next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
rural 'high speed'. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020FD45946FC45FCAE406A24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Donna and All,    While it is true that love (and passion) makes the world go round it is also true that profit from primary industries pays ALL of the bills. Profit is not evil and an opportunity for greater profit over the long haul is something that any desk jockey can understand.    In this instance of widespread clear cuts, which I accept as fact, the key question is how to effect change to better practices. And to effect change one must understand the driving forces. If one can appreciate why something happens then a change in this driving force can change the process.    {{And a carrot is very effective. Germany, many decades ago, promised house owners 8% annual income for 20 years on outlays for solar power installations. The uptake was great, and a country with unpromising weather for Solar Power became a world leader in Solar Power.}} As one householder remarked; "I am being paid for living in my house."    According to clause 31 (3) of the Crown Lands Act {on the internet}, cutting rights are issued for two years with extensions of up to 12 months by application.    This amounts to enforced clear cuts. The companies involved have no alternative beyond cutting for maximum immediate profit because there is no future. And to get maximum immediate profit one must clear cut.    An even aged overstocked stand can be a consequence of a previous clear cut, fire, blow down or leaf feeding insect such as Spruce Budworm. But getting back from an even aged stand to an uneven aged stand which is not overstocked is one long expensive uphill slog subject to reversal by wind and drouth. And experience over many decades has rubbed this in.     When I recommend perpetual and marketable cutting rights I do not mean loss of Crown control; *simply providing incentive for sound management to enable maximum profit over the long term while maintaining forest cover and wildlife habitat without interruption. The Austrian system seems ideal under which areas recently cut selectively become parkland and former parkland is opened to selective cutting.*    In such a scheme I see great employment opportunity; e.g. the small is beautiful concept: under which some individual or group could apply for management/extraction rights on a defined plot and feel secure that stand improvements would increase the value of their holding when it reverted to Crown.    This has been an interesting series of exchanges. Some say everything is perfect as it is, no. Some say clear cuts are uncommon;no. Some say the Lahey report has solved everything and is being implemented post haste.....really ?    I have read some of the Lahey Report; good soporific in need of intensive selective cutting. YT, D W, Kentville On 12/11/2019 9:12 PM, Donna Crossland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The idea that forestry issues can be easily 'fixed' by establishing > long-term commitments to forestry companies is over-simplifying an > extremely complex issue. There are many other factors that fall into > the equation, stemming from timber allocations to companies (each of > our political parties had a hand in this) that exceed more wood volume > than what the land can sustainably produce under natural systems, > forestry companies under foreign ownership who may not have the same > allegance to long-term sustainability, favoring quick, short-term > profits and greed-based systems that have over-taken what was once a > more respectable forestry industry, and new biomass forestry that has > quietly overtaken us and showing every indication that biomass demands > will outstrip the historical damage caused by pulp and paper > industries. As we know, the pulp and paper industry did not make much > use of hardwood stands, mostly focused on mining our red spruce > forests, along with other softwoods. But the new focus on biomass can > literally 'vacuum' up nearly anythin; indiscriminate forestry right > down to the bushes if need be. Nearly anything makes a 1 inch chip, > and shortterm profits driven by shareholders will outweigh long term > finacial aspirations unless politicians and long-term agreements say > otherwise. I've seen some landscapes on old Scott Paper lands that > have left me sleepless, the forests annihilated, the land desolate and > shelterless, silent, barren and hot. > > Since NatureNS is a site for naturalists who recognize the > complexities of working with natural systems, many will readily > acknowledge other other key factors of concern. What of the fact that > Crown lands are also to serve a variety of public interests, such as > recreation, tourism, bird watching, hiking, cycling, fishing, hunting, > and ecosystem services? Those lands protect many headwaters of > watersheds such as the LaHave, Annapolis, etc. Forestry companies > tend to regard the land as entirely allocated for forestry with the > exception of protected areas. Ecological forestry would address some > of the opposing perspectives in land uses, but only if we can have > industry adapted to harvesting lower volumes, and