In researching response to changes to the Forest Act introduced last week by the province I鈥檓 left with a few observations that didn鈥檛 find a way into print.

To recap, the province has made it possible for Hampton Affiliates, and by extension, other logging license holders to apply to have their current timber volume-based licenses converted into area-based tree farm licenses (TFL).

With an area-based license comes greater corporate responsibility.

For some, relying on corporate responsibility to manage natural resources is asking the fox to keep an eye on the chicken coop. But there鈥檚 no natural or formal contradiction between the corporate need for profit and the need for responsible conservation.

Maybe the corporation can be a good steward of natural resources, especially if the company鈥檚 continued health depends upon the health of those resources.

But you can鈥檛 blame a person for being a little skeptical of the idea that turning over vast tracts of forest to individual companies to manage will lead to a better future for all involved.

Here鈥檚 where it seems that the province might be doing the right thing by introducing legislation that is mostly just a framework for future policy. The province has kept two things in its back pocket.

First, it鈥檚 an invite-only affair. A company will be able to apply for a forest license conversion only after it鈥檚 been invited to apply. This isn鈥檛 the province kicking the door off its hinges and giving out TFLs like candy.

Second, the province can use the findings of a proscribed public consultation period to amend the application. So if it turns out that the original criteria that defined the initial application were flawed, the province still has a way to correct glaring errors.

Hampton Affiliates will be the first company offered an opportunity to apply for a conversion, and I鈥檇 certainly be surprised if more offers were made before the dust has settled in 亚洲天堂 Lake.

Another detail about the legislation that鈥檚 interesting is that the minister of forests will be required to set an annual allowable cut (AAC) that doesn鈥檛 exceed the AAC of the licenses turned over for conversion.

So Hampton won鈥檛 be cutting down more trees; it will just have more control over the future health, and profitability, of the forest it manages under a TFL, assuming that the whole process goes swimmingly.

It doesn鈥檛 sound like there鈥檚 much to be afraid of in this new legislation as it stands, even if only because it doesn鈥檛 say much specifically about how the new TFLs will look, or how smaller players will fit in and find their fair share of opportunity.

For some, it鈥檚 the bare-bone nature of the legislation along with its potential impact on provincial forest policy that has them calling for its repeal should the liberal government fall in the spring election. Critics include real and life-long experts in forest management; I鈥檓 not trying to take away from their position.

Like a lot of us out here, I鈥檓 just another person listening to smarter people try to sort out forest policy after the mountain pine beetle and disasters like the Babine mill explosion.

I鈥檇 like to see what the province and Hampton Affiliates come up with in the Lakes District. We鈥檝e got to do something, right?