help prevent 2500 square kms of Algonquin from being logged

[paisley]

(Edit: today's the last day to sign this if you feel you want to)

a friend passed this along

http://www.savealgonquin.ca/

apperently Ontario Parks is recommending that an additional 2500 square kms of Algonquin be protected from logging and could use some public support... natural old growth parks like Algonquin are becoming a rare commodity on the planet... these areas are also important in reducing the effects of global warming... let them send a letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources on your behalf (and your local MPP) if you feel it matters to you... the deadline is June 15

News: Reduce logging in Algonquin Park

Provincial report supported by conservation group

May 27, 2007 - CPAWS Wildlands League is drawing attention to a quietly released provincial report that recommends reducing logging in Algonquin Provincial Park. Ultimately, the group wants logging phased out of Canada's first and oldest Provincial Park.

"Logging in the park flies in the face of protecting wildlife and nature" said Evan Ferrari, Park and Protected Areas Director for CPAWS Wildland League. "This Parks Board report shows that it's time to bring Algonquin out of the 19th century and into the 21st."

Over 77% of the park is currently open to logging. Logging in Algonquin has vastly altered the composition of the natural ecosystem. A report by the Ontario Parks Board recently released by the government recommends that more land can be protected within the park while maintaining jobs in the logging industry.

http://www.wildlandsleague.org/

[larry_llama]

The main problem here is that the logs need to come from somewhere, and these operations mostly feed southern ontario. So the real problem is the number of copies of shitty canadian tire flyers that get circulated, the number of shitty new houses being built, and the number of people being born who will need to wipe their shitty asses for the rest of their lives. My understanding is that the logging operations within government parks are highly regulated and closely monitored (especially in regards to selective logging and replanting rather than clear cutting). So by shutting these closely monitored operations down, the logging companies are going to be forced to move somewhere else... likely somewhere that has fewer (or zero) restrictions (possibly even overseas), and also likely somewhere that is much further away than the eventual destination of the logs, meaning a huge overuse of petroleum to ship the stuff.

Anyway, don't get me wrong... I'm all for protecting the parks, and natural habitats in general, but the true fight needs to be against the massive overuse of paper and wood products -- and for increased regulation of logging operations everywhere -- because no matter which way you slice it, the materials are going to be harvested and going to be used unless we change our evil ways. (just don't harvest them in my back yard)

[paisley]

granted everyone definately need to reduce their consumption and pass laws to limit how much business can waste promoting themselves etc... but this is something that can be done today to preserve one of the oldest natural ecosystems in ontariariario

worth 2 minutes of my time... lots of forest outside of Algonquin to log... gotta draw a line somewhere

[larry_llama]

Yes, but the forest outside of Algonquin will never be as closely monitored and protected, and forcing companies to log there could be asking for MUCH more trouble. What makes algonquin's forest better than the rest of the country's?

I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than that website makes it sound... cutting off the operations is not going to mean less logging, it's just going to displace it.

[paisley]

taking an area and designating that it remain untouched does the most good for the area and the planet... leave it alone and it does what its designed to do, provide refuge for wildlife and manufacture oxygen... an ecosystem is highly dependent on everything within it... cut into it and it can't do that as well as if you don't

if there's another large area of (fairly) old growth forest in central ontario we could leave untouched I'm all for it... there are stands of old hemlock and yellow birch forest within its boundaries, where the trees are 200 to 400 years old... only way to replace such an area is leave it alone for 2 - 4 hundred years...

as I said, this just seems like a good opportunity to actually do something immediately instead of thinking about doing something someday

[paisley]

ba-bump

http://www.ancientforest.org/algonquin.htm

link providing some info on the remaining old growth forest in Algonquin

Algonquin Park is probably most important for the abundance of very old hemlock and yellow birch forest within its boundaries, where trees often reach 200 to 400 years old. Old sugar maple is also common. However, a number of these old-growth forests are still not protected, and are being logged.

More than 50 years of modern Logging has eliminated much of the old-growth hardwood and hemlock forest in the managed forest part of Algonquin, however significant patches do still exist and are threatened with logging. Some are allocated within the current five-year management plan, others have recently been logged. These forests, some of which have been growing since the early 1600's, are irreplaceable. Trees that are 375 years old or more cannot be managed "sustainably" by modern forestry which typically works on rotation periods of 100 years or less.

deadline for public comment on the matter is tomorrow today

[secondtube]

" leave it alone and it does what its designed to do, provide refuge"

old growth forests do not provide any refuge for wildlife...

they get so large, and the canopies are so big, very little underbrush forms, and the forest floor is virtually lifeless.

a forest fire rips through, destorying the tops of the trees, and within the next two to three years, the forest is alive with activity once again....

this is what mother nature used to do. now we have fire fighters stopping these fires, so that million dollar houses dont get destroyed...even though they are necessary.

therefore, logging, PROPER logging, fills this void. they dont clear-cut, rather selectively cut, allowing for more forest growth and animal (and plant) activity.

