Problems with how we log

[Matt L.]

You sure it wasn't pine? Apparently that's all that gets planted.

[50/50]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

You sure it wasn't pine? Apparently that's all that gets planted.

I wonder sometimes how many of us could correctly identify our native trees - shrubs - herbs .

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

You sure it wasn't pine? Apparently that's all that gets planted.

In the area being referred to at the beginning of the thread, yes it is.

In other areas of the province, maybe not.

I know that around Athabasca/Boyle, a lumber company is renting several quarters of land for 30 year terms and they are planting black poplar there.

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by 50/50

I wonder sometimes how many of us could correctly identify our native trees - shrubs - herbs .

Not as many as should be able to I think, from my own observations.

[impatient_hunter]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

I know that around Athabasca/Boyle, a lumber company is renting several quarters of land for 30 year terms and they are planting black poplar there.

That company is Alberta Pacific, and it is only for 20 years. The trees are actually hybrid poplars, that have been bred to be the fastest growing trees that they can get, and for different site conditions. Just from driving highway 2 and 813 around Athabasca you can see several of the plantations.

When people are saying black poplar, do they mean balsam poplar, because black poplar is a european species, and by regulation could not be planted on public lands?

[CBintheNorth]

Originally Posted by impatient_hunter

That company is Alberta Pacific, and it is only for 20 years. The trees are actually hybrid poplars, that have been bred to be the fastest growing trees that they can get, and for different site conditions. Just from driving highway 2 and 813 around Athabasca you can see several of the plantations.

When people are saying black poplar, do they mean balsam poplar, because black poplar is a european species, and by regulation could not be planted on public lands?

Thank you for the info.

The info I was given came from a farmer who was renting out two quarters to this program.

Just goes to show that unless you read the contract for yourself, there could be misinformation.

WAIT A MINUTE..... how do I know where you got your info from? just kidding.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Sure like to know the color of the sky in your world. Your comments are entertaining though if nothing else!

Your smarmy attitude and Huntnut's claim to see many moose and deer in scarified cut blocks are not amusing at all; although you do belong together.

It's no wonder this issue will never improve - those who perpetuate this industrial wreckage think they know everything and have no hesitation being deceptive where necessary.

Personally, I don't give a rat$ a__ whether a tree should be called a "Black Poplar" or a "Blackus Populari".

I know what logging practices were used in the 60-70's. I know how those cutblocks regenerated. I know what they look like now. I know what lived there a few years after cutting and I know what lives there now.

I also know what scarified cut blocks look like when they are done and what they look like for many years afterward. I know what lives there - mice and rabbits. The old wolf/coyote cuts through and you'll see the odd moose walking on a trail that might have been left through the wreckage. Some birds. That's it. It is a gawd-awful tangle of ripped-up stumps and deep holes in the ground. It is almost impassable. It stays like that for many years.

So, when you and your friend claim that scarified cut blocks are habitat for moose, deer and other ungulates, I can only conclude that you are purposely not telling the truth.

[impatient_hunter]

http://www.alpac.ca/index.cfm?id=poplarfarming

Plus i have been out to their mill with the one of my courses at the U of A.

[woods_walker]

I know Rocky 'likes' me posting links, so here is another: http://www.srd.alberta.ca/LandsFores...t-Sep-2012.pdf

There is some information here on the current reforestation status in Alberta. It has some brief information that may give some forum users a little bit better of an understanding of what is happening in the forests. I'm not saying you need to agree with what is stated in the report. With the amount of misinformation (and also some good information) being posted in this thread it might help clarify a few of the things happening in our forests and give some insight into why things are happening the way they are. This is basically a quick "cole's notes". There are people who dedicate a lifetime to these topics.

[score]

From what I have seen over the years, most industry is regulated quite highly. The oil and gas in particular, contrary to what many may think is one of the highest (cost of doing business in the last several years). In my experience, the forestry industry is/has been one of the least regulated of all.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by score

The oil and gas in particular, contrary to what many may think is one of the highest (cost of doing business in the last several years). In my experience, the forestry industry is/has been one of the least regulated of all.

x2

I know contractors who have worked for both O&G and logging companies. When talking about these sorts of issues, two of them have told me bluntly that they'd never get away with the things they do for logging companies if they were, say, building a pipeline.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by score

From what I have seen over the years, most industry is regulated quite highly. The oil and gas in particular, contrary to what many may think is one of the highest (cost of doing business in the last several years). In my experience, the forestry industry is/has been one of the least regulated of all.

