The submission from the forest industry claims that allegations made in the Socio-Economic Analysis regarding the environmental impacts of harvesting are unsubstantiated because of the following:
• no study has been done to link the alleged decline of bull trout with harvesting activity
• the future of wildlife is affected more by how government manages road access and rural settlements than by road construction itself
• many of the impacts listed are general and may not even apply to the Invermere Timber Supply Area
• the broad statement that current harvesting practices will result in a decline of biodiversity values is oversimplified and incorrect
• it is unclear whether the caribou population is more sensitive to habitat availability or to changes in predator numbers
One submission raises the following questions:
• what are the criteria for determining which older forests are managed?
• are Upper Dutch and Findlay Creek watersheds still unprotected and fragmented?
• in what drainages are fish declining due to harvest activity?
• what riparian areas were identified, and are maps available?
Since the Socio-Economic Analysis describes bighorn sheep and grizzly bear as rare or uncommon and susceptible to large-scale disturbances, one respondent asks how this was factored into the analysis.
Another respondent maintains that although non-timber values will continue to provide increasingly greater benefits to society they were underrated in the analysis.
