Problems with how we log

[woods_walker]

score, the majority of the public and the government must have seen some issues with oil and gas only putting agronomic vegetation species on their sites and calling it 'reclaimed'. Changes from 2010 sees some changes to how reclamation will be done. "The new standards align with ecological management goals, requiring oil and gas companies to return abandoned well sites, access roads and feeder pipelines to an ecosystem of equivalent capability. This means that all remediation and reclamation efforts recreate natural processes in order to return the site to its original forest cover". (source : http://www.nait.ca/70700.htm ) You are likely aware of these changes though given your experience in all processes of the oil and gas sector regulatory process. Others on the forum likely are not.

Another good read is the 2010 reclamation criteria for wellsites and associated facilities on forested lands: http://environment.alberta.ca/docume...sted-Lands.pdf

It appears pretty clear that how it was done in the past for oil and gas is no longer an acceptable reclaim standard. I'm not disagreeing that a good patch of clover along an entire right of way or used to quickly stabilize a slope doesn't make good foraging opportunity for wildlife. What should be humbling (or with many of the posters in this thread 'scary' ) is that many of the techniques that will be used in this reclamation are currently in use in the forest industry and that a high percentage of cases, forestry professionals are being asked for their expertise and experience to help meet these new standards of reclaim. The others, they seem to think that a tree that requires a full growing season based on physiological requirements will do just fine being planted in late August or September because that fits their holiday schedule better.

My apologies for taking this thread way off the original topic, but that seems to be where the thread went anyways.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by woods_walker

score, the majority of the public and the government must have seen some issues with oil and gas only putting agronomic vegetation species on their sites and calling it 'reclaimed'. Changes from 2010 sees some changes to how reclamation will be done. "The new standards align with ecological management goals, requiring oil and gas companies to return abandoned well sites, access roads and feeder pipelines to an ecosystem of equivalent capability. This means that all remediation and reclamation efforts recreate natural processes in order to return the site to its original forest cover". (source : http://www.nait.ca/70700.htm ) You are likely aware of these changes though given your experience in all processes of the oil and gas sector regulatory process. Others on the forum likely are not.

Another good read is the 2010 reclamation criteria for wellsites and associated facilities on forested lands: http://environment.alberta.ca/docume...sted-Lands.pdf

It appears pretty clear that how it was done in the past for oil and gas is no longer an acceptable reclaim standard. I'm not disagreeing that a good patch of clover along an entire right of way or used to quickly stabilize a slope doesn't make good foraging opportunity for wildlife. What should be humbling (or with many of the posters in this thread 'scary' ) is that many of the techniques that will be used in this reclamation are currently in use in the forest industry and that a high percentage of cases, forestry professionals are being asked for their expertise and experience to help meet these new standards of reclaim. The others, they seem to think that a tree that requires a full growing season based on physiological requirements will do just fine being planted in late August or September because that fits their holiday schedule better.

My apologies for taking this thread way off the original topic, but that seems to be where the thread went anyways.

LOL , it's nice to see that O&G is finally catching up to industry standards in the reclamation department. Thanks for all the informative posts guys. I've learned a lot from this thread.

[score]

Look. To make this as clear as I can and then hopefully put this to rest. You all know that I am no tree hugger. We need resources. We need the economics. O/G is not perfect but 'in my experience' CO's of O/G long ago recognized that doing things that align with public perception was the best approach. Like I mentioned, reg bodies sort of stepped back to a more self regulated way of dealing with industry and it has worked. Have there been some issues? Yes. Is there a spill or line erosion? Yes. However, overall the O/G sector has come a long way and yes so much money is being spent to do the right things it makes me wonder how fuel prices aren't even higher than they are. They are doing great business and making great profits. I have no hate on for forestry. I like wood. However, there will always be those that for whatever reason are anti O/G no matter what. Now, I can only state my opinion based on what I have seen. It is free of prejudice. To me and as others have stated, it is not so much the regs in place, but the on ground practises. If the regs are indeed in place (and I'm still not convinced that they are near the regs imposed on O/G), they don't appear to be devised to reclaming sites for anything but future forestry utilization. I think the issue may lie in appearances as was the original reason for the thread. Blocks are unsightly and do not appear to be condusive to supporting wildlife. This is not opinion. It is fact. I tend to agree that areas logged are lost, only to be reused to grow trees, hence the tree farm perception. Others have said that to be the case in their experience as well. So, it seems that those that work in forestry have lined up here against those that don't. I don't think that should be the stance here. I will say that I have seen some blocks that do seem to support a diversity of wildlife but for the most part not. This is a huge discussion when comparing the two sectors. It seems to me and those that venture into the woods that there is a concern regarding what is left after logging operations. I believe that concern is not ficticious. There seems to be a disconnect between what the loggers are saying and what hunters are reporting. There must be a reason for this.

