: [NatureNS] Crown Land Clear Cuts

Received-SPF: pass (kirk.authcom.com: authenticated connection) receiver=kirk.authcom.com; client-ip=45.2.193.48; helo=[192.168.0.103]; envelope-from=dwebster@glinx.com; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=glinx.com;
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
References: <2b087eaf-1b03-20cf-5398-6b87c15ebf28@eastlink.ca>
From: David Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 11:00:03 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

rural 'high speed'.Â
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=eyJjZW50ZXIiOnsibGF0Ijo0NC43NzE3NzM4MzQyMDY5MDQsImxuZyI6LTYzLjYxMzI2NjA1OTEyNTY3fSwiem9vbSI6Ny41NDgwNTg5MTY5MTY5NTIsImNhbkJvdW5kIjpmYWxzZSwiZGF0YXNldHMiOlt7ImRhdGFzZXQiOiJmZGM4ZGMxYi0yNzI4LTRhNzktYjIzZi1iMDk0ODUwNTJiOGQiLCJsYXllcnMiOlsiNmY2Nzk4ZTYtMzllYy00MTYzLTk3OWUtMTgyYTc0Y2E2NWVlIiwiYzVkMWUwMTAtMzgzYS00NzEzLTlhYWEtNDRmNzI4YzA1NzFjIl0sIm9wYWNpdHkiOjEsInZpc2liaWxpdHkiOnRydWV9LHsiZGF0YXNldCI6Ijg5N2VjYzc2LTIzMDgtNGM1MS1hZWIzLTQ5NWRlMGJkY2E3OSIsImxheWVycyI6WyJjMzA3NWM1YS01NTY3LTRiMDktYmMwZC05NmVkMTY3M2Y4YjYiXSwib3BhY2l0eSI6MSwidmlzaWJpbGl0eSI6dHJ1ZX0seyJkYXRhc2V0IjoiM2IxMmNjNWYtNGJmOC00ODU3LTkwOWUtYTg3OTExMjViYmYxIiwibGF5ZXJzIjpbImZkZmQ0MjZiLTExZDAtNDVmYy05MWY0LTM3MDZlYmIwZTc5OCJdLCJvcGFjaXR5IjoxLCJ2aXNpYmlsaXR5Ijp0cnVlfV0sImJlYXJpbmciOjAsInBpdGNoIjowLCJiYXNlbWFwIjp7InZhbHVlIjoic2F0ZWxsaXRlIn19>
>
> 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&amp;map=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"> 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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