🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28016@mindlink.bc.ca> a4205@mindlink.bc.ca (L.J. Street) writes:
>
>Being a relative newcomer to this group, and an interested follower
>of the clearcut/Clayoquot etc threads, I would like to say a couple
>of things and then ask some questions, if I may.
>
>Statements first, with which I hope everyone would agree:
>
>1.  Large parts of the Clayoquot Sound area of B.C. are examples of
>old growth temperate rain forests (OGTRF).
____________
True

>2.  The OGTRF ecosystem is very complex and far from completely
>understood or even catalogued.
______________
Most would say this point is debatable.  Above ground local ecology is
relatively well understood.  Above ground species composition is fairly well
catalogued.  The OGTRF ecosystem is not necessarily more "complex" than
systems with fewer species types as richer habitats usually have more
ecological "redundancy"; that is species that inhabit the same niches.

>3.  An OGTRF is valuable/potentially valuable in many ways, some of
>which are: as a unique ecosystem in the world; as a draw for
>tourism; as a source of high quality, relatively easy to harvest
>lumber.
_____________
True.

>4.  An OGTRF would take a very long time to return to it's original
>state after clearcutting, if it ever would.
_____________
It depends.  If manged with expeditious return of all OG values as a
priority it might not take that long, however forests are not yet managed
that way and it may not be necessary to do so.  If the forests could come
back after an ice age, I would believe it silly to say that they cannot come
back after clearcutting.

5.  Selective logging would do less, but still significant and long
>lasting, damage to an OGTRF ecosystem than would clearcutting.
_____________
Not necessarily.  You still have to build the roads to selectively log and
most soil erosion and stream damage is associated with road building.  In
fact, clearcutting allows for the use of yarding systems which may reduce
the number of roads to be built.  However, selective logging may expedite
the return of OG values in comparison to clearfelling, should OG values be
desired.

>6.  An area that has been logged and is intended to be re-logged at
>some point in the future will be significantly different from that
>same area had it not been logged.
_____________
Obviously, because some trees are gone.  Logging, selective or otherwise,
does not permanently prevent the unassisted return of OG values to a
forest area.  The choice and care in application of a silvicultural system
easily effects the rate of change, however.

>7.  Logging practices in the past have been dictated more by
>economics than esthetics or ecology.
____________
Actually, probably convenience.  This could be safely equated with
economics.  As a disclaimer, the government has increased regulation of
the industry since its beginning, therefore "the past" is a vague concept.
Present day forestry is practiced with ecology in mind, as demonstrated by
the MoF's dedication to the Biogeoclimactic classification of the
Province's forests and the Pre-Harvest Silvicultural Prescription process.

>8.  Forestry is a very important part of the economy of B.C., and
>many people depend directly or indirectly on it for their
>livelihood.
_____________
Forestry is B.C.'s #1 industry, yes.

>9.  The main economic player in the Clayoquot Sound dispute is
>MacMillan-Bloedel (M&B).
_____________
True.

>10.  M&B is mostly owned by non-Canadian interests.
_____________
False.  M&B is predominantly Canadian owned.

>11.  The B.C. Provincial government owns a significant number of
>shares in M&B.
_____________
They made a purchase, yes, which is fully in line with the traditional NDP
policy of government acquisition of private enterprise.  They hold the
largest single block of shares at 4% which is nowhere near enough to
influence Board of Directors selection.

>Some questions:
>
>1.  Does anyone really plan to allow a logged OGTRF to return to a
>reasonable facsimile of it's original state before re-logging?  In
>other words, is there any point in discussing how long it will take
>to return to it's original state after being logged?
_____________
Good question!  The resource use for most productive forest land in B.C.,
other than parks, is currently set towards forestry. This does not
preclude resource uses other than logging, however.  If the preservation
of OG values is required in an absolute sense, this may be incompatible
with logging, as waiting for a forest to have a high structural diversity
is both inefficient and unnecessary for wood production, and in many cases
may not be necessary to accommodate alpha species diversity, should this be
desired.  You have really homed in on the big issue: in changing times
where demand for land uses other than forestry is increasing, should
allocation strategies be changed?  As long as the Government continues to
pursue a policy of doing as little as possible in order to preserve their
options the true owners of the land, the citizens, will not receive the
best benefit from their use. 