weened off even-aged > management systems (including variable retention clearcuts). This > won't be easy. Some companies know they will not endure, so they > won't be interested in investing long-term? Only strong government > over-sight can bring about the changes required, but there are few > indications of this actioned on the ground. > > I believe that we have reached a point that some animals are > struggling to find food as more mature and old growth forest is > removed. Forest-dwelling wildlife food sources such as those for > seed-eaters are removed for decades. Additionally, the cutting of so > much forest, and now particularly our hardwoods, are depleting the > already limited supply of nutrients. Over 50 % of NS has a soil > nutrient depletion issue due to the slow-weathering bedrock and the > non-recovery from wildfires and clearcuts, as well as acid rain (which > is still suffering impacts, by the way, reduced by only ~ 50 %). We > simply cannot carry out the kinds of forestry witnessed elsewhere > without incurring significant damage to the very foundation of forests > (soil). This nutrient depletion extends to lowering the quality of > trout habitat though increased acidification of soils that would > otherwise buffer streams. I have not seen any indication of > 'connecting the dots' between forest health and stream health, despite > extensive forest removal within a watershed being known to exacerbate > water quality. > > As Bev Wigney so eloquently mentioned in her email last week on forest > fragmentation, previously remote areas of forest now have roads > fragmenting them, allowing streams to be fished that were previously > less accessible, promoting deer habitat that might previously have > been moose habitat and allowing hunters to penetrate this habitat to > take down the last mainland moose. An interesting article on forest > fragmentation impacts on wildlife: > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/science/forests-fragmentation-wildlife.html > > The present practices see the roads cut nearly wide enough for a 100 > series highway, seemingly wider when placed in more valuable timber > areas. In any case, they represent a permanent infrastructure and a > permanent loss of forest cover. The more open they become the more > the residual stands are vulnerable to wind throw from high wind > events. If we added up all the area the roads occupy (a worthwhile GIS > exercise), it would total many hectares of permanent forest loss and > reduction of ability of the land to absorb greenhouse gases. An > economic question regarding the proportion of public funds allocated > to the building of these Crown roads would be interesting to > untangle. Still more interesting would be a conversation on how to > restore forest land now riddled with roads, since fewer roads are > required under a true ecological forestry paradigm. The tax payer > would no doubt have to pick up the bill for restoration and rehab, > however. > > I sincerely hope the last vestiages of mature forests in NS will be > regarded for more purposes than just forestry, as our neotropical > migrants and other wildlife species are running out of suitable > breeding habitat. Thresholds are being crossed to the point of no > return. It's forever changed, contrary to the naive slogan - "trees > grow back". Our forests are for the foreseeable future, spanning the > next century and longer, degraded, reduced in biodiversity, > fragmented, and less able to support healthy terrestrial and aquatic > systems. Visiting Global Forest Watch interactive maps in an > interesting venture. Explore the amount of forest cover loss over the > past two decades (yrs 2000-2018):  Global Forest Watch Interactive Map > <https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map?mainMap=eyJzaG93QmFzZW1hcHMiOmZhbHNlfQ%3D%3D&map=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> > > Patience is required with this site. It may take a while to load on > rural 'high speed'. Zoom to Nova Scotia. I suggest removing the box > indicating "Tree cover -2000" on the left side of the page as it seems > to block some detail. You can play with some of the legends, and may > choose a satellite layer underlay from the bottom right side of the > screen. > > The pink patches on the Global Forest Watch maps are mainly the result > of forest activities; from the very forest practitioners who insist > they know how to manage forests better than "amateurs", as recently > referred to in the Herald on Dec 6th. An interesting quote: > "/I//n//dustry harvests less than 60 per cent of sustainable levels in > Nova Scotia. Only 0.78 per cent of Nova Scotia foreste/d /land is > harvested annually. More trees are lost through mortality than > commercially harvested. Clearcutting has been visibly reduced through > interim measures in anticipation of Lahey report implementation. These > are quantifiable facts, not opinions/." After examining Global Forest > Watch where images of Nova Scotia's forest cover loss over the past 19 > years speak louder than words, do you think the pink areas represent ~ > 15 % of Nova Scotia's landbase? (0.78 harvest X 19 years= 14.82 %) > If we subtrated the wetlands and other 'non-forest lands', there is > even