next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> Further to what John Kearney said, it migh
--000000000000b99aff0582d6f39b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi John,
I just read this on getting home - excellent point and gives some
perspective on the whole matter.
I am so glad I went to the meeting tonight - I really enjoyed it and the
roads were perfectly clear.
Nancy
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:51 PM John Kearney <j.f.kearney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bev and all,
> I very much agree with your perspective and efforts, and I apologize if it
> sounded like I was advocating for only surveying species-at-risk. Reporting
> SARA-listed species is more akin to getting a temporary injunction rather
> than a long-term regulated policy that supports ecological forestry and
> biodiversity. I will add here, however, that while this
> volunteer-naturalist ground-truthing takes place, there should be a public
> demand for the government to make biodiversity inventories and ecological
> impact assessment a requirement for forestry operations on Crown land.
> Other industries must do this and at their own expense. Wind farms,
> pipelines, highways, LNG terminals, etc., all must pay for a minimum
> one-year environmental assessment that is sent to the NS Dept. of the
> Environment for approval. These assessments are required for development on
> both Crown and private lands. And other renewable resource industries, such
> as fisheries, are subjected to annual and thorough inventories and
> assessments on a stock by stock basis in cooperation with industry
> participation. In my opinion, industrial-scale forestry should be required
> to behave like all other industries when it comes to the environment. This
> is the ideal time to develop an approach to forestry environmental
> assessments, under the authority of the Department of Environment, in
> conjunction with implementing the recommendations of the Lahey Report.
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca <naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca> On
> Behalf Of Bev Wigney
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 13:16
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Crown land forests - suggestions for
> ground-truthing sites
>
> 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 Kearn