next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>>
David Simpson (and all),
Thanks for your reply, David. I will add you to the list of people
who are interested in participating in ground-truthing forays this
spring.
Regarding the focus of these surveys. There will definitely be some
emphasis on watching for SAR as that might make things easier if you
happen to find Blandings turtles or Blue Felt lichen, etc..
Unfortunately (thus far), it hasn't proven to be quite that simple.
There seems to be quite a bit of leeway for proceeding with a harvest
by leaving a buffer zone around something you've found (lichen being a
good example), and in the case of Mainland Moose, to leave some small
patches of trees ("small" being the operative) here and there
scattered across the parcels. Last year, I occasionally went through
bird atlas records to check for SAR species in various parcels that
were up for approval and even though there had been reported activity
in the same square as the intended harvests, they were approved. I
happened to see the paperwork on one of these and it just had a brief
notation about not cutting during nesting. However, as was mentioned
by a friend, they said nothing about not working on roadbuilding ahead
of the harvest (which requires a lot of cutting). In any case, having
now tried to halt, or at least mitigate a few harvests, I know how
difficult it is to do so -- especially if you're trying to make a case
during that 40 day public comment period. You really have to come up
with something very substantial -- or at least that has been the case
in the past.
As for cutting during nesting season -- it seems to be allowable. I
think that as soon as the logging roads are passable and weight
restrictions off the highways, the harvests are in full swing.
So, I guess that leaves the question of what a ground-truthing group
can accomplish. I would suggest that there is now a possible "break"
that may at least reduce the intensity of cutting on Crown land. I
don't know how closely everyone has been following the discussions on
Crown land harvests, but the Department of Lands and Forestry is
supposed to be adopting many of the recommendations of the Lahey
report. One of the main thrusts was that there should be a move to a
triad model -- with one of the legs of the triad being forests which
would be managed in a way intended to retain their biodiversity.
There will be different harvest prescriptions applied -- we aren't
quite sure just how much that will be, but (hopefully) considerably
less than clearcutting. The designation of these forests will be
based on LAF's selection system. Unfortunately, as we've discovered
in recent months -- in this area, and some in other areas of the
province -- the data they are working from seems to have resulted in
the ball being dropped more than once (those following the forest
discussion groups on Facebook will be quite aware of some of these
examples). In any case, our group's focus is to get to know what's
"out there" well enough that we can make the case that certain forests
should be among those managed for biodiversity, and not be subjected
to the heavier hand of intensive harvesting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we know that the chances of
stopping harvest approvals for Crown land forests is pretty difficult
- even if you find SAR - as there are ways to continue on with the
harvest by following certain protocol. However, what may be more
effective in the long run, is to determine which forests are the most
ecologically significant, and be sure that they are designated as such
and won't be subject to the more intensive harvest prescriptions --
thus (hopefully) retaining at least some of their biodiversity.
That's about the best explanation I can provide.
Bev
On 2/26/19, David Simpson <david.sonsimp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please add my name to the list of willing naturalists. I've done a fair
> number of bird surveys, particularly for songbirds, and I'd be very happy
> to partake in the data collection and promulgation efforts. I'm in Hants
> County, but willing to travel. If a similar undertaking is happening in my
> neck of the woods I'd be happy to know about it; the number of loaded
> logging trucks I see coming down the Chester Road is alarming.
>
> Further to what John Kearney said, it might behoove us to be pointed in our
> searches and search for predetermined targets. I say this because in a
> bioblitz, the aim is to record every species in an area. *IF* it is the
> entire flora/fauna assemblage that could be a deciding factor, then yes, a
> bioblitz could be the means to an end (the end being stopping a clearcut).
> But it could be that the means to that end is a much simpler, easily
> determined piece of evidence, for example, the presence of a species at
> risk. A bioblitz takes much more time and effort than searching for one or
> several target species. Either way, as I see it, the key to being effective
> here will be to determine exactly what piece of information comprises a
> means to the end, and then go look for evidence of that specifically.
>
> Donna Crossland said "The harvest at Corbett Lake will surely NOT take
> place during nesting season". Is this a fact? I know it's illegal to
> disturb nesting migratory birds - which are present in virtually any stand
> of trees in the Spring - but I was under the impression these laws were
> ignored when it comes to forestry. I could be wrong.
>
> Thanks for getting this going.
>
> *Dave in Curry's Corner*
>
> David Simpson
> (902) 580 8007
> david.sonsimp@gmail.com
>
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects