsville Nature Club The Huntsville Nature Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q286 The Voyageur Wilderness The Voyager Wilderness (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q287 Thompson Timber Ltd Thompson Timber Ltd (1971) Personal Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q288 Thunder Bay Chamber of Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Commerce
Q289 Thunder Bay Chamber of Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Commerce
Q290 Thunder Bay District Fish and Thunder Bay District Fish and Game Association (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Game Association
Q291 Thunder Bay District Labour Thunder Bay District Labour Council (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Council Q292 Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Thunder Bay Field Naturalist Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee
Q293 Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Thunder Bay Field Naturalists (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q294 Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Thunder Bay Field Naturalists (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Thunder Bay Trade and Labour Q295 Thunder Bay Trade and Labour Council (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Council Q296 Toronto Field Naturalists Toronto Field Naturalists (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario
Q297 Toronto Pollution Probe Toronto Pollution Probe (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Q298 Town of Fort Frances Town of Fort Frances (1971, April 5) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario.
265 Q299 Town of Fort Frances Town of Fort Frances (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. National Campers and Hikers Q300 Trail Blazer Chapter of National Campers and Hikers Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Association Q301 Union of Ontario Indians Union of Ontario Indians (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Q302 United Steelworkers of America United Steelworkers (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Q303 United Steelworkers of America United Steelworkers of America (1971, April 6) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario Q304 United Steelworkers of America United Steelworkers of America (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee
Q305 University of Toronto Education University of Toronto Education Department (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Department
Q306 University of Toronto University of Toronto Environmental Studies Group (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Environmental Studies Group
Q307 University of Toronto University of Toronto Environmental Study Group (1971, April 15) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Environmental Study Group Q308 University of Toronto Outers Club University of Toronto Outers Club (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee.
Q309 University of Toronto Pollution University of Toronto Pollution Probe (1971, April 14) Personal Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Probe
Q310 University of Toronto Pollution University of Toronto Polution Probe (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Probe
Q311 Thunder Bay Chamber of Unknown Author (1971, February 26) Quetico logging ban opposed by chamber. News Chronicle Commerce Q312 Algonquin Wildlands League Unknown Author (1971, March 6). Two brief ask complete ban on Quetico logging. National and Provincial Parks Q313 Unknown Author (1971, March 6). Two brief ask complete ban on Quetico logging. Association
Q314 Ontario Forest Industries Unknown Author (n.d) Forest group favours logging in Quetico. Unknown Publication. Association Q315 Highland Creek Resident Van Horn (1970, November 2). Quetico Park. Globe and Mail Q316 Voyageur Wilderness Voyageur Wilderness (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee National Campers and Hikers Q317 Wandering Chapter of National Campers and Hikers Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Association Q318 William Churchill Students William Churchill Students (1971, April 7) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Thunder Bay , Ontario Wilshire Manitoba Natural Q319 Wilshire Manitoba Natural History Society (1971, April 5) Oral to Quetico Advisory Committee. Fort Frances, Ontario. History Society National Campers and Hikers Q320 Woodstock Oxford Rovers Chapter National Campers and Hikers Association (1971) Written Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee Association
266 Q321 YMCA Camp Menogyn YMCA Camp Menogyn (1971, April 6) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Atikokan , Ontario York University Environmental Q322 York University Environmental Studies Graduate Program (1971, April 14) Oral Brief to Quetico Advisory Committee. Toronto , Ontario Studies Graduate Program
267