🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CAA8xK.GtG@tfic.bc.ca>, clh@tfic.bc.ca (Chris Hermansen (V)) writes:
>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:
>>>

[Interesting discussion removed for brevity]

Since we are on the topic...

While attending a silviculture workshope in Smithers, B.C., I recently got a 
chance to see some operational trials of selective logging techniques of the 
type that the public is demanding.  What I saw was partially encouraging,
and partially disturbing.  I hope that advocates of selective logging will
respond to some of these comments and observations:

1.)  There is no general prescription, be it clear cut or selective logging,
that works uniformly well for all sites.

2.)  Selective logging tends to work the best where ecozones merge to
produce very diverse stands, or where patch size has been well managed.
Productivity on some of these sites is staggering, even with selective
logging.  Clearcutting on these sites does not make sense.  Believe it or
not, industry is feeling the pressure and responding.

3.)  Selective logging has many problems:

	a.) Highgrading was evident even in experimental plots,
            leading to selection for undesirable trees.
	    This problem could be solved, but the speed at which
	    selective logging is going to be implemented may prevent that. 
	b.) For small patches, quick release produces poor quality timber
            (problems with core splitting, poor wood density and uniformity)
	c.) Blowdown problems in many areas are quite severe
	d.) The operational costs can be much higher

4)   Where fires are frequent, forest succession is adapted to large scale
     regeneration.  Another point from the B.C. Environment report: we are
     now generating more forest than we are harvesting in B.C., thanks to
     silvicultural activities.

5)   Emphasis on selective cutting will acclerate the demise of chemical weed
     control methods for political and practical reasons, in the absence of
     practical alternatives.  This will increase the amount of NSR
     (Not Sufficiently Restocked) forest area, and therefore logging demands
     on other sites.

6)   In previously harvested areas of the rainforest, such as Sombreo beach,
there are clearly areas where regeneration proceeds apace.  There are also
areas that are not regenerating properly, and should never have been cut.
If the new species of canopy insects etc. currently being discovered are
to be preserved, if the Island's microclimate is to be preserved, clearly 
some of the forest ought to be preserved outright.  However, lumber is at the 
heart of B.C.'s economy.  Someone has to grow the trees, somewhere.

I think I'm like a lot of people in this issue- caught in the middle and not
sure what to think.  I definitely think we should preserve a significant
part of coastal old growth, just because its there.  I cannot speak to the
detailed motives behind the currently old growth logging plans.  But a trend 
of preventing clearcuts everywhere really scares me, for reasons I've outlined
above.  There are reasons that early attempts at selective logging in some 
areas of B.C. were abandoned, and they don't all have to do with economics.
Environmental perfectionism could do us in just as quickly as environmental
devastation.  Some day, our species will be too numerous for any forest to 
generate the wood that it demands- that is biggest problem our forests face.

Disclaimer:  I am not speaking for The Department of Natural Resources
Canada (was Forestry Canada), The Government of Canada, or the Government
of B.C.  Any similarity of opinion would be wonderful.


  RICHARD WINDER                    Title: Visiting Fellow
  Forestry Canada                   Phone: (604) 363-0600
  Victoria, B.C.                    Internet: RWINDER@A1.PFC.Forestry.CA