🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <224jhfINN1r7@maximus.cs.ubc.ca> krywolt@cs.ubc.ca (Russell Krywolt) writes:
>In article <224cl8INN1vg@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> taganov@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Edgar Froese) writes:
>>
>> [some stats deleted]
>>
>>The next time someone announces with horror that B.C. coastal rainforests are
>>gone, or that they will all be gone if logging isn't stopped now, can be
>>told with confidence that they are _dead_wrong_. 
>
>  Until the goverment decides to grant logging rights to those other
>areas.

Guess you didn't read Mr. Froese's posting very carefully, Mr. Krywolt.
"Inaccessible" forest doesn't form part of the quota.  Also, the government
has *already* (a long time ago, in fact) granted or withheld what you term
"logging rights" on all of Vancouver Island, and all of BC, for that matter.
These are in the form of (predominantly) Timber Supply Areas, as well as
Tree Farm Licenses, where the amount of forest available for harvesting
is defined as a function of environmental concerns related to wildlife,
soils, recreation, avalanche, etc as well as the long-term regeneration
capabilities of the areas defined as "working forest".

>       In my opinion, all of the lousy forest management policies of
>the past are coming to haunt the present. If only people would have
>been more responsible earlier (ie: reforesting, not clearcut vast areas
>etc etc) there would be no great problems today.

Again, you show evidence of not carefully reading the posting to which
you are following up.  According to that posting, there is no "great
problem".  Personally, the biggest clearcut I've ever seen is the
Fraser valley.  And foresters *do* reforest.  Take a drive over the
Coquihalla and check out the progress of the reforestation in some
very difficult high-elevation areas.

>                                                 Just fly from
>Vancouver to Calgary and notice all the clearcut scars. They are
>everywhere, and there are more clearcuts than forests around the 
>Okanagan area.

Ok, so are we to understand that your definition of the "big problem"
is the aesthetic dislike you have for temporarily cleared areas?
You might be interested in knowing that most of those "scars" you
see from 10,000 meters up have quite thrifty young forests growing
away to beat the band.  These young interior forests are also often
more pest and fire resistant than the forests they replace, and they
are doing a heck of a lot better job at binding CO2 (because they
are adding biomass) than the forests they replaced (which were usually
climax and therefore much closer to CO2 equilibrium).  The roads
built to access the forests are also pretty good at providing access
to hikers, hunters, mountain bikers, and also firefighters, all of whom
have the opportunity to take a close look for themselves at reforestation
in action (or, occasionally, reforestation failures).

>               The current leaders of the forest industry are now
>whining that they shouldn't be reponsible for past poor management.
>Hmmm...kindof the the defecit/budgetary crisis we are finding
>ourselves in.......'the children should not pay for the sins of the father'
>is the current attitude that will get us all in trouble eventually.

Well, unlike the provincial or federal governments, who can easily go
deeper into debt without any real fear of reprisal, forest companies in
BC are required by law (the BC Forest Act) to reforest everything they
cut, and carry that obligation on their books until the forest reaches
the "free to grow" stage.  Companies that do not meet their obligations
stand to lose quota; this would be kind of like saying to a politician,
"every dollar of deficit you incur will come out of your paycheck".

I don't think you'll find many in the industry who resent the obligations
thrust upon them by the Forest Act.  What industry typically resents is
sweeping changes in the laws under which they established (kind of like
the way taxpayers in Vancouver resented the "tax on assets" in Glen Clark's
beta-test budget).

There is no substitute for information, in this and all other major public
issues.  There is a lot of publicly available documentation like the report
Mr. Froese quotes, and one can always attend public meetings, where
forest companies are required by law to obtain public input for their
development plans.  Heck, you can even come and visit companies like ours
who have always based their business on real sustainable development.

Just don't expect to get a real understanding of what's going on by
flying over the forest 10Km up, or reading posters on a telephone
pole.

Chris Hermansen                         Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants
Voice: 1 604 733 0731                   302 - 958 West 8th Avenue
FAX:   1 604 733 0634                   Vancouver B.C. CANADA
clh@tfic.bc.ca                          V5Z 1E5

C'est ma facon de parler.