This is something that has been proven time and time again, and the Algonquin Forestry Association is one of the worlds leading selective cut operations.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Guest

[paisley]

there's .5% of the original old growth forest left in Algonquin, I don't think they're going overboard on conservation... and there are actually rare species of everything from moss to eagles that only thrive in old growth... what they taught me in forestry anyways

also learned about how selective logging can help in some situations... unfortunately the forestry industry operates around meeting a bottom line and has been known to bend the reality of many environmental situations for the sake of turning one type of green into another

from wikipedia

Due to the lack of severe disturbance, old growth is often associated with rich communities of plants and animals that may be dependent upon the unique environmental conditions created by these forests. The age of the oldest trees indicates that disturbance events during the long period of development were of moderate intensity at most and did not kill all vegetation. This long period of pseudostability allows the old growth forest to become occupied over time by a wide variety of species, some of them rare.

Old growth forest serves as a reservoir for species which cannot thrive or easily regenerate in younger forest, and as such can be used as a baseline for research.

Old growth forests also store large amounts of carbon, both above and below ground. These forests collectively represent a significant pool of climate gases. Continued liquidation of these forests may increase the risk of global climate change.

if not for the animals or to prevent the carbon release into the atmosphere, old growth forests are some of the most tranquil and gorgeous places on the planet... people should think twice before snuffing out the last of such environs

[edger]

thanks for the link paisley.

[paisley]

thanks for the link paisley.

more than glad to pass it along

[larry_llama]

unfortunately the forestry industry operates around meeting a bottom line and has been known to bend the reality of many environmental situations for the sake of turning one type of green into another

Which is why we need to be ultra careful about forcing the forestry industry away from a well-monitored situation and into a potentially completely unmonitored one. I will say it again: the trees are gonna go down SOMEWHERE. Better to have it happen in a highly controlled environment.

If you want to do something right now instead of thinking about doing something later, start a new petition attacking toilet paper companies who use new pulp intead of 100% post consumer paper. Or plant some trees!

[larry_llama]

Or fight for leagalization of hemp, which could provide for all of our pulp&paper needs without touching a single tree...

[paisley]

sigh... sorry bro, keeping some of the last remaining old growth standing isn't a point I'm going to budge on... simply love the forest, the more natural the better

there's tree farms from Guelph to Sudbury... the world need large natural areas for life to continue... we breathe air

it'll take 5 human lifetimes to recreate the type of forests that are put in harms way by continuing logging... logging it will add to the global warming problem... there could be an unknown type of moss in there that one day leads to a cure for your emphasyma... European and Asian tourists are crazy about being able to visit such areas

if ya don't wanna sign in, don't sign it =)

[larry_llama]

Dorothy Shaver

District Planner

Ministry of Natural Resources

Parry Sound District Office

7 Bay Street

Parry Sound Ontario

P2A 1S4

Re: Logging in Algonquin Park

EBR Registry Number: 010-0445

Dear Ms. Shaver,

I believe a park is a park and not a place for industry.

I also believe that the logging industry needs to be more closely monitored on all Canadian land, whether protected parkland or not.

I do not want to see the controlled operations currently planned for Algonquin displaced to private land where the logging industry can operate with utter disregard for the forest (i.e. through clearcutting).

I believe that the true answer to our problems lies in strict regulation of ALL logging operations EVERYWHERE coupled with policies forcing all industries who consume pulp/paper/lumber to meet minimum quotas for usage of recycled materials.

Until we can be assured that the displaced logging companies will not operate in a less-than-desirable fashion outside of the park, I do not want them to be kicked out.

Sincerely,

[paisley]

right on, everyone should say their piece

should mention that crown land is public land not private (and is where almost all corporate logging takes place... quite a bargain for the industry)

far as I know clear-cutting is illegal now, even on your own property you have to obtain a bunch of tough to obtain permits before you mess around too much with the forest

[larry_llama]

sigh... sorry bro, keeping some of the last remaining old growth standing isn't a point I'm going to budge on... simply love the forest, the more natural the better

Man, I totally understand where you are coming from, I just think that this is a misdirected target for activism, and I really think that the "greater good" will be more damaged by forcing them out into the untamed and unmonitored wild. These companies are not clearcutting algonquin. I also think the "km of roads" paragraph in that letter is misleading and reactionary. The map that they link to that shows "open to logging" areas makes it look like the areas are open to clearcutting which is not the case. The website is completely unbalanced and offers no alternative viewpoint and little empirical data other than the lengths of the logging roads. Guess what, if the logging roads were shorter, I'd be more worried because it would mean that they are allowed to drive to one spot and pick all their trees from there. Selectively logging the old growth trees that are likely going to die within the next 10 years is good environmental practise, especially when compared to the shitstorm that you see when you are flying over BC. Putting logging roads all over the park means that they are selectively picking trees from everywhere instead of razing single areas.

If we could be assured that they'd follow the same practises outside the park, then by all means, keep the park free of logging. Until then though, if keeping them under a watchful eye eliminates just one clearcut somewhere else, we are ahead of the game.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Guest

[larry_llama]

Anyway, I'm serious about the hemp thing. That's where the focus really needs to be. It is utterly sick that we use trees to make paper.

