Problems with how we log

[score]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

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

You know what. I would like to think that if I am wrong or misinformed, or learn something on here, I admit it. I also try to do so without trying to be rude and by respecting others ways of seeing things. If you have knowledge about this, other than "living through it" (I assume this means through your eyes rather than actual in the field experience), lets hear it. I am open. ALL water is regulated by Federal oceans and fisheries!!! Other regs are provincial. I don't care if it is O/G or forestry. If I am wrong, show me. I will admit it and post one of those love kissy thingys.

[Kev]

I will just jump back to the OP question...companies are required to reforest the species groups harvested (conifer or deciduous). The site conditions are what drives if pine or spruce are planted back. If it was spruce, and they planted pine, don't worry about it. If pine didn't grow there naturally, they won't survive long.

[woods_walker]

Kev: The site conditions are what drives if pine or spruce are planted back. If it was spruce, and they planted pine, don't worry about it. If pine didn't grow there naturally, they won't survive long.

That would be irresponsible for a silviculture forester to do such a thing. I would be worried if they were planting pine where they knew they would be out competed on a spruce site. It is far easier and cheaper for a company to plant a tree properly the first time, especially the right species.

In regards to the original post, the lack of deciduous that you see is a direct reflection of a provincial reforestation standard that was in place that didn't allow for competing vegetation around a conifer seedling for a free to grow standard. This was the standard of the day for areas that would have 15 foot regeneration today. The new ARS (alternative regeneration standards) removes this competition free cylinder around a conifer tree and allows for competition in the block. Regenerating forests must still meet standards for establishment and performance. Until forest companies found a way to utilize deciduous species in the past 20 years for consumer consumption it was thought to be a weed, do everything you could to get rid of it. That is why a lot of the regenerating cutblocks you see do not have very much deciduous in them.

[woods_walker]

score: You know what. I would like to think that if I am wrong or misinformed, or learn something on here, I admit it. I also try to do so without trying to be rude and by respecting others ways of seeing things. If you have knowledge about this, other than "living through it" (I assume this means through your eyes rather than actual in the field experience), lets hear it. I am open. ALL water is regulated by Federal oceans and fisheries!!! Other regs are provincial. I don't care if it is O/G or forestry. If I am wrong, show me. I will admit it and post one of those love kissy thingys.

For working 15 years in an 'unregulated' industry, could you please tell forestry professional's employers, and the professional colleges that regulate forest professionals (much like engineers, nurses, doctors, biologists, etc) that it is no longer necessary to stay on top of changes to and abide by a few of the acts, regulations and policies listed below:

Forests Act (F-22, RSA 2000)
Timber Management Regulation (AR 60/73) (Forests Act)
Forest Recreation Regulation (AR 343/79) (Forests Act)
Regulated Forestry Profession Act (R-13, RSA 2000)
Registered Professional Foresters Regulation (AR 75/2002) (Regulated Forestry Profession Act)
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (E-12, RSA 2000)
Forest Resources Improvement Regulation (AR 152/97) (Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act)
Public Lands Act (P-40, RSA 2000)
Dispositions and Fees Regulation (AR 54/2000) (Public Lands Act)
Recreational Access Regulation (Public Lands Act)
Water Act (W-3, RSA 2000)
Water (Ministerial) Regulation (AR 205/98) (Water Act)
Fisheries Act (Federal) (R.S., 1985 c.F-14, s.1)
Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (Water Act and Water (Ministerial) Regulation)
Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules
Navigable Waters Protection Act (R.S., 1985 c.N-19, s.1)
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992, c.37)
Forest Management Division Directives
Alberta Forest Management Planning Standard (2006)
Forest Reserves Act (F-20, RSA 2000)
The Forest Reserves Regulation (AR 42/2005) (Forest Reserves Act)
Forest and Prairie Protection Act (F-19, RSA 2000)
Forest and Prairie Protection Regulations (Part I) (AR 135/72) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Forest and Prairie Protection Regulations (Part II) (AR 310/72) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Historical Resources Act (H-9, RSA 2000)
Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994, c.22 [M-7.01]) and Regulations
Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Federal) (2002, c.29)
Alberta Transportation Fish Habitat Manual
Alberta Regeneration Survey Manual
Forest Management Herbicide Reference Manual
Strategy for Ground Rules Renewal (2000)
Natural Resource Transfer Agreement (1930, c.3) and Alberta Act (1905)
Timber Quota Policy
Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules Framework for Renewal (2008)
Mountain Pine Beetle Management Strategy (2007)
Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan For Alberta (2006)
Alberta Land Stewardship Act
First Nations Consultation Policy
Caribou Protection Plan
Enhanced Approval Process (EAP) Manual
Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat
Eastern Slopes Policy (Revised 1984)
Alberta Phase 3 Forest Inventory - An Overview & Cover Type Specifications
Alberta Vegetation Inventory Standards Manual (Version 2.1.1)
Natural Resources Conservation Board Act (N-3, RSA 2000)
Exploration Regulation (AR 214/98) (Part 8 of the Mines and Minerals Act (M-17, RSA 2000)
Classes of Protected Areas Under the Special Places Program
Provincial Parks Act (P-35, RSA 2000)
Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act (W-9, RSA 2000)
Scaling Regulation (AR 195/2002) (Forests Act)
Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta (FRIAA) - Forest Resource Improvement Program (FRIP)
Environmental Assessment (Mandatory & Exempted Activities) Regulation (AR 111/93) [Alberta Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act]
Pesticide Sales, Handling, Use and Application Regulation (AR 24/97) [Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act]
Conservation and Reclamation Regulation (AR 115/93) (Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act)
Environmental Assessment Regulation (AR 112/93) (Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act)
Alberta Forest Genetic Resource Management and Conservation Standards (FGRMS) Manuals
Alternative Regeneration Standards
Ground Rules Addendum - Mountain Pine Beetle Operating Ground Rules Templates (2006)
Planning Mountain Pine Beetle Response Operations 2007 (Interpretive Bulletin)
Planning Standard Supplement: Partial Harvest (Non-clearcut) Planning and Monitoring Guidelines (2006)
CSA Z809-02 Sustainable Forest Management: Requirements and Guidance
Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Management Responsibilities (2007)
Debris Mangement Directive for Timber Harvest Operations
Mountain Pine Beetle Log Management: Directive 2010-01
Registered Professional Forest Technologists Regulation (AR 76/2002) (Regulated Forestry Profession Act)
Fire Control Zone Regulation (AR 29/2005) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Forest Protection Area Regulation (AR 149/99) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Municipal Government Act (M-26, RSA 2006)
Wildlife Act (W-10, RSA 2000)
Timber Regulation (AR 404/92) (Forests Act)
Willmore Wilderness Park Act (W-11, RSA 2000)
Forest Land Use And Management Regulations (AR 197/76) (Forests Act)
Spruce Budworm Management Strategy (2002)
Weed Management in Forestry Operations (Directive)
Pesticide, Bark Beetle Pheromone and Biological Control Use Guidelines for Forest Pest Management
Importation of Coniferous Logs and Forest Products with Bark Attached (Directive)
Variable retention: maintaining biodiversity through planning and operational practices
Variable retention forest harvesting: Research synthesis and implementation guidelines
Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems

