🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22mql9INNgi4@cascade.cs.ubc.ca> pope@cs.ubc.ca (Art Pope) writes:
>In recent messages, taganov@unixg.ubc.ca (Robert Froese) has made the
>following claims:
>
>  1. 80% of all NSR land dates from prior to the creation of the Tree Farm
>     License system.
>     
>  2. "Coastal grapple yarding or high-lead yarding requires the building of
>     80% fewer roads than in selection logging systems, an magnitudes fewer
>     disturbance to forest soils."
>     
>  3. "forest products demand is expected to increase by 50 times by 2050"
>
>and he has chastised another by making the following remark:
>
>  "Have you endeavored to understand the rational, scientific  and ecological
>  basis on which forest management is practiced in BC?"
>  
>For the sake of rational, scientific discussion, would Robert mind telling
>us what basis he has for claims (1) through (3)?
______________
Art has been diligent in identifying my weakest statements to date.  In
these instances I have succumbed to the desire to convey information that
I knew in substance to be true, however could not recall the exact
figures.  In an attempt to demonstrate the substance of the above claims,
I dug up the following facts:

1.  The Ministry of Forests 1991-92 Annual report indicates that there was
a total of 1,529,480 ha of Crown NSR Land, of which 559,037 is within
allowable regeneration periods where stocking is in progress.  (496,920 of
the 559,037 ha is land where the reforestation responsibility is held my
Major Licensees.)  The balance of 970,443 ha is listed by the Ministry as
"outstanding obligations" and is held solely as the responsibility of the
Ministry for reforestation.  Thus, 100% of NSR backlogs on Crown land are
the responsibility solely of the Provincial Government.

2.  In _Forest_Ecology_, a forest ecology textbook written by, you guessed
it, J.P. Kimmins, Kimmins quotes several studies to the effect that
tractor logging results in 21-87% soil disturbance by area in contrast to
Skyline (what I referred to as grapple) yarding, where 6% by area is
disturbed. In addition, the same studies showed that Helicopter logging
resulted in 36% disturbance.  He goes on to note that, on Non Slashburned
sites, Summer skyline yarding resultined in 0% area disturbance by roads and
Summer skidding 42% disturbance.

Skyline yarding methods are not possible in selection logging systems--
skidder logging is.

3.  In personal notes taken during a lecture in January, 1988 J.P. Kimmins
claimed that forest products demand is expected to increase by 80+% by the
year 2000.

>And would he please cite his sources when making such claims in future? 
>
>   ...Art Pope, UBC Dept. of Computer Science

In Message <21nbuhINNdjj@cascade.cs.ubc.ca> Art Pope wrote:

>In a recent article, Chris Hermanson..... urges his readers to get the "hard
>facts" -- yet he doesn't seem to be using those facts himself. The picture
>he paints of BC forestry is a pretty skewed one. Let me try to straighten
>it a bit.

He goes on to say:

>In BC, we actually plant about half of the area we log each year.

According to the MoF Annual report, in 1991-92 192,989ha was logged on Crown
and Private land, while 199,270ha was planted.  In BC, we planted 6,281ha
*more* than we cut!

Art also said:

>Beware the definition of reforestation: it actually includes natural
>regeneration as well as planting.  An area can be "reforested" with just a
>stoke of the pen -- by declaring that it will be regenerated naturally!

The Ministry of Forests does not include natural regeneration in its
calculation of planted area.  This would suggest that the 6,281ha surplus
planted area is a low estimate of regeneration since some of the cutover
area is regenerating naturally, although Art seems to suggest natural
regeneration is scam.  Pacific Spirit Park was logged long before
planting began yet a forest currently stands there, right next to UBC.

Art also says:

>Once we destroy a forest, we cannot recreate it. Not even by planting.

So where did the trees come from in Pacific Spirit Park?  What about the
second-growth forests being harvested on Vancouver Island?  This statement
hardly assists in fostering rational, scientific discussion.

On the subject of the rational and the scientific, Art offered the
following comment:

>Tony Chiappe has the right idea. He's quoted in Herb Hammond's "Seeing the
>Forest Among the Trees":
>
>  "Let me state from the outset that I have never been a logger or a 
>  forester. But let me also state that it requires neither the experience 
>  of the first nor the training of the second to identify poor logging or 
>  forestry. It does not require a teacher to recognize the poorly educated 
>  or a doctor to detect the sickly."

It is true that one need not be an active participant in a process to
recognize it's existence, but one must have an appreciation for it!  Art
suggests in another post that Hamish Kimmins' credibility should be
questioned based on the assessment of one of his peers.  I am the first to
admit that, as I am neither an professor of ecology nor a practicing
ecologist, I have difficulty agreeing ir disagreeing with Art's
suggestion with certainty.  According to the quote above, my knowledge
level shouldn't matter.

I believe that the public hold many misconceptions regarding forestry. 
Because of the nature of the industry, it is not conducted in public view,
and it is difficult to obtain general knowledge with which to form
reasoned opinions.  We pretty much all go to school and thus are pretty
much capable of recognizing the poorly educated.  The same level of
general knowledge has not been made available with regard to forestry.

Forests almost always grow back after clearcutting, and should grow back
without exception if managed properly and if clearcutting is applied
appropriately.
  
>   ...Art Pope, UBC Dept. of Computer Science


-- 
Robert Froese  VE7MOQ
taganov biogeocoenose approach                  "Clearcutting is not a Crime"
taganov@unixg.ubc.ca