[Esau.]

I don't want to see the old growth go either, but since logging is going to happen anyway, I'd much rather see selective logging in a controlled setting then letting the logging companies have a free for all on the crownland. The crownland is just as important as Algonquin and in alot of areas, (where I canoe and camp for example) has old growth and unique species of plants and animals just as Algonquin does. I'm not sure why one is considered more important then the other to be honest.

I agree with Dorthey Shaver's letter, which also seems to be right in line with "The Friends Of Algonquin Park", according to the newsletter I recieved the other month.

And I agree with larry about petitioning the companies that are dependant on the logging for whatever product. FOA are also taking that stance it appears.

[paisley]

I agree whole-heartedly with the hemp thing

the Algonquin thing to me is about you can't replace relatively accessible untouched forest... I believe such areas are crucial to human well being... let the forestry companies have to go where people won't bother

the forestry industry is monitored pretty intensely by both governmental and public watchdogs these days, could see your clear-cutting point moreso a few decades back

this isn't an activist movement... this is a government agency (Ontario Parks) recommending that more park be preserved... considering global warming and the booming expansion of suburbs and consumer product lust, I agree

[larry_llama]

the Algonquin thing to me is about you can't replace relatively accessible untouched forest... let the forestry companies have to go where people won't bother

So it sounds like the argument is more based on the recreational accessibility of algonquin and less about saving the forests in general for the sake of the planet/the animals/mother earth/etc?

[Esau.]

far as I know clear-cutting is illegal now, even on your own property you have to obtain a bunch of tough to obtain permits before you mess around too much with the forest

As of 2005...

In 2002, the practice of clear cutting in Ontario was placed under close scrutiny in a report of Ontario’s Environment Commissioner who termed it, “an experiment on a massive scale†and observed that it was well documented that boreal forests were undergoing significant species conversion with clear cutting one of the main causes. The commissioner warned, “The continued commitment to clear cutting large areas of the original forest seems to run a great risk that that conversion will continue.†Premier McGuinty has promised to “end the [previous governments] policy of allowing unlimited size clear cuts in Ontario. These massive clear-cuts cause irreparable damage to our forests.†Yet, today clear cutting accounts for 90% of all the logging in Ontario.

http://www.forestethics.org/article.php?id=1227

Maybe some things have changed since 2005, but as far as I know they haven't changed that much.Take a drive north of Superior Provincial Park sometime and check out the crownland, it'll be pretty obvious.

[paisley]

to me its as much an aesthetic treasure as it is a natural one... having it close-by is extremely healthy for our polluted region as well... my personal bottom line is I feel land thats survived this long should earn some sort of grace

as I've actually seen it and smelt it there's a personal attachment too

rather see European and Asian tourists take eco-tours through Algonquin than have the closest truly natural area be a 12 hour drive north where most people in ontario will never see it

[paisley]

well, perhaps I came into the discussion ill prepared (someone e-mailed me a link yesterday so thought I'd post it as it tugged some heart strings)... at the time trusted Ontario Parks were in a position to know if this was worthwhile or not... now I feel a little more maybe/maybe not

I remember my smarter seeming forestry instructors felt logging further north was better for the overall picture for some reason or other... sadly don't remember the whole story (the program was mostly teaching me how to chop down forests, not keep them standing so I bailed after first year)

already signed that thing yesterday and still feel fine I did... Sagittarians love to debate whether they're right or not, guess I can be a sucker for pretty much any cause... certainly wouldn't chose clear-cut anywhere over selective logging... basically assumed the selective logging would have to take place somewhere else while Algonquin got some time off

today is actually the last day to sign it (I said tomorrow earlier on) if you feel so inclined

gotta do some work, more discussion on the subject with you fellers over some beers soon

[larry_llama]

Ahh petitions are useless anyway...

[Chips]

In response to "...to preserve one of the oldest natural ecosystems in ontariariario"...

Algonquin was actually clearcut in the 19th century and many new species (such as white-tailed dear) have invaded the area since then.

As someone who has been an avid park visitor for many years (hiking, canoeing & even mountain biking!) I have NEVER seen any signs that the park is logged. Most people have no idea that logging even occurs in the park. It is a well managed and long term sustainable project that supplies southern Ontario with it’s seemingly endless hunger for timber.

If logging was completely stopped in the park, demand for wood would not instantly drop. What would happen is the void would be filled with wood logged elsewhere, even as far away as the rainforests from Indonesia or Brazil.

I also do not believe that any of the ‘old growth’ forests that remain within Algonquin (there are a few patches here and there that survived the clear cutting 150 years ago) are logged. Everything cut down are ‘new growth’ trees.

I cannot under any circumstance support a decision to stop sustainable logging (even within a provincial park) and move it to someone elses backyard where far more destructive logging techniques are practiced.

If you want to make a difference, I agree with the above posters that:

a) We (city dwellers who gobble up lumber as fast as they can cut it) must reduce our consumption (ie. no more shitty McMansion subdivisions!)

Find alternatives to wood (Hemp IS a most remarkable plant with infinite possibilities)