[score]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

LOL , it's nice to see that O&G is finally catching up to industry standards in the reclamation department. Thanks for all the informative posts guys. I've learned a lot from this thread.

It seems that you like that LOL thing Dark Wing. Is there something funny about people's concern for the wilds to you? Learning something is best done free of preconceived notions of bias. I think you would argue against O/G no matter what. Open minds work and counter that problem. I just think based on your comments that it is bias that drives your thoughts rather than knowledge.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by score

It seems that you like that LOL thing Dark Wing. Is there something funny about people's concern for the wilds to you? Learning something is best done free of preconceived notions of bias. I think you would argue against O/G no matter what. Open minds work and counter that problem. I just think based on your comments that it is bias that drives your thoughts rather than knowledge.

Please, please re-read this thread and try a learn something from it. No matter what the industry the users need to be responsible. Would you like to see the forests to regenerate naturally like this ?



Or maybe harvest and replant it.

[score]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

Please, please re-read this thread and try a learn something from it. No matter what the industry the users need to be responsible. Would you like to see the forests to regenerate naturally like this ?



Or maybe harvest and replant it.

Sir. You mentioned previously something to the negative effect of fire. Surely you know that fire is a good thing. Or, were you referring to the loss of timber? I thought fire was good but I guess I'm wrong. And please don't reply with the loss of homes and lives, for that is not at all what I mean.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by score

Sir. You mentioned previously something to the negative effect of fire. Surely you know that fire is a good thing. Or, were you referring to the loss of timber? I thought fire was good but I guess I'm wrong. And please don't reply with the loss of homes and lives, for that is not at all what I mean.

It's the way that pine naturally regenerates............ heat plus cones but of course you knew that. Please explain to me why forestry has practiced fire suppresion for the last roughly 100 years. Oh and by the way were still waiting for your answere from post # 109.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

It's the way that pine naturally regenerates............ heat plus cones but of course you knew that. Please explain to me why forestry has practiced fire suppresion for the last roughly 100 years. Oh and by the way were still waiting for your answere from post # 109.

Mostly because of peoples fear of fire. Ever since and before Smokey the Bear came along fire has been seen as something very terrible. It will take years to change the publics perception that fires need to be put out at all costs no matter whats burning or where the fire is.

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Mostly because of peoples fear of fire. Ever since and before Smokey the Bear came along fire has been seen as something very terrible. It will take years to change the publics perception that fires need to be put out at all costs no matter whats burning or where the fire is.

They let a lot of fires burn nowadays. Ones they mainly suppress are those that threaten people, whether homes or industry and with all the O&G out there, very few fires don't threaten it. If the gov could let all fires go I suspect they would, it costs a helluva lot to fight them.

[50/50]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

Ok, maybe not how we log but how we re-forest.

This year we made our bi-annual trip to our hunting area south of Grande Praire and were astounded by the amount of clear cutting going on.
I had the brief though that "at least the re-plant the trees". But then I realised as I looked around that all they plant is pine up there....

Yes i know they plant what is valuable to them but those forests use to be poplar and willow and spruce and alder and....you get the point. That forest that was there had undergrowth that supported life and sheltered animals of all kinds. Nothing grows under a pine tree.

How are logging companies allowed to harvest a mixed forest and then keep it forever as their own personal garden? They get away from the media pressure because they are seemingly doing something good but what about the wildlife, where does it go?

In the simplest terms I can put it:

In order to balance the areas logged (coniferous vs deciduous) the companys involved are allowed to switch some hactares from a poplar landbase to a spruce landbase(or vice versa).

You may have come across one of those cutblocks where pine was planted in an aspen cutover in order to account for the incidental volume of conifer cut in aspen cutblocks .

It has nothing to do with the loggers ; its the Fma holders responsibility.

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Leave the Freakin' Stumps in the Ground!

I realized today that most blocks do have the stumps left intact. 54% of albertas annual allowable cut is softwood SPF which needs to be replanted. In some of those cases they are trenched, mini mounded, brackie ...... Scarified where the stumps are damaged. Most pine blocks only require chain drags to spread the cones and expose them to the sun. The other 46% of aac is from hardwood blocks and they don't need any scarification so the stumps are left. I would estimate that 60-70 percent of blocks have the stumps left where they are. Just in case someone had the impression that all blocks have crazy awful trenching, reality is less then half of all cutblocks have some kind of trenching.

Nobody wants to spend money busting stumps for no reason, it's only to allow for plantable spots in areas that require it.