Pick of the month. Letters to AB Late Spring 2010

Not so clearcut
AFR: Just about every issue of Atlantic Forestry Review contains something that makes me want to drop a line, but the letter from Jen Hacking, executive director of the Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick, pushed me over the edge(AFR May). It isn't just the content of her letter, but the fact she holds a position of power and influence within the forest industry. It isn't only those "largely uninformed" whose hackles would be raised by Hacking's call to "grow trees like corn," but also anyone who has studied forest ecology. Producing trees by agriculture has been the dream of foresters for hundreds of years; the fact they never have should be a fair indicator of the impracticality of the concept. That foresters hold to an impractical dream instead of science-based harvesting is concerning.
I support selective harvesting regimes because, properly carried-out, they have the ability to out-produce clearcut regimes. As an example of this, an article in the Journal of Pesticide Reform, Volume 8, Number 3, cites individual tree selection as practiced by a company of the name Individual Timber Selection (ITS), in Oregon. A table is provided showing the harvest regime from a 425-acre woodlot.
In 1955 the woodlot was stocked with one million board feet of timber. Over a 38-year period, ITS removed 4.1 million board feet leaving the woodlot with a stock of 3.7 million board feet. Over the course of 33 years ITS produced more than four times the original stocking and left the woodlot with almost four times as much timber as was present when ITS put the woodlot to work.
Compare that to clearcutting, which would have removed the one million board feet in 1955. Assuming the most favorable outcome for industrial forestry, the woodlot at best would have produced another two million board feet, or one quarter less than was produced by ITS. In Information Report NOR-X-301, from Forestry Canada, Silviculture Statistics for Canada: an 11-year summary, Dieter Kuhnke writes that "mounting evidence casts doubt on the premise that yields of second growth stands will at least equal the yields of natural stands they replace." So, it is more likely that under the trees-like-corn scenario the forest would have produced at most two million board feet, or less than half the production made possible by ITS, and left zero stocking, instead of ITS' 3.7 million board feet.
Hacking's idea that selective harvesting would create "fragmentation of the landscape" left me scratching my head. This odd view of things, however, may be explained by a picture in the AFR May issue (page 45) of an alleged selective harvest in operation. If that's what passes for selection logging, then the term is grossly misused.
I had the opportunity to share some time and correspondences with Donald George, an advocate of selection logging, who spent much of his career selectively harvesting parkland in Ontario. He liked to tell about giving tours of his operations to critics of forestry in parks. Invariably they would ask him to take them to the areas in the park he had logged, giving him the pleasure of informing them that that was exactly where they were walking! Selection logging – real selection logging – maintains forest canopy, and all other ecosystem structures, removing trees, not forests. Such a system, properly conducted, leaves the ecosystem intact, and that ecosystem produces trees far more effectively than any agricultural model.
Turning to Hacking's conclusion, "if foresters weren't operating sustainably, trees would have disappeared from the landscape many decades ago," I ask: Is that really the test of sustainability?
Rather, what foresters should ask themselves is: Are they harvesting the same species they were decades ago? Are they harvesting trees of the same size as they were decades ago? And are they harvesting from sites they cut decades ago?
The removal of the forest ecosystem structure for off-site processing is unknown in the natural world. It is a highly inefficient system for growth. Clearcut logging is inherently unsustainable, and the failure of foresters to recognize this basic fact is the Achilles heel of the industry.
By the way, I live on a piece of land that 60 years ago was being farmed. It is now entirely forested; none of it was planted by man. It is mostly fir, spruce, and White birch, but has some Red maple and Yellow birch. Would Hacking then conclude that agriculture is a form of sustainable forestry? Maybe it is, as foresters discount nature so entirely that they believe they are entitled to get credit for not killing the forest completely.
Geoffrey May
Margaree Harbour, N.S.

RTP legislation clarification
AFR: In the May 2010 issue of Atlantic Forestry Review, George Fullerton reported on the Right to Practice legislation currently being jointly pursued by the New Brunswick Forest Technician's Association (NBFTA) and the Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick (ARPFNB). I'm happy to further discuss the issue as for many years our members have felt this to be a very worthy initiative but have only recently been able to seriously address it. Whenever legislation is involved, issues quickly become complex, and I'd like to clarify some of the points raised.
The article reported that "a big slice of the membership has indicated it is concerned with the plan." There are concerns and questions from some members, however, a majority of both NBFTA and ARPFNB members have consistently supported the Right to Practice initiative over the past several years. We are addressing all concerns raised, and many of the questions are very useful in pointing the way to revise the bill and to make it work for all forest technologists and foresters in the province.
In February 2009, the ARPFNB membership, not just the executive, voted to pursue the initiative by committing up to $40,000 to draft, advertise, translate, and have the bill presented to the Legislative Assembly. It is a measure of the members' commitment and belief in the value and necessity of Right to Practice that they supported spending the money, representing a considerable chunk of our assets. NBFTA members also voted to financially support the effort.
The statement that "it was a surprise to many in the forestry sector" that draft legislation was prepared is surprising in itself. Our members come from every industry, every forestry school, at least three government departments, many private contractors, and several environmental organizations. Our progress has been reported to the members on a regular basis throughout.
Prior to submitting the 2009 motion to a vote, the working committee talked to several forestry organizations testing the waters for support before we started spending the money. Paraphrasing the reply we received: "We cannot support legislation until we see a draft. We need to know exactly what your organization is proposing." Fair enough, so now we have a draft, and we're asking for input.
My comment concerning responses to the draft legislation may have been misinterpreted. We sent out more than 120 copies of the draft, with letters requesting feedback, to large and small forestry companies, government departments, environmental organizations, marketing boards, and the Maritime College of Forest Technology, University of New Brunswick, and University of Maine Cooperative Extension forestry faculties. We received four responses; two were negative, and two requested more information and clarification.
The working committee will be meeting with all those who have expressed concern, and we fully intend to negotiate, correct flaws in the draft legislation if they exist, and make this bill work for the entire forestry sector in New Brunswick. Four responses from more than 120 solicitations cannot be construed as a negative majority. I can only assume that those who did not respond are either indifferent or support the legislation.
The comment about legislative language being "complicated and confusing" is a concern for the working committee. It does get complicated fast, as all legislation does. We've developed a summary of the bill, highlighting the key portions of legislation. Any of the working committee members are available to discuss the bill, answer questions, and provide clarification to any individual or group in the province in person or by any other means of communication. All we need is the request. I've attended three marketing board AGMs this spring to give a brief presentation to woodlot owners, which has been very informative and useful to me, and I hope to the attendees as well.
Now, let me be crystal clear on the next point: This legislation, if it passes, will not put anyone out of his or her job. There are several people working in the New Brunswick forestry sector at relatively high levels of responsibility who have no formal education in forestry. If their jobs include any of the functions within the definition of practice of professional forestry, then they will have to register with the new Association. Without a diploma or degree they will not be registered as an RPF or RFT, but rather under a Limited Practice Permit. They will be subject, as all members are, to the Code of Ethics and to pursuing continuing education on a regular basis.
As well, if the legislation passes, any employer hiring someone to work within the definition of the practice of professional forestry will not be limited to hiring our Association members. The new hire would have to be eligible to be registered with the Association. This is common practice for any regulated professional organization.
One last note on registration of forestry professionals: our clear goal is to have independent oversight of those people who make decisions affecting the long-term sustainability of forest resources. If all of us keep that goal in sight, we can improve the standard of forest practices in New Brunswick, protect our public land to a greater degree, and provide an invaluable service to private woodlot owners.
Jen Hacking, RPF
Executive Director, ARPFNB
Fredericton, N.B.