less forest cover remaining. > > Adding yet another issue to the already complex equation, our late > successional, mature and old growth forests have additional stressors > besides forestry to hasten their demise under unprecedented human > impacts. There has been substantial blow down this year which took a > toll on particularly large trees, and now invasive pests threaten > hemlock, beech, and ash species. These latest 'signals' have not yet > been fully added to Global Forest Watch images. Global trade and > other human activities are bringing still more Invasive insects in the > future. It will be even more paramount NOT to move untreated wood > products over long distances. We must earnestly do what we can to > protect and carefully manage the remaining intact forests. > > Donna Crossland > > Tupperville, NS > > > On 2019-12-06 6:18 p.m., Bev Wigney wrote: >> David, and all. >> >> I think that with the type of road systems being built throughout the >> Crown land forests -- roads that are better than many county roads -- >> many gravelled and with nice bridges, etc.. and with the forest >> cleared back many metres on each side -- roads that are now like >> arteries burrowing into the most remote of our forests -- the >> clear-cutting we are seeing has nothing to do with "short term >> planning". This has the distinct mark of "playing for keeps". >> >> That the forests are being clear-cut with so little retention, clearly >> points to "someone" creating a tabula rasa upon which to create the >> "high production" forests that are already slated to become one leg of >> the Triad model described in the Lahey report. >> >> What of the rest of the forest? Unfortunately, there's been a lot of >> collateral damage -- the road networks have fragmented huge swaths of >> the forests of this province. If you have not already driven far into >> these mazes, I encourage you to take a trip sometime -- but be sure to >> take along your GPS, compass, etc.. or you may not find your way back >> out as there will be many twists and turns deeper and deeper into the >> land. Along the way, you'll be sure to see plenty of empty space >> where once there were forests. >> >> As for the so-called "ecological forest leg" of the Triad model -- L&F >> had better hurry up and get their promised Forest Management Guides, >> Soil Nutrient Analysis, Biodiversity Plans, etc... together because, >> while we all twiddle out thumbs waiting for these repeatedly delayed >> reports, guidelines, committees, etc.., no one is holding back on >> taking down the forests. However, they don't call it clear-cutting >> these days, but instead, it's "variable retention" -- at best, it's >> 30%, but we're seeing plenty at 10% in the HPMV updates. And as you >> have no doubt heard, Lands & ForestRY made a major "math mistake" that >> would have upped the annual allocation to the Westfor consortium by 28 >> percent. Gee, only a 68,000 tonne overage error, but what's a few >> dozen tonnes overage between friends? >> https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/province-house/bad-math-at-lands-forestry/ >> >> bev >> >> >> On 12/6/19, David Webster<dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: >>> Hi Bev & All, >>> >>> But just keep in mind that the key to better management and higher >>> profits over the long haul is to get cutting rights perpetual instead of >>> within two years. If that can be changed then the rest will follow. One >>> should be careful to not demonize logging or profits. >>> >>> Logging practices will improve if the truth that selective cutting >>> of uneven aged stands increases profit over the long haul can be widely >>> recognized as valid. >>> >>> Under the current system, companies have no incentive to develop >>> uneven aged stands which make periodic selective cutting possible. >>> Starting with the mess which follows a clear cut it takes a huge amount >>> of work and continuity of effort to coax it back to a stand in which all >>> ages are represented. >>> >>> A company can afford this initial investment only if they hold >>> permanent cutting rights. >>> >>> YT, DW, Kentville >>> >>> On 12/6/2019 11:22 AM, Bev Wigney wrote: >>>> Perhaps it would work if those involved had better ethics and were >>>> responsible and actually cared about our forests and weren't just in >>>> it for the bucks and to grab as much of the forest as they possibly >>>> can, using contractors who often don't even reside in this province. >>>> So much for caring about jobs for our own local forestry workers who >>>> can't even get work much of the time because it's all being contracted >>>> out to guys with heavy machinery that can take out a whole forest in a >>>> few days -- it's being done all over the province. So much for the >>>> small mills who don't have any pull and can't get decent saw logs >>>> because they aren't part of the "in crowd". >>>> >>>> This isn't about forest management. This is all about power and >>>> keeping it in the hands of those who already have it. >>>> >>>> What should probably happen is turn all of the Crown land forests over >>>> to regional forestry cooperatives who would make the decisions for >>>> every forest in their territory based on consultation with local >>>> people, First Nations, local mills, etc.. There should be no large >>>> scale consortium or vertically integrated industrial power calling the >>>> shots on anything in this province anymore. They have failed >>>> miserably with their "so-called management". >>>> >>>> bev >>>> >>>> On 12/6/19, David Webster<dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi George & All, >>>>> >>>>> This could take a while. >>>>> >>>>> John is thoroughly convinced that the current harvesting system is >>>>> as perfect as it can possibly be. He does not want to be confused with >>>>> facts. Meanwhile we now know what lies behind this destructive process. >>>>> >>>>> And I hope others will drive in the advantage of perpetual cutting >>>>> rights wedge at any opportunity. >>>>> >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> On 12/4/2019 1:30 PM, George Forsyth wrote: >>>>>> Well done, we look forward to his response. >>>>>> >>>>>> George Forsyth >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/12/2019, David Webster<dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Hon. John Lohr: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have wondered for many years why nearly all Crown Land >>>>>>> cuttings >>>>>>> are clear cuts; and I think I now understand why. I wrote to the DNR >>>>>>> minister Nov. 21 but I expect he has has no time for public input. So >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> am writing you in the hope that some opportunity may arise for you to >>>>>>> personally ask a few pointed questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some weeks ago I noticed a comment on Facebook which implied >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> cutting rights on Crown Land were for one specific harvest as opposed >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> perpetual but marketable rights. A reading of the Crown Land Act >>>>>>> appears >>>>>>> to confirm this; excerpt below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Sale of resources >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 31 (1) The Minister may offer timber or other resources from Crown >>>>>>> lands >>>>>>> for sale by tender, public auction or other means upon such terms as >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> Minister deems expedient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (2) Subsequent to a sale pursuant to subsection (1), the Minister may >>>>>>> issue a licence upon such terms and conditions as the Minister deems >>>>>>> appropriate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (3) No licence issued pursuant to this Section shall be granted for a >>>>>>> longer period than two years or renewed for a longer period than >>>>>>> twelve >>>>>>> months at any one time./R.S., c. 114, s. 31."/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a logging company does not have perpetual cutting rights to >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> given block of woodland then they will have no incentive to manage it >>>>>>> for maximum profit over the long haul and every incentive to aim for >>>>>>> maximum immediate profit which naturally will be to clear cut it. >>>>>>> Consequently, for sound management of Crown Land forests, >>>>>>> Clause >>>>>>> 31(3) should be modified so that cutting rights are perpetual with >>>>>>> provision to sell rights back to Crown if a company closes operations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RATIONALE: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apart from soil degradation, bald spots and erosion which may >>>>>>> follow clear cutting the greatest fault is loss of revenue. The >>>>>>> productivity curve following a typical clear cut is described in Farm >>>>>>> Woodlots in Eastern Canada, E. S. Richards, Ottawa, 120 pp., 1939. on >>>>>>> page 15. After a clear cut it takes 30 years to grow 2 cord of Spruce >>>>>>> and yield in the second 30 years is 42 cord. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The primary advantage of selective cutting, which I have >>>>>>> practiced >>>>>>> for 77 years, is that the slow growth of young trees occurs in the >>>>>>> spaces between larger trees. Consequently, in an uneven aged >>>>>>> selectively cut stand, that initial 30 year period of vanishingly low >>>>>>> yield is eliminated. In addition, clear cuts lead to overstocked >>>>>>> regrowth and a huge non-commercial thinning investment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please note that Richards, in this 1939 publication, advocates >>>>>>> selective cutting. And this was a period where felling options would >>>>>>> have been axe or crosscut saw. Currently, using chainsaws or felling >>>>>>> equipment, selective cutting is far easier than it would have been >>>>>>> prior >>>>>>> to 1939. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yours truly, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David H. Webster, Kentville >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 902-678-7824 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------020FD45946FC45FCAE406A24 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <p>Hi Donna and All,</p> <p>   While it is true that love (and passion) makes the world go round it is also true that profit from primary industries pays ALL of the bills. Profit is not evil and an opportunity for greater profit over the long haul is something that any desk jockey can understand.