If the forest industry was run like oil and gas their wouldn't be a stick left in the province the second lumber prices jumped. By the way the topic is about reforestation not oil and gas.

[Wulfespirit]

I see people representing the all-knowing forestry powers of the government speaking of how wonderfully scientific and effective their reforestation rules and techniques are....

... I have yet to see anyone address the OPs point.... and my own.. that I have witnessed with my own eyes over and over again.

That is... cutblocks where mature poplar were harvested... 5, 10, 20 years later.. being covered with (probably somewhat aleopathic) conifers that don't provide anywhere near the same quality of wildlife habitat that the logged forest did.

[score]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

x2

I know contractors who have worked for both O&G and logging companies. When talking about these sorts of issues, two of them have told me bluntly that they'd never get away with the things they do for logging companies if they were, say, building a pipeline.

They are absolutely 1000% correct. There ARE virtually no restrictions in forestry. I have been involved very closely and seen numerous times where oil and gas companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on preliminary studies before and after route selection, only to decide to relocate that route and do it all over again or cancel a project. There is no comparison at all. The impact on the environment in reality from oil and gas exploration and development is very, very low. Reclamation is very, very high. Neither exist in forestry as it is now. Believe it or not. boooooooooooooo. RIPLEY'S. HALLOWEEN.

[score]

Originally Posted by Wulfespirit

I see people representing the all-knowing forestry powers of the government speaking of how wonderfully scientific and effective their reforestation rules and techniques are....

... I have yet to see anyone address the OPs point.... and my own.. that I have witnessed with my own eyes over and over again.

That is... cutblocks where mature poplar were harvested... 5, 10, 20 years later.. being covered with (probably somewhat aleopathic) conifers that don't provide anywhere near the same quality of wildlife habitat that the logged forest did.

Two sort of quick answers to this. One. Dollars. Conifers are cheap and easy to transplant. I have seen choppers just dump their slings of seedlings when no longer needed and found many in the forest. It is a cover crop until nature recovers on it's own. Typically invasive species take over before that happens. Two. Cutblocks are done away from the prying eyes of hiways. The public does not go there. They don't care about wildlife if there is no regulation that requires them to. It is the bottom line. Would it cost us more for lumber? Yes. At first.

[score]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

If the forest industry was run like oil and gas their wouldn't be a stick left in the province the second lumber prices jumped. By the way the topic is about reforestation not oil and gas.

Do you have any sort of proof to back up a statement like that or is it your opinion which is fine? Industry, in the wilds concerning wildlife is all of it.

[Teapot]

Logging is political. For the sale of a few thousand jobs forests as large as some European nations would be clear cut, at least here in Ontario.
Alternatives are there such as Hemp. I am no Hippy but rather an ex soldier so I am a bit right leaning. Nevertheless when it comes to endangering the boat we all live on I will not support any party or group who is intent or destroying this for the benefit of a very few for a very short time.
Hemp uses 90% fewer resources to grow and harvest and therefore fewer people and companies are required to get involved and earn money from it. But it would help our society and environment. Logging trees at the rate we do is no longer necessary.

Advocating for the continued large scale logging of trees is like advocating we continue harvesting whales for heating oil and women's corsets.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by score

Do you have any sort of proof to back up a statement like that or is it your opinion which is fine? Industry, in the wilds concerning wildlife is all of it.

I lived it , watched the gas boom from 2004 until the prices dropped in the Grande Cache area.Now I know how Charlie felt in Nam while trying to hunt for a few falls. I personally seen an improvement with hunting in the area with the increase in logging and seen it go to ***** when oil gas came in. By the way WTF does this have to do with reforestation practices in the Kakwa country.

[score]

Originally Posted by Teapot

Logging is political. For the sale of a few thousand jobs forests as large as some European nations would be clear cut, at least here in Ontario.
Alternatives are there such as Hemp. I am no Hippy but rather an ex soldier so I am a bit right leaning. Nevertheless when it comes to endangering the boat we all live on I will not support any party or group who is intent or destroying this for the benefit of a very few for a very short time.
Hemp uses 90% fewer resources to grow and harvest and therefore fewer people and companies are required to get involved and earn money from it. But it would help our society and environment. Logging trees at the rate we do is no longer necessary.

Advocating for the continued large scale logging of trees is like advocating we continue harvesting whales for heating oil and women's corsets.