[Forest Techer]

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?

1. There would be volume info for what was harvested off that block and you can see exactly what was taken then compare that to what you see.

2. It is law that you have to replace the same tree species as you took, can vary some but there can be no net loss. Can't harvest 50ha of pine and 20ha of sw then reforest to 50ha sw and 20ha pine. Also you can't plant non-native species. The seeds used to grow the seedlings were taken from the same geographic area. Can't plant pole haven pine in twin lakes.

3. All scarification was not created equal. Some is more annoying and obtrusive to man and animal then others but the idea is to maintain the productivity of the landbase.

4. If you do not maintain similar productivity on the landbase you will loose that amount in your allowable cut. So if you harvest 10 blocks every year and 1/2 don't grow back you just lost half your cut.

5. Browsing damage in Cut blocks by moose has been on regen tally sheets for decades as it is a common set back to reforestation recorded in softwood and hardwood blocks.

6. Softwoods like pine but especially spruce is 10x more expensive and difficult to replace on sites. The real problem in this province is the opposite, hardwoods establishing on sites that were predominantly softwood when harvested. Companies spend millions to fight this. It really isn't a big deal because that's naturally the way succession in a forest is supposed to take place. After a disturbance you get your pioneer species like pine and aspen and as they become overmature and the canopy begins to open your spruce and fir begin to establish underneath the over story. This is what makes the best quality spruce but is the slowest. We fight nature a bit by initially trying to establish spruce without any cover.

7. If there is 1 balsam poplar or aspen in a ha and the rest pine or anything I would bet my house you will have 100's of aspen suckers after. Scarification or not. I hear you think you see The opposite but I can't tell you how backwards and how big my smile is because that would make every foresters life so easy if they didn't come back so aggressively.


1 case comes to mind. Between zama and garden river the gov forest service at the time mowed down 1000's of ha of aspen to replace with spruce. As spruce was, desirable, worth money and there is a lot of pressure on softwood throughout the rest of the province (I can't be sure their thinking this is how it was explained once). So they cut all the aspen, burned it as it wasn't a commercial species at the time, aggressively trenched and planted it. The aspen came back so thick that after 10 years or they said let's plow it all over and try again haha plowed it trenched it and replanted it and to this day there is still 100aspen trees for every planted spruce. The spruce is in great condition the only problem is that will take 30% longer to become mature. "Maintaining our FOrests" is what it was called I believe.

You can't stop aspen from growing in this province without herbicide.

It has changed but basically a regen survey requires you to count every tree species density and height in a plot 1.78m radius. In a normal size block you do about 64 plots. To make money you should be doing between 128 -160 plots a day. And most do this from may- snow, some surveys can be done through winter. I can promise you that it is a surveyors dream come true to find a block where only 1 species is growing, unfortunately this is a super rare maybe once a year thing if your lucky. High level almost never, sundre sometimes but you have to remember that those blocks were 99.9%pine before they were cut too.

Some more anecdotal evidence would be the awesome bull moose harvested in the hunting section or my collection of sheds from Cutblocks all over alberta.

Could spend all weekend writing about this, it is important stuff. The biggest problems with reforestation is where it isn't happening. Stand on the edge of the green zone and look into the white. I can walk into any cutblock take a random bearing and walk freely in any direction, camp, hike, fish and hunt. Don't let anyone privitize or "protect" another inch. Every time this government wants to make a change to the green zone i ask what can I do now that I couldn't before,nothing it only goes the other way, you can do less. A great example of government picking winners and losers as it were.

There are lots of double standards when comparing o&g to forestry but it is a false equivilancy.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by dantonsen

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

Oh....really?

My dad grew up in the bush swinging an axe. They logged with 80 teams of horses, so it wasn't an itty-bitty operation. At their high point, his family ran 6 sawmills.

Stumps could be cut no higher than "x" inches. Forestry guys came around and measured them. Any higher and there was a fine. Stumps were left in the ground. Scrap and branches had to be piled and burned. Maybe twice. They cleaned up after they were done. Logging was all selective. (I don't think that is necessary, btw)

OH, yeah - they were doing a lot of logging in a national park. There were thousands of elk around and they and other wildlife went into the mix when practices were set. Maybe that explains it.

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Oh....really?

My dad grew up in the bush swinging an axe. They logged with 80 teams of horses, so it wasn't an itty-bitty operation. At their high point, his family ran 6 sawmills.

Stumps could be cut no higher than "x" inches. Forestry guys came around and measured them. Any higher and there was a fine. Stumps were left in the ground. Scrap and branches had to be piled and burned. Maybe twice. They cleaned up after they were done. Logging was all selective. (I don't think that is necessary, btw)

OH, yeah - they were doing a lot of logging in a national park. There were thousands of elk around and they and other wildlife went into the mix when practices were set. Maybe that explains it.

Both those things are still required. Anything greater then 30cm or 1 foot is considered under utilized or wasted wood and you can be fined. Slash is piled and burned, should be done within 2 years. Some hardwood slash is spread back through the block. Some jurisdictions it's mandatory to spread the slash, industry would rather pile in many circumstances.

It's actually very ironic you picked 2 things that are still required to this day, you'll find those 2 things in the ground rules for every fma in Alberta, sask too, BC is different . Also it's funny because "selective logging" in the old days made sense But today that would be called "high grading". It was done more because of the economics of it then any environmental reason.

Your right when you talk about trenching being a pain in the arse You'll hear no argument from me, but you can't say it doesn't help grow trees.

[JohninAB]

score, a wee bit of advice, know the subject you are trying to debate. You are so badly informed it is quite frankly laughable. Forestry not regulated? Holy that is absolutely false. Take a look at the list of regulations above.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

Both those things are still required. Anything greater then 30cm or 1 foot is considered under utilized or wasted wood and you can be fined. Slash is piled and burned, should be done within 2 years. Some hardwood slash is spread back through the block. Some jurisdictions it's mandatory to spread the slash, industry would rather pile in many circumstances.

It's actually very ironic you picked 2 things that are still required to this day, you'll find those 2 things in the ground rules for every fma in Alberta, sask too, BC is different . Also it's funny because "selective logging" in the old days made sense But today that would be called "high grading". It was done more because of the economics of it then any environmental reason.

Your right when you talk about trenching being a pain in the arse You'll hear no argument from me, but you can't say it doesn't help grow trees.

I was responding to someone else who claimed you could "log as you like" years ago and that today's practices are so much more enlightened. We agree that is not true. If you thought my response was "ironic", you haven't been paying attention.

I've never said trenching, ripping with a 6, etc. does not grow trees. I have no doubt it grows trees. Unlike others here, I do not assume those who disagree with me are stupid. What I AM saying is that reforestation should be about more than growing trees. You are taking down the home of many creatures. You are not harvesting a tree farm. You are taking down an entire system. You seem to think you "reforest" when you do something that is designed to one thing and one thing only - grow marketable wood as fast as possible. That would be true only if you were harvesting a tree farm. If you did not find a tree farm, by what stretch of the imagination do you think it is just peachy to leave behind a tree farm?

Leave the Freakin' Stumps in the Ground!

[score]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

score, a wee bit of advice, know the subject you are trying to debate. You are so badly informed it is quite frankly laughable. Forestry not regulated? Holy that is absolutely false. Take a look at the list of regulations above.

I am aware of it and will be getting at it when I have the time to do it justice. I am glad that someone joined in with some knowledge and is contributing. Does that surprise you? Be assured that I will address it in a more respectable manner than you seem capable. You do sound a wee bit childish however and have actually contributed 0 to this conversation other than bs like your above quote. Are you hovering around here for that purpose? Contribute. If you actually know something other than your ignorant opinion, let loose. In the mean time stay tuned if you wish.

[Forest Techer]

When someone brings up "tar sands" frac'ing pro PETA or the NDP you see similar reactions. "Some" people do look down on others for being mis informed on certain subjects. Happens on AO constantly.

If I was short or came off dismissive it was not my intent.

Cheers

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

1. There would be volume info for what was harvested off that block and you can see exactly what was taken then compare that to what you see.

2. It is law that you have to replace the same tree species as you took, can vary some but there can be no net loss. Can't harvest 50ha of pine and 20ha of sw then reforest to 50ha sw and 20ha pine. Also you can't plant non-native species. The seeds used to grow the seedlings were taken from the same geographic area. Can't plant pole haven pine in twin lakes.

3. All scarification was not created equal. Some is more annoying and obtrusive to man and animal then others but the idea is to maintain the productivity of the landbase.

4. If you do not maintain similar productivity on the landbase you will loose that amount in your allowable cut. So if you harvest 10 blocks every year and 1/2 don't grow back you just lost half your cut.

5. Browsing damage in Cut blocks by moose has been on regen tally sheets for decades as it is a common set back to reforestation recorded in softwood and hardwood blocks.

6. Softwoods like pine but especially spruce is 10x more expensive and difficult to replace on sites. The real problem in this province is the opposite, hardwoods establishing on sites that were predominantly softwood when harvested. Companies spend millions to fight this. It really isn't a big deal because that's naturally the way succession in a forest is supposed to take place. After a disturbance you get your pioneer species like pine and aspen and as they become overmature and the canopy begins to open your spruce and fir begin to establish underneath the over story. This is what makes the best quality spruce but is the slowest. We fight nature a bit by initially trying to establish spruce without any cover.

7. If there is 1 balsam poplar or aspen in a ha and the rest pine or anything I would bet my house you will have 100's of aspen suckers after. Scarification or not. I hear you think you see The opposite but I can't tell you how backwards and how big my smile is because that would make every foresters life so easy if they didn't come back so aggressively.


1 case comes to mind. Between zama and garden river the gov forest service at the time mowed down 1000's of ha of aspen to replace with spruce. As spruce was, desirable, worth money and there is a lot of pressure on softwood throughout the rest of the province (I can't be sure their thinking this is how it was explained once). So they cut all the aspen, burned it as it wasn't a commercial species at the time, aggressively trenched and planted it. The aspen came back so thick that after 10 years or they said let's plow it all over and try again haha plowed it trenched it and replanted it and to this day there is still 100aspen trees for every planted spruce. The spruce is in great condition the only problem is that will take 30% longer to become mature. "Maintaining our FOrests" is what it was called I believe.

You can't stop aspen from growing in this province without herbicide.

It has changed but basically a regen survey requires you to count every tree species density and height in a plot 1.78m radius. In a normal size block you do about 64 plots. To make money you should be doing between 128 -160 plots a day. And most do this from may- snow, some surveys can be done through winter. I can promise you that it is a surveyors dream come true to find a block where only 1 species is growing, unfortunately this is a super rare maybe once a year thing if your lucky. High level almost never, sundre sometimes but you have to remember that those blocks were 99.9%pine before they were cut too.

Some more anecdotal evidence would be the awesome bull moose harvested in the hunting section or my collection of sheds from Cutblocks all over alberta.

Could spend all weekend writing about this, it is important stuff. The biggest problems with reforestation is where it isn't happening. Stand on the edge of the green zone and look into the white. I can walk into any cutblock take a random bearing and walk freely in any direction, camp, hike, fish and hunt. Don't let anyone privitize or "protect" another inch. Every time this government wants to make a change to the green zone i ask what can I do now that I couldn't before,nothing it only goes the other way, you can do less. A great example of government picking winners and losers as it were.

There are lots of double standards when comparing o&g to forestry but it is a false equivilancy.

Hey forest techer. Could we maybe place wildlife and fisheries management to be inclusive of your last sentence?

Forestry does not get the regard it should in this province.

[Forest Techer]

Absolutely.

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

1. There would be volume info for what was harvested off that block and you can see exactly what was taken then compare that to what you see.

2. It is law that you have to replace the same tree species as you took, can vary some but there can be no net loss. Can't harvest 50ha of pine and 20ha of sw then reforest to 50ha sw and 20ha pine. Also you can't plant non-native species. The seeds used to grow the seedlings were taken from the same geographic area. Can't plant pole haven pine in twin lakes.

3. All scarification was not created equal. Some is more annoying and obtrusive to man and animal then others but the idea is to maintain the productivity of the landbase.

4. If you do not maintain similar productivity on the landbase you will loose that amount in your allowable cut. So if you harvest 10 blocks every year and 1/2 don't grow back you just lost half your cut.

5. Browsing damage in Cut blocks by moose has been on regen tally sheets for decades as it is a common set back to reforestation recorded in softwood and hardwood blocks.

6. Softwoods like pine but especially spruce is 10x more expensive and difficult to replace on sites. The real problem in this province is the opposite, hardwoods establishing on sites that were predominantly softwood when harvested. Companies spend millions to fight this. It really isn't a big deal because that's naturally the way succession in a forest is supposed to take place. After a disturbance you get your pioneer species like pine and aspen and as they become overmature and the canopy begins to open your spruce and fir begin to establish underneath the over story. This is what makes the best quality spruce but is the slowest. We fight nature a bit by initially trying to establish spruce without any cover.

7. If there is 1 balsam poplar or aspen in a ha and the rest pine or anything I would bet my house you will have 100's of aspen suckers after. Scarification or not. I hear you think you see The opposite but I can't tell you how backwards and how big my smile is because that would make every foresters life so easy if they didn't come back so aggressively.


1 case comes to mind. Between zama and garden river the gov forest service at the time mowed down 1000's of ha of aspen to replace with spruce. As spruce was, desirable, worth money and there is a lot of pressure on softwood throughout the rest of the province (I can't be sure their thinking this is how it was explained once). So they cut all the aspen, burned it as it wasn't a commercial species at the time, aggressively trenched and planted it. The aspen came back so thick that after 10 years or they said let's plow it all over and try again haha plowed it trenched it and replanted it and to this day there is still 100aspen trees for every planted spruce. The spruce is in great condition the only problem is that will take 30% longer to become mature. "Maintaining our FOrests" is what it was called I believe.

You can't stop aspen from growing in this province without herbicide.

It has changed but basically a regen survey requires you to count every tree species density and height in a plot 1.78m radius. In a normal size block you do about 64 plots. To make money you should be doing between 128 -160 plots a day. And most do this from may- snow, some surveys can be done through winter. I can promise you that it is a surveyors dream come true to find a block where only 1 species is growing, unfortunately this is a super rare maybe once a year thing if your lucky. High level almost never, sundre sometimes but you have to remember that those blocks were 99.9%pine before they were cut too.

Some more anecdotal evidence would be the awesome bull moose harvested in the hunting section or my collection of sheds from Cutblocks all over alberta.

Could spend all weekend writing about this, it is important stuff. The biggest problems with reforestation is where it isn't happening. Stand on the edge of the green zone and look into the white. I can walk into any cutblock take a random bearing and walk freely in any direction, camp, hike, fish and hunt. Don't let anyone privitize or "protect" another inch. Every time this government wants to make a change to the green zone i ask what can I do now that I couldn't before,nothing it only goes the other way, you can do less. A great example of government picking winners and losers as it were.

There are lots of double standards when comparing o&g to forestry but it is a false equivilancy.

Thats a chit ton...Im getting $3.50 a plot for performance and $3.00 for Establishment....

my favorite are Pine cone surveys done by weyerhaeuser. $3.75 and easy to get 150-200.



Thanks for shedding some light on Regeneration standards, i understand what the OP saw and i agree it doesnt look pretty. But as Forest Techer stated, if theres one aspen or poplar close by there will be 100's in 50yrs.

[JohninAB]

score I can contribute way more. A comment that forest companies do not have to respect and maintain buffers around waterbodies is just plain wrong. To say forestry is not regulated is just plain incomprehensible. To say things like that gives me all I need to know about you and tells me it ain't worth my breath nor time discussing it with you as you have no concept on forestry, its regulation or silviculture.

That oil and gas can clear cut, remove Rocky7's precious stumps and then when the well was a duster, how did they reclaim the site? Plant grass. Awesome refor job there.

Rocky7, top piles are left in cutblocks to supply habitat for smaller critters which happen to be food for say raptors, hence standing trees left in blocks for perch sites, also martin and other fur bearing mammals which trappers rely on and they ask for in a Forest Management Plan. A lot of biodiversity considerations are planned based on a lot of inputs from a whole multitude of stakeholders.

Why do companies do the so called "tree farm" Rocky7? Ever been involved in doing a net landbase calculation on a forest management unit? Ever sat down and determined how much productive forest landbase if lost annually to other resource users? In the early to mid 1990's, oil and gas cleared 1.4 times as much land annually as forestry did in the old Whitecourt forest. How much of that oil and gas clearing was reforested versus forestry? Have you ever tried getting thru a fire regenerated dog hair pine stand? Think a moose or for that matter a deer can?

Are some cutblocks scarified, absolutely as forest companies are under a lot of pressure to try and maintain their cut on an ever shrinking landbase. They have to ensure they can sustain their cut and employment levels as well. Does scarification exclude wildlife, no. I have been in ripper plowed blocks, martinni plowed blocks and seen moose and deer. Think it is fair to say I have been in more cutblocks than awhole lot of people on here. Can also say that scarification is always changing, evolving. Were some mistakes made, you betcha but I dare you to show me an industry that hasn't.

To try and compare logging practices of 60 years ago to today without even considering the complete social, environmental and economic differences as
well, is shortsighted.

[jim summit]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

Both those things are still required. Anything greater then 30cm or 1 foot is considered under utilized or wasted wood and you can be fined. Slash is piled and burned, should be done within 2 years. Some hardwood slash is spread back through the block. Some jurisdictions it's mandatory to spread the slash, industry would rather pile in many circumstances.

It's actually very ironic you picked 2 things that are still required to this day, you'll find those 2 things in the ground rules for every fma in Alberta, sask too, BC is different . Also it's funny because "selective logging" in the old days made sense But today that would be called "high grading". It was done more because of the economics of it then any environmental reason.

Your right when you talk about trenching being a pain in the arse You'll hear no argument from me, but you can't say it doesn't help grow trees.

X2. I am employed by the logging industry in High Level, and have been for the last decade. I have run a scarifier for 4 years. Also run a feller buncher and cut thousands of trees. I know all about the stumpage fines and tresspassing in water zones. We also have a D8 crawler pushing up the slash too be burned. There is so much regulation, it's counter productive.


Any one who argues against this need some hands on time this winter....

[JohninAB]

As for the OP's original question, as stated above forest companies are required to do landbase balancing, meaning what they cut has to go back. As for the pine area the OP mentioned, I would recommend getting ahold of forestry in GP and asking them.

Know around McMurray we used to cut the pine down and in areas of mistletoe plant spruce along the block edge and in for aways before planting pine to make a buffer zone to try and stop the spread of mistletoe.

OP's scenerio I cannot comment on as I do not know the area.

[score]

Originally Posted by woods_walker

For working 15 years in an 'unregulated' industry, could you please tell forestry professional's employers, and the professional colleges that regulate forest professionals (much like engineers, nurses, doctors, biologists, etc) that it is no longer necessary to stay on top of changes to and abide by a few of the acts, regulations and policies listed below:

Forests Act (F-22, RSA 2000)
Timber Management Regulation (AR 60/73) (Forests Act)
Forest Recreation Regulation (AR 343/79) (Forests Act)
Regulated Forestry Profession Act (R-13, RSA 2000)
Registered Professional Foresters Regulation (AR 75/2002) (Regulated Forestry Profession Act)
Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (E-12, RSA 2000)
Forest Resources Improvement Regulation (AR 152/97) (Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act)
Public Lands Act (P-40, RSA 2000)
Dispositions and Fees Regulation (AR 54/2000) (Public Lands Act)
Recreational Access Regulation (Public Lands Act)
Water Act (W-3, RSA 2000)
Water (Ministerial) Regulation (AR 205/98) (Water Act)
Fisheries Act (Federal) (R.S., 1985 c.F-14, s.1)
Code of Practice for Watercourse Crossings (Water Act and Water (Ministerial) Regulation)
Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules
Navigable Waters Protection Act (R.S., 1985 c.N-19, s.1)
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992, c.37)
Forest Management Division Directives
Alberta Forest Management Planning Standard (2006)
Forest Reserves Act (F-20, RSA 2000)
The Forest Reserves Regulation (AR 42/2005) (Forest Reserves Act)
Forest and Prairie Protection Act (F-19, RSA 2000)
Forest and Prairie Protection Regulations (Part I) (AR 135/72) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Forest and Prairie Protection Regulations (Part II) (AR 310/72) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Historical Resources Act (H-9, RSA 2000)
Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994, c.22 [M-7.01]) and Regulations
Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Federal) (2002, c.29)
Alberta Transportation Fish Habitat Manual
Alberta Regeneration Survey Manual
Forest Management Herbicide Reference Manual
Strategy for Ground Rules Renewal (2000)
Natural Resource Transfer Agreement (1930, c.3) and Alberta Act (1905)
Timber Quota Policy
Alberta Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules Framework for Renewal (2008)
Mountain Pine Beetle Management Strategy (2007)
Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan For Alberta (2006)
Alberta Land Stewardship Act
First Nations Consultation Policy
Caribou Protection Plan
Enhanced Approval Process (EAP) Manual
Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat
Eastern Slopes Policy (Revised 1984)
Alberta Phase 3 Forest Inventory - An Overview & Cover Type Specifications
Alberta Vegetation Inventory Standards Manual (Version 2.1.1)
Natural Resources Conservation Board Act (N-3, RSA 2000)
Exploration Regulation (AR 214/98) (Part 8 of the Mines and Minerals Act (M-17, RSA 2000)
Classes of Protected Areas Under the Special Places Program
Provincial Parks Act (P-35, RSA 2000)
Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act (W-9, RSA 2000)
Scaling Regulation (AR 195/2002) (Forests Act)
Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta (FRIAA) - Forest Resource Improvement Program (FRIP)
Environmental Assessment (Mandatory & Exempted Activities) Regulation (AR 111/93) [Alberta Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act]
Pesticide Sales, Handling, Use and Application Regulation (AR 24/97) [Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act]
Conservation and Reclamation Regulation (AR 115/93) (Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act)
Environmental Assessment Regulation (AR 112/93) (Environmental Protection & Enhancement Act)
Alberta Forest Genetic Resource Management and Conservation Standards (FGRMS) Manuals
Alternative Regeneration Standards
Ground Rules Addendum - Mountain Pine Beetle Operating Ground Rules Templates (2006)
Planning Mountain Pine Beetle Response Operations 2007 (Interpretive Bulletin)
Planning Standard Supplement: Partial Harvest (Non-clearcut) Planning and Monitoring Guidelines (2006)
CSA Z809-02 Sustainable Forest Management: Requirements and Guidance
Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation Management Responsibilities (2007)
Debris Mangement Directive for Timber Harvest Operations
Mountain Pine Beetle Log Management: Directive 2010-01
Registered Professional Forest Technologists Regulation (AR 76/2002) (Regulated Forestry Profession Act)
Fire Control Zone Regulation (AR 29/2005) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Forest Protection Area Regulation (AR 149/99) (Forest and Prairie Protection Act)
Municipal Government Act (M-26, RSA 2006)
Wildlife Act (W-10, RSA 2000)
Timber Regulation (AR 404/92) (Forests Act)
Willmore Wilderness Park Act (W-11, RSA 2000)
Forest Land Use And Management Regulations (AR 197/76) (Forests Act)
Spruce Budworm Management Strategy (2002)
Weed Management in Forestry Operations (Directive)
Pesticide, Bark Beetle Pheromone and Biological Control Use Guidelines for Forest Pest Management
Importation of Coniferous Logs and Forest Products with Bark Attached (Directive)
Variable retention: maintaining biodiversity through planning and operational practices
Variable retention forest harvesting: Research synthesis and implementation guidelines
Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems

woodswalker. I am glad you chimed in here. I do have to say first that you misunderstood, my experience is in O/G not forestry. Also, not trying to be rude but what aspect of forestry are you involved in? I was a consultant directly involved with all branches of regulatory agencies. My work involved aspects of preliminary study, construction monitoring, and reclamation. My experience with forestry is in the fact that I worked in close association with other consultants whether in field or in meetings and planning and such. I have seen first hand how tightly regulated O/G is and how they strictly adhere to those regs. Many times O/G and forestry overlap. It is one thing to have regs in place and quite another to obey them when there is no political will nor anyone monitoring resource utilization. My experience is that there are reg inspectors for lack of a better term up the ying yang during all stages of O/G development. I have never seen this kind of preliminary planning, construction, post construction and reclamation being monitored by anyone in the reg bodies regarding forestry. What is left behind is not conducive to habitat rehabilitation at all. It is, it seems to me conducive to cover up as fast and cost effective as possible. Move on. I know these consultants. They have often said you must go crazy keeping up. Their part in meetings are short. I have and been directly involved with environmental assessments and have seen many changes. I have said what I know to be true. We were talking about what is left after usage. There is in my mind no comparison at all. I have walked cutblocks with consultants where our lines have crossed. They have said to me that they wish they had more work. That tells me alot. I have seen with my eyes, environmental degradation that would never be allowed. Not even close. These are renewable resource blocks that are expanding. Yes, tree farms. The idea I assume is to eventually reduce impact. However, I don't think it is working. If one was to compare the regulatory costs of forestry vs O/G, it would be a joke. To me, the foot print on the environment from O/G is virtually nil when all is done and completed. The foot print from forestry due to rather young and unenforced regs is huge. I have no alliegence to O/G but to me, this is what I have witnessed. What I have related is what I have seen. It is real to me. I have often stood in blocks and looked at streams and just shock my head. The sloped areas are done for a very long time. Nature will eventually recover as it always does. In time. O/G hastens that after land use. Forestry does not. O.K. have at me.

[JohninAB]

score once again you open mouth and try to get both feet in. LOL no regulatory presence in forestry. You cannot be serious can you? In the green zone who does the approvals, inspections etc on oil and gas? Ow who does inspections on forestry? Do you know what FOMP is? Do you know what ISO is? Do you know what it takes to be ISO certified? Ever done an inspection on a forestry operation? Ever did one on oil and gas? And I mean regulatory. Have you ever, and I mean ever, approved an oil and gas disposition or a logging plan?

You best go back and leave this topic to those in the know. Your last post clearly shows your lack of knowledge on anything forestry. If I had made that post and the accusations contained within it, I would be sincerely embarrassed.

[Forest Techer]

Originally Posted by score

. The foot print from forestry due to rather young and unenforced regs is huge.

This is 100% false and without attacking you, did you have any clue the age of regulations effecting forestry before saying such a comment? Would you even use some critical thinking to maybe realize that logging took place here before o/g and therefore could have older regs?

There is mountains of regulations that apply to forestry that is required and enforced. Not more onerous than other industries but ones I believe in for the most part, and almost every one is to protect the publics resource and landbase.

Your concerns are so far off the mark I feel bad about you being worked up for phantom reasons.

If we ever cross paths I'll buy you a coffee and share some info with ya and if your angry after that at least it will be for real reasons.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

As for the OP's original question, as stated above forest companies are required to do landbase balancing, meaning what they cut has to go back. As for the pine area the OP mentioned, I would recommend getting ahold of forestry in GP and asking them.

Know around McMurray we used to cut the pine down and in areas of mistletoe plant spruce along the block edge and in for aways before planting pine to make a buffer zone to try and stop the spread of mistletoe.

OP's scenerio I cannot comment on as I do not know the area.

Have a look at the kakwa river NW and SW of hwy 40 through google earth. It's been logged and welled to death. Looks like the natural gas bed around there was a monster judging by the hundreds of well sites.

[woods_walker]

score, I'll take your bait. Sitting at home with a cold, so I'm not going anywhere fast. What aspect of forestry am I involved with? I'm a silviculture forester right now, my fiance is a planning forester, so I might know something regarding the original posters question which is why I got involved with the thread. I get paid to make the decisions that help the companies blocks in meeting reforestation obligations. Being an individual involved in the regulatory process, you should know that acts, regulations and policies are not suggestions. Government can be blamed for less people in the field watching forestry practices and spending more time with oil and gas. Our company is checked on a regular basis, but due to the number of new projects and issues with oil and gas the regional offices spend more time with that sector. In the area I work in, I could say the same things about the oil and gas sector that others here are saying about forestry. Definitely a case of the fox watching the henhouse too. Money obviously talks. Just go to SAGD alley and the open pit mines of the oilsands area. Just bend a river here, no worries it only is a primary tributary to the Athabasca and it is in the way. Tailings ponds, that one is full, lets build a new one. Our well site is reclaimed; what do you mean grass isn't good enough anymore. We've reclaimed part of a mine site. No worries, our planting survival was almost 0%.

As a younger worker I worked on salvage plans for most of the open pit mines around Fort McMurray. No regard for buffers on any watercourses, but that was expected, it is going to be an open pit with little chance of reclamation to what was previously there. Also did seismic, that's another success story with oil and gas. About the only good thing to happen with that now is they finally smartened up and realized you don't have to blade meters wide and score mineral soil to get the job done.

The original topic of this thread was in regards to how we reforest. I will get back on track. I can't plant a tree without permission from government to do that or site prep a block to ensure I get the area reforested. All silviculture activities are in compliance with the current acts and regulations, provincial and federal. As JohninAB has mentioned in many posts, there is a lot more planning and procedures in place than the rest of you are aware of. There are also lots of opportunities to have your voice heard. As has been the case for a long time, the only time anyone seems to be concerned with an AOP (annual operating plan) or a FMP (forest management plan) is if they can be paid to show up (which they aren't) or get a free meal out of their visit.

[score]

Originally Posted by Forest Techer

This is 100% false and without attacking you, did you have any clue the age of regulations effecting forestry before saying such a comment? Would you even use some critical thinking to maybe realize that logging took place here before o/g and therefore could have older regs?

There is mountains of regulations that apply to forestry that is required and enforced. Not more onerous than other industries but ones I believe in for the most part, and almost every one is to protect the publics resource and landbase.

Your concerns are so far off the mark I feel bad about you being worked up for phantom reasons.

If we ever cross paths I'll buy you a coffee and share some info with ya and if your angry after that at least it will be for real reasons.

I am neither worked up or angry, nor would I be. My main point is and I maintain it is that when compared, reclamation for O/G is more highly regulated and thus leaves a lesser impact on the environment. The costs involved are staggering. I have been involved with many projects where 100's of millions of dollars have been spent on studies only to cancel or re-route. I have not seen this in forestry. I suppose I would concede that they are different industries. One said earlier the regs made logging counterproductive at times. When I think of the money involved to satisfy regs in O/G I cannot believe that it is even close. Would you not admit that the aftermath from O/G is not at least more pleasing to the eye therefore less environmental impact and better rehabilitation? Someone said projections for forestry is 50 or 70 years to reuse. To me that means more foot print. O/G is instance and provides usable habitat for wildlife in many cases that did not previously exist. Some would say that the tar sands look horrible in progress and they do. But, I have been involved and seen alot of these areas restored to levels that people would not even think anything happened there. Look. Like I said. I have not worked directly in forestry but I have worked close enough to formulate an opinion from what I have seen. That's it. That's all. And the phantom thing I did not like.

[albertadeer]

Originally Posted by score

I am neither worked up or angry, nor would I be. My main point is and I maintain it is that when compared, reclamation for O/G is more highly regulated and thus leaves a lesser impact on the environment. The costs involved are staggering. I have been involved with many projects where 100's of millions of dollars have been spent on studies only to cancel or re-route. I have not seen this in forestry. I suppose I would concede that they are different industries. One said earlier the regs made logging counterproductive at times. When I think of the money involved to satisfy regs in O/G I cannot believe that it is even close. Would you not admit that the aftermath from O/G is not at least more pleasing to the eye therefore less environmental impact and better rehabilitation? Someone said projections for forestry is 50 or 70 years to reuse. To me that means more foot print. O/G is instance and provides usable habitat for wildlife in many cases that did not previously exist. Some would say that the tar sands look horrible in progress and they do. But, I have been involved and seen alot of these areas restored to levels that people would not even think anything happened there. Look. Like I said. I have not worked directly in forestry but I have worked close enough to formulate an opinion from what I have seen. That's it. That's all. And the phantom thing I did not like.

I have never seen a pipeline or lease site truly reclaimed. I have seen creeks running down pipelines causing pipes to show. I guess alder and some aspen and poplar grow on some pipelines.....Clover and different invasive grasses grow good.

Cut blocks on the other hand, i have. Creeks have buffers and blocks are monitored for proper regeneration (regen surveys) which in hand get audited by ESRD.


People have explained it very well that forestry is HEAVILY regulated. From before the cut to well after reforestation.


And to the OP, like i stated i know the area VERY well. I have done Regeneration surveys in that area for 5 years. The blocks pass with flying colors. Lots of Aspen and Poplar around. Pine is the main species logged in the area so you see lots replanted. No shortage of critters either...

[score]

Originally Posted by woods_walker

score, I'll take your bait. Sitting at home with a cold, so I'm not going anywhere fast. What aspect of forestry am I involved with? I'm a silviculture forester right now, my fiance is a planning forester, so I might know something regarding the original posters question which is why I got involved with the thread. I get paid to make the decisions that help the companies blocks in meeting reforestation obligations. Being an individual involved in the regulatory process, you should know that acts, regulations and policies are not suggestions. Government can be blamed for less people in the field watching forestry practices and spending more time with oil and gas. Our company is checked on a regular basis, but due to the number of new projects and issues with oil and gas the regional offices spend more time with that sector. In the area I work in, I could say the same things about the oil and gas sector that others here are saying about forestry. Definitely a case of the fox watching the henhouse too. Money obviously talks. Just go to SAGD alley and the open pit mines of the oilsands area. Just bend a river here, no worries it only is a primary tributary to the Athabasca and it is in the way. Tailings ponds, that one is full, lets build a new one. Our well site is reclaimed; what do you mean grass isn't good enough anymore. We've reclaimed part of a mine site. No worries, our planting survival was almost 0%.

As a younger worker I worked on salvage plans for most of the open pit mines around Fort McMurray. No regard for buffers on any watercourses, but that was expected, it is going to be an open pit with little chance of reclamation to what was previously there. Also did seismic, that's another success story with oil and gas. About the only good thing to happen with that now is they finally smartened up and realized you don't have to blade meters wide and score mineral soil to get the job done.

The original topic of this thread was in regards to how we reforest. I will get back on track. I can't plant a tree without permission from government to do that or site prep a block to ensure I get the area reforested. All silviculture activities are in compliance with the current acts and regulations, provincial and federal. As JohninAB has mentioned in many posts, there is a lot more planning and procedures in place than the rest of you are aware of. There are also lots of opportunities to have your voice heard. As has been the case for a long time, the only time anyone seems to be concerned with an AOP (annual operating plan) or a FMP (forest management plan) is if they can be paid to show up (which they aren't) or get a free meal out of their visit.

Thanks for your sensible post and I hope you get better soon. We can go round and round about this. Maybe the issue here is time. I have seen many changes take place in O/G. You sound like you have in forestry. The planning stages, construction practises, and reclamation are not the same in my experience, that seems close to yours. I was a consultant and inspector. I was responsible for making sure environmental regs were observed. I just did not see when working with forestry people that they had the level of regs that we had. If things have gotten better in the last few years that's good. But, the OP stated as did others that they did not observe this to be in the field. I blamed that on regs that were not being closely monitored. If such has changed then I would expect people going to those places to report that. I am not blaming forestors at all. The guys doing the work are doing a job, many of which are not even aware of regs. This happens in O/G as well. Hence monitoring. In O/G monitoring is done on site at all stages. Is this the case in forestry? You have to admit that reclamation is not pretty and not critter friendly, which was the original ? I don't see O/G as being detrimental to wildlife after use, in fact I see it as being better. Now go take a pill.

[JohninAB]

Yeah oil and gas does a fantastic job of reclamation. That is why forest companies are spending 100's of thousands of dollars going into supposed reclaimed wellsite, roads etc by oil and gas and planting trees on these sites to get them back into the productive landbase. How did oil and gas reclaim these once forested areas, wait for it, wait, they seeded them to grass.

[Dark Wing]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Yeah oil and gas does a fantastic job of reclamation. That is why forest companies are spending 100's of thousands of dollars going into supposed reclaimed wellsite, roads etc by oil and gas and planting trees on these sites to get them back into the productive landbase. How did oil and gas reclaim these once forested areas, wait for it, wait, they seeded them to grass.

But they spend hundreds of millions of dollars !

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by albertadeer

I have never seen a pipeline or lease site truly reclaimed.

That would only be true if you believe "reclamation" means a tree farm.

I have seen creeks running down pipelines causing pipes to show. I guess alder and some aspen and poplar grow on some pipelines.....

I can show you an area on the north side of the Brazeau where I used to hunt. I cannot show you where the creek used to be because it is gone. I cannot show you where a very large natural meadow used to be (maybe 3-400 acres) because it is gone. I cannot show you where there was a large lick because it is gone. All of that has disappeared in hundreds and thousands of acres of ripped up stumps, root tangles and huge holes in the ground. There's no point hunting there any more because you won't see much - wolf tracks passing through, a few deer, odd moose track....mostly they will follow what is left of skidder trails so they don't have to risk their legs walking through the bomb craters.

I can also take you to humungous newer scarified cut blocks on top of the Ram Range and point, for instance, to where a creek and old trapper's cabin used to be but I cannot show you the creek. It is gone.

Get the drift?

The Ram Range is a good one to see because on the other side of the road is an old cut block, not scarified and stumps left in the ground. It looks like a post card. The newer, scarified side of the road looks like he!!.

People have explained it very well that forestry is HEAVILY regulated.

Consultants and operators I know who work in both industries would agree with score. Maybe you just don't know what "heavily regulated" looks like?

[Sloughsharkjigger]

WOW... this thread has gone off on a few different tangents. As for the OP's comments, I think all that can be said has been and IMO it has been answered and can be summed up as follows,

Timber companies do the best they can all the while trying to stay profitable. Woodlands managers are accountable to company executives and so on. Woodlands staff are proffesional people that oversee all aspects of the operations. No matter what anyone wants say, hear or see companies are obligated to put back volume for volume, specie for specie and tend to those obligations for many years. Of course nothing in life is perfect and remember if you and I utilize forest products in any way then we must be thankful that someone out there is trying there best to satisfy all players involved yet try to maintain natural diversity..... a tall order by anyones account.

As for O&G.... totally differant operating rules and reforestation is not one of them!!

Good hunting!

[Matt L.]

So you believe that reclaiming forest to grass is better than your so-called "tree farm" Rocky? If forestry reforested the way you think they should, the industry would die.