</p> <p>   In this instance of widespread clear cuts, which I accept as fact, the key question is how to effect change to better practices. And to effect change one must understand the driving forces. If one can appreciate why something happens then a change in this driving force can change the process.</p> <p>   {{And a carrot is very effective. Germany, many decades ago, promised house owners 8% annual income for 20 years on outlays for solar power installations. The uptake was great, and a country with unpromising weather for Solar Power became a world leader in Solar Power.}} As one householder remarked; "I am being paid for living in my house."<br> </p> <p>   According to clause 31 (3) of the Crown Lands Act {on the internet}, cutting rights are issued for two years with extensions of up to 12 months by application. <br> </p> <p>   This amounts to enforced clear cuts. The companies involved have no alternative beyond cutting for maximum immediate profit because there is no future. And to get maximum immediate profit one must clear cut.<br> </p> <p>   An even aged overstocked stand can be a consequence of a previous clear cut, fire, blow down or leaf feeding insect such as Spruce Budworm. But getting back from an even aged stand to an uneven aged stand which is not overstocked is one long expensive uphill slog subject to reversal by wind and drouth. And experience over many decades has rubbed this in.<br> </p> <p>    When I recommend perpetual and marketable cutting rights I do not mean loss of Crown control; <b><font color="#009900">simply providing incentive for sound management to enable maximum profit over the long term while maintaining forest cover and wildlife habitat without interruption. The Austrian system seems ideal under which areas recently cut selectively become parkland and former parkland is opened to selective cutting.</font></b><br> </p> <p>   In such a scheme I see great employment opportunity; e.g. the small is beautiful concept: under which some individual or group could apply for management/extraction rights on a defined plot and feel secure that stand improvements would increase the value of their holding when it reverted to Crown.</p> <p>   This has been an interesting series of exchanges. Some say everything is perfect as it is, no. Some say clear cuts are uncommon;no. Some say the Lahey report has solved everything and is being implemented post haste.....really ? <br> </p> <p>   I have read some of the Lahey Report; good soporific in need of intensive selective cutting. <br> </p> <p>YT, D W, Kentville<br> </p> <p>   <br> </p> <p>   <br> </p> <p>   <br> </p> <p> <br> </p> <p> <br> </p> <p>   <br> </p> <p>   <br> </p> <p> <br> </p> <p>   <br> </p> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/11/2019 9:12 PM, Donna Crossland wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:505c78e6-7035-5a0b-7985-abf8c8d25350@eastlink.ca"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div class="moz-forward-container"> <div class="moz-forward-container"> <table class="moz-email-headers-table" width="6" height="115" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top"><br> </td> <td><br> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><br> </td> <td><br> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><br> </td> <td><br> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><br> </td> <td><br> <br> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> The idea that forestry issues can be easily 'fixed' by establishing long-term commitments to forestry companies is over-simplifying an extremely complex issue. There are many other factors that fall into the equation, stemming from timber allocations to companies (each of our political parties had a hand in this) that exceed more wood volume than what the land can sustainably produce under natural systems, forestry companies under foreign ownership who may not have the same allegance to long-term sustainability, favoring quick, short-term profits and greed-based systems that have over-taken what was once a more respectable forestry industry, and new biomass forestry that has quietly overtaken us and showing every indication that biomass demands will outstrip the historical damage caused by pulp and paper industries. As we know, the pulp and paper industry did not make much use of hardwood stands, mostly focused on mining our red spruce forests, along with other softwoods. But the new focus on biomass can literally 'vacuum' up nearly anythin; indiscriminate forestry right down to the bushes if need be. Nearly anything makes a 1 inch chip, and shortterm profits driven by shareholders will outweigh long term finacial aspirations unless politicians and long-term agreements say otherwise. I've seen some landscapes on old Scott Paper lands that have left me sleepless, the forests annihilated, the land desolate and shelterless, silent, barren and hot.   <br> <p>Since NatureNS is a site for naturalists who recognize the complexities of working with natural systems, many will readily acknowledge other other key factors of concern. What of the fact that Crown lands are also to serve a variety of public interests, such as recreation, tourism, bird watching, hiking, cycling, fishing, hunting, and ecosystem services? Those lands protect many headwaters of watersheds such as the LaHave, Annapolis, etc. Forestry companies tend to regard the land as entirely allocated for forestry with the exception of protected areas. Ecological forestry would address some of the opposing perspectives in land uses, but only if we can have industry adapted to harvesting lower volumes, and weened off even-aged management systems (including variable retention clearcuts). This won't be easy. Some companies know they will not endure, so they won't be interested in investing long-term? Only strong government over-sight can bring about the changes required, but there are few indications of this actioned on the ground.<br> </p> <p>I believe that we have reached a point that some animals are struggling to find food as more mature and old growth forest is removed. Forest-dwelling wildlife food sources such as those for seed-eaters are removed for decades. Additionally, the cutting of so much forest, and now particularly our hardwoods, are depleting the already limited supply of nutrients. Over 50 % of NS has a soil nutrient depletion issue due to the slow-weathering bedrock and the non-recovery from wildfires and clearcuts, as well as acid rain (which is still suffering impacts, by the way, reduced by only ~ 50 %). We simply cannot carry out the kinds of forestry witnessed elsewhere without incurring significant damage to the very foundation of forests (soil). This nutrient depletion extends to lowering the quality of trout habitat though increased acidification of soils that would otherwise buffer streams. I have not seen any indication of 'connecting the dots' between forest health and stream health, despite extensive forest removal within a watershed being known to exacerbate water quality. <br> </p> <p>As Bev Wigney so eloquently mentioned in her email last week on forest fragmentation, previously remote areas of forest now have roads fragmenting them, allowing streams to be fished that were previously less accessible, promoting deer habitat that might previously have been moose habitat and allowing hunters to penetrate this habitat to take down the last mainland moose. An interesting article on forest fragmentation impacts on wildlife: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/science/forests-fragmentation-wildlife.html" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/science/forests-fragmentation-wildlife.html</a></p> <p>The present practices see the roads cut nearly wide enough for a 100 series highway, seemingly wider when placed in more valuable timber areas. In any case, they represent a permanent infrastructure and a permanent loss of forest cover. The more open they become the more the residual stands are vulnerable to wind throw from high wind events. If we added up all the area the roads occupy (a worthwhile GIS exercise), it would total many hectares of permanent forest loss and reduction of ability of the land to absorb greenhouse gases. An economic question regarding the proportion of public funds allocated to the building of these Crown roads would be interesting to untangle. Still more interesting would be a conversation on how to restore forest land now riddled with roads, since fewer roads are required under a true ecological forestry paradigm. The tax payer would no doubt have to pick up the bill for restoration and rehab, however.</p> <p>I sincerely hope the last vestiages of mature forests in NS will be regarded for more purposes than just forestry, as our neotropical migrants and other wildlife species are running out of suitable breeding habitat. Thresholds are being crossed to the point of no return. It's forever changed, contrary to the naive slogan - "trees grow back". Our forests are for the foreseeable future, spanning the next century and longer, degraded, reduced in biodiversity, fragmented, and less able to support healthy terrestrial and aquatic systems. Visiting Global Forest Watch interactive maps in an interesting venture. Explore the amount of forest cover loss over the past two decades (yrs 2000-2018): <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map?mainMap=eyJzaG93QmFzZW1hcHMiOmZhbHNlfQ%3D%3D&map=eyJjZW50ZXIiOnsibGF0Ijo0NC43NzE3NzM4MzQyMDY5MDQsImxuZyI6LTYzLjYxMzI2NjA1OTEyNTY3fSwiem9vbSI6Ny41NDgwNTg5MTY5MTY5NTIsImNhbkJvdW5kIjpmYWxzZSwiZGF0YXNldHMiOlt7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJmZGM4ZGMxYi0yNzI4LTRhNzktYjIzZi1iMDk0ODUwNTJiOGQiLCJsYXllcnMiOlsiNmY2Nzk4ZTYtMzllYy00MTYzLTk3OWUtMTgyYTc0Y2E2NWVlIiwiYzVkMWUwMTAtMzgzYS00NzEzLTlhYWEtNDRmNzI4YzA1NzFjIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6Ijg5N2VjYzc2LTIzMDgtNGM1MS1hZWIzLTQ5NWRlMGJkY2E3OSIsImxheWVycyI6WyJjMzA3NWM1YS01NTY3LTRiMDktYmMwZC05NmVkMTY3M2Y4YjYiXSwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZX0seyJkYXRhc2V0IjoiM2IxMmNjNWYtNGJmOC00ODU3LTkwOWUtYTg3OTExMjViYmYxIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbImZkZmQ0MjZiLTExZDAtNDVmYy05MWY0LTM3MDZlYmIwZTc5OCJdLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlfV0sImJlYXJpbmciOjAsInBpdGNoIjowLCJiYXNlbWFwIjp7InZhbHVlIjoic2F0ZWxsaXRlIn19"> Global