Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply

Bert De Vink takes a tongue in cheek look at the new Min. of Forests configuration

This is my reply to the letter I received from the Ministry of Forests and Land Department, April 30, 2012 regarding my question: Is softwood really soft?

In my letter to you, dated Jan. 16, 2004, I did not realize the depth of your research that was needed to answer my question.

First of all, I like to thank you for your prompt reply keeping the depth of my question in mind.

It has come to my attention that the Ministry of Forests, Sports and Casino licensing now has a

new department addition.

I understand that the reason for this addition was to increase the communication reaction time by using a compatible logistical concept that will undoubtedly flourish when the integrated and systematized policy comes into effect in the near future.

The time warp of approximately eight years between my question and your answer has become totally acceptable to me, considering the circumstances.

The unfortunate part is the softwood problem has basically solved itself by the lack of softwood left between the clear cuts.

In your letter you also mentioned the side effects of beetle kill.

The unexpectedarrival of these nasty beasties must have played a detrimental role in the integrated management projection that the Ministry of Forests, Sports and Casino licensing had to face.

My deep sympathy goes out to the staff members who in only eight years produced a Functional Transitional Time Phase document that deals with the rapidly increasing beetle disaster.

I also understand that executive members of the forest industry were part of the committee and in this short time frame found a solution that, using integrated organizational flexibility, found a probable way to start attacking the problem.

Since the soft wood problem did not give the ministry enough time to have the beetles under control, they died without having to face the ministerial wrath.

This must have been a very sad moment for the ministry when realizing the hard-fought-for solution did not arrive on time.

My sincere condolences are with you. Since the sports department is under the same roof,  I would like an answer to the following question: Is hockey a sport or a street fighter exhibit?

In my view point a total incremental blow to the functional part of an unsuspecting armoured opponent is not acceptable as outlined in the book of hockey, chapter 291 paragraph 16 which states: “A player shall not leave another player in an non-functional state using

his extremities or an object held by his extremities.”

I think the synchronized, incremental and contingency-oriented effort that brought forestry, sports  and casino licensing together has served me well.

All three departments are under one roof.

The duration can be somewhat bothersome but since my questions are very in depth this is acceptable.

My last questions are for the Department of Casino Licensing.

My questions are first: are licenses awarded only when the Government needs more cash; second, only in cities with a certain population; third, can licenses be obtained by people with a large house or large yard?   It is my sincere hope that my questions do not cause a synchronized, organizational, capability disaster.

Bert De Vink is a regular Observer columnist.