>2.  How much more OGTRF (or old growth forest of any type, for that
>matter) needs to be logged and re-planted before B.C. reaches an
>equilibrium point where all logging is done on reforested
>(retreed) land?
_____________
See below

>3.  I'm sure it's been posted before, but what percentage of the
>original old growth forest in B.C. has been logged, and what
>proportion of that remaining _is worth logging_, from an economic
>point of view?
_____________
According to the Ministry of Forests, 58% of the productive forest land in
BC is 120 years old or greater.  Given how long widespread forestry has
taken place in B.C., this is roughly equivalent to OG.  From an economic
point of view, all of this timber is worth logging as it is "productive
forest land".  The BC State of the Environment report shows that for
Coastal OG, 66% is >120 years, and 41% is inaccessible or protected and
will not be logged.

>3.  Is sustainable logging (harvesting, replanting, growth,
>harvesting, etc) really possible for very long periods of time
>("very long" in human terms, eg 200-500 years or so)?  Does anyone
>know?  (I know this has been addressed to a degree in other
>postings).
____________
This is a subject of great debate.  European forests managed over 500
years or so have shown a steady decline in productivity.  This simple
conclusion is complicated by the differences in management between these
forests and BC forests as historically in Europe hardwoods have been more
valuable than softwoods for shipbuilding, etc., and many forests were
selected for these species.  Recent studies have suggested that
productivity loss results from poor maintenance of nutrient and organic
"capital" that has accompanied the extremely intensive use of European
forests.  Our forests are not managed even vaguely as intensively as
European ones as we have the advantage of much more available land.  We
have much more knowledge now of nutrient cycling in forests that should
provide the tools necessary to speed up the return of nutrient capital to
European forests and to convince forest managers to avoid truly exploitive
management techniques such as whole tree harvesting or excessive utilization.
(Neat and Tidy Forestry)

>4.  Assuming that sustainable logging is possible and that no more
>untouched old growth (am I repeating myself?) forest is logged,
>what percentage of current harvests (in terms of board feet or
>cubic feet, etc, rather than acres/hectares or stumps) are
>possible?  10? 50? 100? 500?  How profitable is sustainable logging
>as compared to logging old growth?
_____________
Every 1% reduction in working forest should require a 1% reduction in the
AAC should sustainable management be mandated and more intensive
management not be employed.  In fact, all kinds of options are open.  I
continue to argue that providing forest companies with truly secure tenure
will provide the incentive necessary for intensive management.  This
management may allow for a reduction in working forest (more parks?!?) and
increased economic activity as well.

>5.  Assuming the above again, how will the number of people
>employed in the forest industry be affected?  Presumably the number
>of people employed per unit of wood harvested will decline because
>of increasing mechanization, increases in efficiency, the fact that
>roads, etc have already been built, and other factors.
_____________
Intensive management will likely provide for significant employment,
especially for educated foresters.  I do not believe employment to be a
management objective for forests, however.

>6.  Do the majority owners of the biggest forest industry companies
>in B.C. really care about damage to the environment, delicate
>ecosystems, or even the well-being of their employees?
_____________
Not as much as they would if they were provided secure tenure over their
lands.  They cannot afford to risk their investors capital in forest
enterprises that may show no return on investment because the government
finds it convenient to avoid making decisions.

>7.  What percentage of the timber harvest in B.C. is done by
>companies controlled by foreign interests?
_____________
I don't know, however M&B and CANFOR, the two largest BC companies, are
Canadian owned.

>8.  How signifcant is the fact that the B.C. government purchased
>a large number of M&B shares shortly before "the Clayoquot
>decision" was made, and why has there been so little made of this
>in the press? (Is this a dumb question, or what?)  I would love to
>own shares in a company and then be in a position to make a
>decision that would affect it's profitability.
_____________
It took the 1975 Social Credit government years to sell off all of the
private business the Barrett NDP purchased while in power.  I suspect it
will take the next Liberal government a long time to sell off Mikey's toys
as well.  It is standard NDP policy to busy itself with increasing public
control of private enterprise by spending tax dollars on shares or
creating competitive firms.  At least they bought into a Canadian company, no?



-- 
"There will always be an apologist for Business As Ususal. A pleasure to
meet you, Robert"  _Jim_Hurst_

....Robert Froese  VE7MOQ                          taganov@unixg.ubc.ca