Forest Watch Interactive Map</a><br> </p> <p>Patience is required with this site. It may take a while to load on rural 'high speed'. Zoom to Nova Scotia. I suggest removing the box indicating "Tree cover -2000" on the left side of the page as it seems to block some detail. You can play with some of the legends, and may choose a satellite layer underlay from the bottom right side of the screen. <br> </p> <p>The pink patches on the Global Forest Watch maps are mainly the result of forest activities; from the very forest practitioners who insist they know how to manage forests better than "amateurs", as recently referred to in the Herald on Dec 6th. An interesting quote: "<span class="Fid_2"><i> I</i><i>n</i><i>dustry harvests less than 60 per cent of sustainable levels in Nova Scotia. Only 0.78 per cent of Nova Scotia foreste</i>d <i>land is harvested annually. More trees are lost through mortality than commercially harvested. Clearcutting has been visibly reduced through interim measures in anticipation of Lahey report implementation. These are quantifiable facts, not opinions</i>." After examining Global Forest Watch where images of Nova Scotia's forest cover loss over the past 19 years speak louder than words, do you think the pink areas represent ~ 15 % of Nova Scotia's landbase? (0.78 harvest X 19 years= 14.82 %) If we subtrated the wetlands and other 'non-forest lands', there is even less forest cover remaining.</span> </p> <p>Adding yet another issue to the already complex equation, our late successional, mature and old growth forests have additional stressors besides forestry to hasten their demise under unprecedented human impacts. There has been substantial blow down this year which took a toll on particularly large trees, and now invasive pests threaten hemlock, beech, and ash species. These latest 'signals' have not yet been fully added to Global Forest Watch images. Global trade and other human activities are bringing still more Invasive insects in the future. It will be even more paramount NOT to move untreated wood products over long distances. We must earnestly do what we can to protect and carefully manage the remaining intact forests. <br> </p> <p>Donna Crossland</p> <p>Tupperville, NS<br> </p> <p><br> </p> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-12-06 6:18 p.m., Bev Wigney wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAD_MH0Oh=8QjKLQ=G-+6gkdJ-72zeUp6YDkLZTYtuaiauxwt2w@mail.gmail.com"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">David, and all. I think that with the type of road systems being built throughout the Crown land forests -- roads that are better than many county roads -- many gravelled and with nice bridges, etc.. and with the forest cleared back many metres on each side -- roads that are now like arteries burrowing into the most remote of our forests -- the clear-cutting we are seeing has nothing to do with "short term planning". This has the distinct mark of "playing for keeps". That the forests are being clear-cut with so little retention, clearly points to "someone" creating a tabula rasa upon which to create the "high production" forests that are already slated to become one leg of the Triad model described in the Lahey report. What of the rest of the forest? Unfortunately, there's been a lot of collateral damage -- the road networks have fragmented huge swaths of the forests of this province. If you have not already driven far into these mazes, I encourage you to take a trip sometime -- but be sure to take along your GPS, compass, etc.. or you may not find your way back out as there will be many twists and turns deeper and deeper into the land. Along the way, you'll be sure to see plenty of empty space where once there were forests. As for the so-called "ecological forest leg" of the Triad model -- L&F had better hurry up and get their promised Forest Management Guides, Soil Nutrient Analysis, Biodiversity Plans, etc... together because, while we all twiddle out thumbs waiting for these repeatedly delayed reports, guidelines, committees, etc.., no one is holding back on taking down the forests. However, they don't call it clear-cutting these days, but instead, it's "variable retention" -- at best, it's 30%, but we're seeing plenty at 10% in the HPMV updates. And as you have no doubt heard, Lands & ForestRY made a major "math mistake" that would have upped the annual allocation to the Westfor consortium by 28 percent. Gee, only a 68,000 tonne overage error, but what's a few dozen tonnes overage between friends? https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/province-house/bad-math-at-lands-forestry/ bev On 12/6/19, David Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Bev & All, But just keep in mind that the key to better management and higher profits over the long haul is to get cutting rights perpetual instead of within two years. If that can be changed then the rest will follow. One should be careful to not demonize logging or profits. Logging practices will improve if the truth that selective cutting of uneven aged stands increases profit over the long haul can be widely recognized as valid. Under the current