Has anyone heard anything about the new plan that is basically reducing the amount of conservation forest set aside on crown land or raising it?
It will be very interesting to see the results after the discussion between Irving and Rod Cumberland about herbicide use and effects on wildlife habitat.
I imagine it will be out with the budget. But Cumberland is out of touch. He should strap on a brush saw this summer and work beside me cutting out those sprayed plantations and I'll show him all kinds of hardwoods and also lots of red spruce being cut to save a planted black spruce. That's the true travesty planting trees where none are needed, and I mean plenty of red spruce. All that really needs planting is the roadside dead zone. Walk in 50 meters and it's a wall. I think he did more windshield cruising than walking. ;D The only place we see deer much is near wintering areas and they have been cutting those to lately because that's where the mature spruce is left (red spruce at that). A deer isn't in a clearcut in the winter unless there is low snowfall. Even on private where the land isn't all plantations as he says crown is, the deer are not in adjacent clearcuts in the winter they are in the mature-overmature softwoods, up here mostly in cedar. The 2007 opening of the 4-lane down through the Charleston-Wilmot area pretty much wiped them deer out in that wintering area. On private land. They moved over near the Hospital in Waterville, but there is a mature patch up along the Little Presque Isle stream and the deer are even walking on the ice like a trail in there. The place is all tramped up.
I've heard from somebody that should know that there will be some information coming out this week. I suspect the plan will be no more than increasing the aac for crown lands. This will be accomplished by reducing the amount of conservation forest. Going to be lots of crying and complaining from many.
Its a very interesting topic depending on what your perspective is. On the wildlife perspective cleaning hardwoods from softwoods "is bad" but on the forestry perspective it "is good".
A big thing that people are overlooking as well is that Cumberland's point was not to attack an individual or company about their use of herbicide but to educate the public of the effects of herbicide.
This will be very interesting and there will be squawking from either side depending on the results.
Cleaning hardwoods in softwoods with brush saws is good for deer, all that new fresh regrowth next year. They don't winter in young growth, they winter in mature timber where there is thermal cover and small hardwoods in open voids. They can't reach limbs 10 feet up and don't chew bark off like rabbits. :) I have plantations that have been thinned, they are nearing 20 years old now and the deer are moving in. We never had many deer in my area even 40 years ago, our area is moose country. This before the big clearcut craze around here. I have video of moose herds, I see 3 deer together at most ever up here. Except down in the wintering ground I mentioned and they are much thinned out by the highway. My skid trails are moose paths.
I also think Cumberland is a little out of touch as well. In his cbc interviews his math is kind of questionable.I worked for the mill in cape breton for a summer and not using herbicide has resulted in many sites even after planting being unsuccessfully reforested, mainly because of raspberry. So in many cases no herbicides can make a site very unproductive for a long time or what we would even consider a forest. Herbicides will only hold back hardwoods temporarily so its not like that type of treatment will remove hardwoods from the landscape all together. I am not all for herbicide or anything but I think it is an important tool that foresters/techs should have the opportunity to use when it makes silvicultural sense, but in NS anyway with certification/city folks against it, herbicide wont be an option.
They are saying Rod is a former DNR deer biologist, did he retire or something?
Hows ranger school treatin ya mcgregor? gooner mcgoon still teach there?
I believe he retired. A friend of mine was a classmate with the current provincial biologist. And he has a few issues with the higher ups as well to the point that he was on leave for a bit. So there is some bitterness within DNR. When you visit Timber Management branch and see all the Irving trucks in the yard, versus DNR trucks, you know who they are working for. Also, when talking to them some time ago I find out that any tree 46 cm and bigger is considered 46 cm. That's the type of cruising they conduct, and RPF approved. ::)
Quote from: Ramicorn on March 10, 2014, 09:32:27 PM
I also think Cumberland is a little out of touch as well. In his cbc interviews his math is kind of questionable.I worked for the mill in cape breton for a summer and not using herbicide has resulted in many sites even after planting being unsuccessfully reforested, mainly because of raspberry. So in many cases no herbicides can make a site very unproductive for a long time or what we would even consider a forest. Herbicides will only hold back hardwoods temporarily so its not like that type of treatment will remove hardwoods from the landscape all together. I am not all for herbicide or anything but I think it is an important tool that foresters/techs should have the opportunity to use when it makes silvicultural sense, but in NS anyway with certification/city folks against it, herbicide wont be an option.
They are saying Rod is a former DNR deer biologist, did he retire or something?
Hows ranger school treatin ya mcgregor? gooner mcgoon still teach there?
Yes he did leave and is now an instructor at the ranger school.
Ranger school is great experience/opportunity. Who do you mean? Haha ;D
kenny mcginn aka gooner mcgoon. Cumberland is teaching wildlife I assume?
Quote from: Ramicorn on March 11, 2014, 03:40:31 PM
kenny mcginn aka gooner mcgoon. Cumberland is teaching wildlife I assume?
Mcginn retired in December. Cumberland's a wildlife instructor.
I'll throw in my take on the herbicide issue...
I've thinned in stands that had been previously treated with herbicide. As others have said, a lot of hardwood does grow back, not as much as if it hadn't been herbicided but still quite a lot. It will also likely grow back for a few years after the treatment.
That being said this was on Free hold land in Nova Scotia. I don't know what herbicide they used, how much was applied, or how long ago. I don't know if practices are different on crown or free hold land in new brunswick. Maybe they are maybe they aren't. All I can talk about with any certainty is what I have seen.
I also know that the highway from fredericton to moncton passes through some large jack pine plantations. Those plantations have been herbicided. There is little to no deer food in those plantations but not all of the province looks like that and it would be foolish to use this as a yardstick for how deer are doing in the province. Some stands are better for deer, maybe others are worse.
