next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------148CDCDC1FC51F1406D179F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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'.Â