system, companies have no incentive to develop uneven aged stands which make periodic selective cutting possible. Starting with the mess which follows a clear cut it takes a huge amount of work and continuity of effort to coax it back to a stand in which all ages are represented. A company can afford this initial investment only if they hold permanent cutting rights. YT, DW, Kentville On 12/6/2019 11:22 AM, Bev Wigney wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Perhaps it would work if those involved had better ethics and were responsible and actually cared about our forests and weren't just in it for the bucks and to grab as much of the forest as they possibly can, using contractors who often don't even reside in this province. So much for caring about jobs for our own local forestry workers who can't even get work much of the time because it's all being contracted out to guys with heavy machinery that can take out a whole forest in a few days -- it's being done all over the province. So much for the small mills who don't have any pull and can't get decent saw logs because they aren't part of the "in crowd". This isn't about forest management. This is all about power and keeping it in the hands of those who already have it. What should probably happen is turn all of the Crown land forests over to regional forestry cooperatives who would make the decisions for every forest in their territory based on consultation with local people, First Nations, local mills, etc.. There should be no large scale consortium or vertically integrated industrial power calling the shots on anything in this province anymore. They have failed miserably with their "so-called management". bev On 12/6/19, David Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi George & All, This could take a while. John is thoroughly convinced that the current harvesting system is as perfect as it can possibly be. He does not want to be confused with facts. Meanwhile we now know what lies behind this destructive process. And I hope others will drive in the advantage of perpetual cutting rights wedge at any opportunity. Dave On 12/4/2019 1:30 PM, George Forsyth wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Well done, we look forward to his response. George Forsyth On 04/12/2019, David Webster <dwebster@glinx.com> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hon. John Lohr: I have wondered for many years why nearly all Crown Land cuttings are clear cuts; and I think I now understand why. I wrote to the DNR minister Nov. 21 but I expect he has has no time for public input. So I am writing you in the hope that some opportunity may arise for you to personally ask a few pointed questions. Some weeks ago I noticed a comment on Facebook which implied that cutting rights on Crown Land were for one specific harvest as opposed to perpetual but marketable rights. A reading of the Crown Land Act appears to confirm this; excerpt below. "Sale of resources 31 (1) The Minister may offer timber or other resources from Crown lands for sale by tender, public auction or other means upon such terms as the Minister deems expedient. (2) Subsequent to a sale pursuant to subsection (1), the Minister may issue a licence upon such terms and conditions as the Minister deems appropriate. (3) No licence issued pursuant to this Section shall be granted for a longer period than two years or renewed for a longer period than twelve months at any one time./R.S., c. 114, s. 31."/ If a logging company does not have perpetual cutting rights to a given block of woodland then they will have no incentive to manage it for maximum profit over the long haul and every incentive to aim for maximum immediate profit which naturally will be to clear cut it. Consequently, for sound management of Crown Land forests, Clause 31(3) should be modified so that cutting rights are perpetual with provision to sell rights back to Crown if a company closes operations. RATIONALE: Apart from soil degradation, bald spots and erosion which may follow clear cutting the greatest fault is loss of revenue. The productivity curve following a typical clear cut is described in Farm Woodlots in Eastern Canada, E. S. Richards, Ottawa, 120 pp., 1939. on page 15. After a clear cut it takes 30 years to grow 2 cord of Spruce and yield in the second 30 years is 42 cord. The primary advantage of selective cutting, which I have practiced for 77 years, is that the slow growth of young trees occurs in the spaces between larger trees. Consequently, in an uneven aged selectively cut stand, that initial 30 year period of vanishingly low yield is eliminated. In addition, clear cuts lead to overstocked regrowth and a huge non-commercial thinning investment. Please note that Richards, in this 1939 publication, advocates selective cutting. And this was a period where felling options would have been axe or crosscut saw. Currently, using chainsaws or felling equipment, selective cutting is far easier than it would have been prior to 1939. Yours truly, David H. Webster, Kentville 902-678-7824 </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </div> </div> </blockquote> </body> </html> --------------020FD45946FC45FCAE406A24--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects