The Working Forest Newspaper

Anonymous said on Wed 16th May, 2012 at 15:20:

This report is very narrow in scope and suggests that forest reserves serve no purpose in their natural state of forest succession. What nonsense this is. Any forester knows that these reserves serve a purpose beyond language that implies they should be harvested if they don't meet healthy forest standards. Forest succession is a critical component of healthy ecosystems. Let them be. Companies who enjoyed paying rock bottom stumpage rates for salvage logging and who profited from the MPB should contribute to reforestation as well. Bottom line, the basic premise of the fall down effect coupled with the MPB epidemic has shown to be proof of years of over cutting. These communities will have to face the reality of economic diversification sooner than later, and the sooner the better. Harvesting forest reserves will just add to the depletion of ecosystem capital and it will leave these communities even weaker in their efforts to diversify. The forests in areas not affected by the MPB epidemic do not need to be liquidated to satisfy the unsustainable harvesting supported by large greedy multi-national forest companies and raw log export. Leave them to sustainable harvesters such as community woodlots etc. Where communities see much better stewardship and a higher economic return at the community level. It was interesting to see that small family owned sawmills had no problem staying operational through the recession where huge multi's such as Weyerhauser left communities high and dry. Reform of the tenure system and a re-allocation of resource to smaller operators is essential to stabilize these communities. Cutting down forests (ecosystems) for the purpose of creating electricity on a large scale is un-sustainable and will deplete the soils and damage ecosystems.

Garth Leader said on Mon 14th May, 2012 at 16:28:

Go nuclear now. Don't wait any longer as it takes years to build a nuc but the energy is the cheapest, it's safe and environmentally freindly.

Annonymous said on Mon 14th May, 2012 at 12:48:

Many of the mountain pine beetle killed tree areas were denuded by the beetle. Salvage logging would have little influence..well perhaps in fact have a positive impact because these areas are reforested after logging where as the areas not harvested will not be reforested as well for a much longer time period. I think the harvesting benefits the hydrology profile.

douglas dennis said on Sat 12th May, 2012 at 11:25:

I have spent most of my life, planting trees, managing my woodlots, and taking great pride in my woodlots. It is very depressing to see what is happening to many of our tree species. I am very concerned many landowners will just throw teir hands up and forget about trying to manage their woodlots. Just too many bugs, diseases, polution, global warming to deal with. I try to stay positive, but the reality is " the future of the forest industry does not look good". It seems to me every tree species has some kind of a problem.

anonymous said on Thu 10th May, 2012 at 14:31:

This is a good issue to discuss -- many main stream environmental groups spend considerable time and money "educating" kids from their own perspective -- its time for the Forest industry to step up and provide some balanced education. The Ontario Forestry Association has several wonderful education programs that talk about the importance of the industry as well as the forest. The OFA gets little or no support from industry on those programs -- you can't complain about the messages that urban folks are getting if you don't have a message of your own.

Anon said on Thu 10th May, 2012 at 11:05:

Thanks for your straight-shooter’s response to TD Bank Forest on behalf of the Forest Industry. Good job!

Jeff Muzzi said on Tue 8th May, 2012 at 15:57:

Thanks Phil. If only more folks in the forest industry would cry foul over the misinformation that's so freely propogated by corporate interests...the Coke campaign re: polar bears comes to mind...

Mike O said on Tue 8th May, 2012 at 13:07:

I have taken the time to review the TD Forests website and I am even more convinced that the TD Forests initiative is based on a misunderstanding of forests, forestry and the forest industry. I do not know which forest products companies were consulted, but I do know that no forest professional or company can endorse such misguided and misinformed statements like: “right across the country forest habitats are under huge threat” or that “deforestation is occurring for many reasons – to provide trees to make paper and lumber but also for urban development”. But TD “doesn’t specifically mention the forest industry” Yah, right! Then it is inferred that by reducing paper consumption, some 300,000 trees will be “saved”. This statement makes the incorrect assumption that forests are not renewable and sustainable, which of course they are. IF a key goal of this TD campaign is to “draw attention to the impact of urbanization on the loss of forest cover";then why not get involved in urban forest issues in a positive way? For example, the city of Toronto predicts that by 2017 all of their 860,000 ash trees will be dead due to the Emerald Ash borer. Here is a golden opportunity for TD to walk the talk and make a difference. I was taught that Conservation is defined as: “the wise use of resources” and cutting down trees to make forest products for our daily use, as distasteful as that sounds to the “green generation”, is a wise use of our natural resources. It appears to me that TD Forests is yet another preservation campaign operating under the guise of conservation with obvious unintended consequences.

Rchard Scott said on Tue 8th May, 2012 at 00:19:

"gaining an understanding of the links between the environment and the economy". I suggest trying to support projects industry and environment jointly work on together as a method to encourage mutual contribution to the economy.