Five of us ​freed up more volunteer time yesterday morning, the coldest of the year, and went on a reconnoitre to the proposed Ingramport clearcuts. We entered the area by following what, according to a map given by Ledwidge Lumber to the SMBARTA in December, is rumoured to be the route of a proposed temporary logging road which will be built, used, then decommissioned. The route up from Route 3 appears to follow a watercourse. We wondered what the erosion implications might be. Like the lot south of Kielly Lake, we are told the hillside on the other two lots west of the estuary which slope down to the Rails to Trails is not to be harvested. Instead, just the plateau up at the top of the hill, hidden from view from the water. We have been told nothing of this directly but have pieced together the plan through third parties. Despite promises to the contrary, the department has volunteered no information. On the plateau we took numerous photographs and videos of the stand. It is extremely uniform. There is an overabundance of very small trees with extremely few saw logs of any size. What will become of the preponderance of small trees on the plateau? Pulp? Biomass? Compared to the jobs and financial benefits of the impending clerarcut, what might be the benefits of managing the forest differently - say, harvesting the high value trees now while thinning what remains for future harvest? Promote an uneven aged stand. Promote diverse species. Protect habitat. Capitalize on a community asset for recreation, tourism - build the local economy. Promote ecological services - carbon sequestration, water retention, biodiversity. Support the community's and the municipality's declared interest in these lands. Support the province's forestry industry by stewarding properly their own future renewable resource. Turning the plateau's stand now into a clear cut simply doesn't make sense to us. We continue to welcome arguments to the contrary and discussion as to the way to a healthy future for these lands.