It is all political in a sense. I can see what you are saying. I have seen huge change in my lifetime and I have children that I worry about their future. The reality is that we have the technology and alternatives that could be employed to replace fossil fuels. Pipe dream. The world is run by fossil fuels. Take them out of the equation? Think about the ramifications. Same with lumber. Sure. But it just doesn't work. Lots of things would be nice. I'm not down on the lumber industry, but it could be done in a better way. Should be. Oil and gas are obvious to everyone. Logging, 99% of the public has never even seen a cutblock. It does come down to different company practises too. Some do better reclamation than others on their own. The govt. several years ago stepped back from oil and gas and went to a more self-regulated approach. The world did not end and the environment from it is in most cases supporting more wildlife now than it did. Self-reg for the lumber industry has not worked as well. We need resources. Come up with a plan that is viable and sustainable and in time it might come to be. Who knows, it may have to.

[score]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

I lived it , watched the gas boom from 2004 until the prices dropped in the Grande Cache area.Now I know how Charlie felt in Nam while trying to hunt for a few falls. I personally seen an improvement with hunting in the area with the increase in logging and seen it go to ***** when oil gas came in. By the way WTF does this have to do with reforestation practices in the Kakwa country.

That has not been my experience. I lived it too.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by 50/50

I wonder sometimes how many of us could correctly identify our native trees - shrubs - herbs .

I may be one of the exceptions. As part of my training I had to be able to identify all the large trees common in the Boreal Forest and and age the conifers.
I even had to learn their Latin names. Now all I can remember is the Latin names for our two Poplar species.

Like some others, I am also concerned about the single species nature of reforestation. In our area that means White Spruce. I've been told that further west it is Lodgepole Pine.

I have seen for myself the results on the animal populations logging and reforestation has. One of the most devastating things for a trapper to encounter is logging on his trapline, at least in this area that is the case.

It is true that some animals do utilize cutblocks. Moose and Varying Hare in particular. Other species such as Fisher and Marten seem to avoid those cutblocks.

Over time I'm sure that would change to favour other species as the stand matures. However, mixed forest has always been the best producer for a trapper.

I believe that indicates that mixed forest holds a wider range of species and in higher concentrations then any single species forest would.

In my experience, even a Black Spruce swamp holds more verity and numbers then a reforested area.

Then there is the matter of scarifying. The Martini Plow, The Vinge Plow, the Seaman Tiller, Rippers and mounders, all leave a mess so far as I'm concerned..
I was part of the team that helped evaluate Tim's plow. It was very effective at promoting seedling growth but it left a horrendous mess.

I know all too well how difficult it is to travel through a cutblock that has been scarified. I did it for a living for a couple of years. It tough sledding.
I don't imagine it's much of a hindrance to most animals, never-the-less I expect most species would find it at least a bit difficult.

I am more concerned with how it alters the natural environment and the potential for erosion that it presents.

I agree, scarifying and tree reforestation pretty much turns crown land into a private tree farm, environmentally.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by score

That has not been my experience. I lived it too.

x2

in spades.

The only "rip and tear" industry we have is logging.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by score

They are absolutely 1000% correct. There ARE virtually no restrictions in forestry. I have been involved very closely and seen numerous times where oil and gas companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on preliminary studies before and after route selection, only to decide to relocate that route and do it all over again or cancel a project. There is no comparison at all. The impact on the environment in reality from oil and gas exploration and development is very, very low. Reclamation is very, very high. Neither exist in forestry as it is now. Believe it or not. boooooooooooooo. RIPLEY'S. HALLOWEEN.

LMAO! Funniest post of the new millenium. Wow I cannot believe someone actually could write something so misinformed and unfactual.

You and Rocky7 related? Wow I am in total disbelief here.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

x2

in spades.

The only "rip and tear" industry we have is logging.

Rocky7 you never disappoint me with your comments. Always good for a laugh.

Sort of like blaming Redford for the big severance payments to exiting Tory politicians when it was your hero Ralphie who brought them in.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

x2

in spades.

The only "rip and tear" industry we have is logging.

Maybe go for a flight over the oilsands and then comeback and discuss rip and tear or maybe the open pit mine at Keephills.

Wow I am still chuckling here. LOL

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I may be one of the exceptions. As part of my training I had to be able to identify all the large trees common in the Boreal Forest and and age the conifers.
I even had to learn their Latin names. Now all I can remember is the Latin names for our two Poplar species.

Like some others, I am also concerned about the single species nature of reforestation. In our area that means White Spruce. I've been told that further west it is Lodgepole Pine.

I have seen for myself the results on the animal populations logging and reforestation has. One of the most devastating things for a trapper to encounter is logging on his trapline, at least in this area that is the case.

