BY MAC SQUIRES
AS PRINTED IN THE CHRONICLE JOURNAL, THUNDER BAY , JANUARY 4, 2014
reprinted here by permission of Mac Squires (retired professional forester)
"There is a common belief that clearcut timber harvesting is wrong in the boreal forest. Is it?
The common natural forest pattern found in the boreal forest of Northwestern Ontario is a jigsaw puzzle of tree stands. Pieces of the puzzle are tens of square kilometres of contiguous variable stands of trees all of the same age, often of a single species, and seldom of more than three tree species. I maintain that if we are going to continue living close to, and in that forest and maintain its natural structure and fauna, our choices are limited.
We can allow natural wild-fire to renew the landscape as is has historically done. That would require us to always be ready to move, or concentrate development in natural or man-made safe zones, with massive redesign and relocation of homes and infrastructure, and still occasionally experience massive losses of life and property.
I believe that the only practical alternative to that disturbing scenario is to remain where we are and work with nature. That will require us to prevent and control wild-fires where practically possible, and utilize and renew the forest with methods that approximately maintain a landscape that is similar to that created by wildfire.
I have some questions that I believe we should all ponder with open minds.
Are we blinded by what to us appears ugly, and are some of us abandoning objective reasoning to achieve our own ends? Would we be even less satisfied with the consequences of alternative silvicultural techniques such as selection cutting? Are the things that disturb us most about current harvesting more a result of how we behave when harvesting, than of the silvicultural techniques being used? Are our concerns really supported by the best available current knowledge?
How do the impacts of clearcutting differ from those of wildfire? Are they more or less acceptable? Is one uglier than the other? What would happen to plant communities and wildlife habitat if we ban clearcutting in favour of partial (selection) cutting? Will wildfires burn more intensely in selection harvested stands? If so, what will be the new plant and wildlife succession? What will happen to existing development and homes if we chose wildfire over harvesting? Which will have the greater impact on climate change - selection, clearcutting or no harvesting?
Is our concern about current harvesting techniques distracting us from possibly greater undesirable consequences from its alternatives? I believe it is.
My previous articles have detailed how the variety of trees and some other plants respond to common disturbances, how they interact and follow, or eliminate each other in the natural forest succession. A review of those articles will explain the following.
I believe if we ban clearcut harvesting in Northwestern Ontario, in order to maintain natural forest succession, we will have to allow uncontrolled wildfire across the landscape. I believe that a selection-harvested forest will follow a successional pathway that we will not like. I believe that it will have fewer jack pine, black spruce, trembling aspen and white birch and more balsam fir and white spruce. I believe we can then expect more insect epidemics, tree diseases, wind damage, and unwelcome changes in wildlife species and populations, and be inviting even more intense fires.
I believe that right and wrong are constructs of our human minds, and that nature makes no such distinctions. The forest has evolved with amazing resilience to eventually return to its historic structure. When we recognize that resilience, and accommodate it by utilizing the forest with methods that best enable the continuation of natural trends, we hasten the return to a natural forest structure . I believe that clearcut harvesting is the silvicultural technique that best enables those trends to continue in Northwestern Ontario forests."
No comments:
Post a Comment