It is true that some animals do utilize cutblocks. Moose and Varying Hare in particular. Other species such as Fisher and Marten seem to avoid those cutblocks.

Over time I'm sure that would change to favour other species as the stand matures. However, mixed forest has always been the best producer for a trapper.

I believe that indicates that mixed forest holds a wider range of species and in higher concentrations then any single species forest would.

In my experience, even a Black Spruce swamp holds more verity and numbers then a reforested area.

Then there is the matter of scarifying. The Martini Plow, The Vinge Plow, the Seaman Tiller, Rippers and mounders, all leave a mess so far as I'm concerned..
I was part of the team that helped evaluate Tim's plow. It was very effective at promoting seedling growth but it left a horrendous mess.

I know all too well how difficult it is to travel through a cutblock that has been scarified. I did it for a living for a couple of years. It tough sledding.
I don't imagine it's much of a hindrance to most animals, never-the-less I expect most species would find it at least a bit difficult.

I am more concerned with how it alters the natural environment and the potential for erosion that it presents.

I agree, scarifying and tree reforestation pretty much turns crown land into a private tree farm, environmentally.

Yah you really have to feel for the trappers as they take the biggest hit from industry. The small critters and fish (soil erosion) take the biggest hits from clear cutting. Still it's better than not having fire suppression and letting things burn naturally.

[score]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

Yah you really have to feel for the trappers as they take the biggest hit from industry. The small critters and fish (soil erosion) take the biggest hits from clear cutting. Still it's better than not having fire suppression and letting things burn naturally.

This is very true Dark Wing. Oil and gas (bear with me here),oil and gas, have a tremendous amount of regulatory restrictions that must be followed. Often, logging happens in areas of, sometimes glacial till, but mostly just thin top soils. Logging activity strips these soils. Pine is most often used in an attempt to stabilize and help prevent erosion until natural succession can take over. This doesn't happen that often. Anyway, erosion is one of the biggest problems in areas of slope. More evidence of the lack of regs. is like you alude to. Water, primarily flowing. There are no 'buffer zones' in logging like in oil and gas. Logging takes place right up to and across streams ( yes pipelines cross water, but mostly via directional drilling under and is regulated by Federal not provincial agencies). Alot of the ways that forestry attempts to address erosion is cost effective but doesn't work. If properly done, an area that has been logged could be an Eden to wildlife in short order like mimicking a fire. Are people prepared to pay a bit more for wood like gas? I don't know. Do we look at it as our part in obtaining resources we cannot do without and supporting the environment???

[braggadoe]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

x2

in spades.

The only "rip and tear" industry we have is logging.

and that's better than "strip and ship"?

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by score

This is very true Dark Wing. Oil and gas (bear with me here),oil and gas, have a tremendous amount of regulatory restrictions that must be followed. Often, logging happens in areas of, sometimes glacial till, but mostly just thin top soils. Logging activity strips these soils. Pine is most often used in an attempt to stabilize and help prevent erosion until natural succession can take over. This doesn't happen that often. Anyway, erosion is one of the biggest problems in areas of slope. More evidence of the lack of regs. is like you alude to. Water, primarily flowing. There are no 'buffer zones' in logging like in oil and gas. Logging takes place right up to and across streams ( yes pipelines cross water, but mostly via directional drilling under and is regulated by Federal not provincial agencies). Alot of the ways that forestry attempts to address erosion is cost effective but doesn't work. If properly done, an area that has been logged could be an Eden to wildlife in short order like mimicking a fire. Are people prepared to pay a bit more for wood like gas? I don't know. Do we look at it as our part in obtaining resources we cannot do without and supporting the environment???

Care to jump in on this one JohninAB. I really don't have the patience to try explain that the same govt. that regulates oil and gas regulates logging practices as well

[dantonsen]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

Nobody ever said we don't need wood products. The complaint actually was about what we put back after we harvest, not the harvesting.

And no one has picked on the oil and gas sector because as relative as it is,that's a topic for a different thread if you don't mind...

hmmm, it is actually fairly relevant look at europe... They depend on replanted trees for fiber, may aswell make them the most productive ones as possible for each area.

Bigger trees=logging less trees.... A pulp mill will gobble the same tonnes a day and it doesn't matter whether it's 20 acres of small trees or 10 acres of nice fat pumpkins.


Forestry practices have come a VERY long way.... 30 years ago you could just log like theres no tommorow, now they log it and plant it like they will need it in the future