Is herbicide bad? Its really bad if you're a hardwood tree, its a godsend if you're trying to feed a pulp mill and keep jobs in the province. Is it safe? The makers will say it's practically fit to drink, but it isn't on tap at any bar I know of. We've come a long way from DDT though, and I don't see any fish with two heads.
As far as herbicide hurting deer... We can look at a dramatic spike in the deer population around the early 20th century when forestry practices began to change in the province.
Prior to this the norm had been to "selectively cut" (High grade) spruce and pine, but with the arrival of the pulp and paper industry the practice of clearcutting became more widespread. This opened up massive new amounts of food for the deer population, thus creating the spike. The population dropped off dramatically later in the century because of many factors. A few harsh winters, and the arrival of the coyote to name a few. The fact that herbicide use and the beginning of plantations happened at the same time... I DON'T KNOW. Some would argue, but I don't think there's enough evidence to definitively point in either direction. (Please feel free to disagree with my historical account, I was just boiling it down as I have learned it ;))
Bottom line is it's a complex problem. We're dealing with a huge number of people all wanting different things, a large number of whom have been fed biased and/or false information (From all sides), I was talking to someone the other day about this and they said they didn't even know that deer ate trees. People have the right to be uninformed and they have the right to have an opinion. If it was easy to manage wildlife or a forest then you wouldn't need a degree for either.
I frankly don't see a solution. We could eliminate herbicide and just do manual weeding but where on earth are you going to find enough people willing to make 100$ a day dragging a brush saw around in 30 (Celsius) degree weather while being eaten alive by horse flies to get all of that done? How would you pay for that? But supposedly it'll make the deer happy.
We could keep using herbicide which would eradicate all the deer as some would lead us to believe. We'll grow a lot of spruce but we'll eliminate a source of revenue and put an end to a few hundred years of traditional field pursuits.
Both options leave someone ticked off. But they are not the only ways to deal with it, and likely any solution would have to be a comprimise.
I'll end with this,
What do a biologist, a forester, a landowner, an MLA and a member of the general public have in common? They all want something completely different.
One thing about the white tailed deer you may not know. It is an invasive species to the Maritimes. In my great grandfather's youth there were no deer up here, they hunted Caribou and moose, no deer. A couple books to read up on big game in New Brunswick are 'Men of the Autumn Woods: Non-resident Big Game Hunting in NB, the Golden Years 1885-1935' and 'Beyond the Trodden Path: Sport and Adventure in Early NB'. Author Gerry Parker, Canadian Wildlife Service (retired 1997). The second book has a couple of great grand dad's uncles, who were guides, great grandfather was a guide, grandfather was a guide on the Tobique. The deer arrived early 20th C. In the 1930's was the end of the NB woodland Caribou.
Yeah the interview with Rod I saw he was tote-ting the manual weeding as a big job creator, and mind you it would, but probably would require a lot of foreign temporary worker permits.
Plan is apparently going to be announced tomorrow. Will be interested to see if there will be something in it for the smaller independent mills or will the big boys get all the extra allocation.
Rami, I do think some large contractors did hire some foreign workers. But as long as I have thinned it's been all local people. A lot of folks have thinned for over 20 years. Harder to get young people into thinning though. Most of the young fellers I see now aren't real productive on the end of a brush saw. ;)
Yeah I am surprised it hasn't really been used for forestry around here, a company I worked for in NS did hire some Jamaicans a few years ago for planting but seemed to only be a one time thing. I think in BC it is pretty common practice to have foreign workers for brushing. I am one of those young fellars haha, but yeah overall most of the crews around here have very few younger guys getting into it or staying with it which is worrying but a sign of the times I imagine. I planted for many years and was a bit apprehensive about spacin, but liked it way more once I got into it a bit, alot higher money potential for a days work.
Well nothing new, same tune, same drum beat. They say woodlot owners will be able to sell more wood. How? They got more wood off crown to feed their upgrades they are going to announce. There's nothing there at all for woodlot owners. I'd like to read the details, not the glossy handouts. ;D
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/new-brunswick/story/1.2568734 (http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/new-brunswick/story/1.2568734)
Not a surprising result by any means. I guess my issue is that i see valuable arguments on both sides so i dont know which side to take. But interesting..
I find it confusing how they can double protected natural areas, maintain deer yards. and decrease wildlife habitat all while increasing crown land to cut by 20%..
The government is great at shell games. If they are going to increase protected areas, that means they are only tying up land that has already been cut and treated (thinned) a few years ago. There is no more land other than that and swamps. And swamps have not held them back for cutting because that's what most of the PCT is now a days, all the good ground has been cut and thinned. Crown land cutting has a pretty loosey goosey definition of the clean water act and what a watercourse is. Better bring the rubber boots if your thinning. :D
In case you haven't noticed, they've been cutting those deer yards. Out in Becaquimac, they cut that one a couple winter ago. We had thinned a block beside it and as soon as it was thinned the deer ground was being cut. That was the only place I ever saw deer out there.
Another question would be is when did the public get to have a say in what happens to their land?
They did through several reports and meetings, but pretty much ignored. The environmental movement doesn't influence politics here much like it does in Co or Cal. Mostly because it's not very well organized, very little funding sources and the government can not be sued. I haven't got much to complain about since I've still got a job for the foreseeable future. ;D
I guess i cant complain either as im basically buying into being part of the industry by going to school for it ;D
Independent documentary site on the new Forestry Plan.
http://isourforestreallyours.com/Isourforestreallyours/Welcome.html
The plan is even in the Maine news.
Quite a hornet's nest I'm thinking. But probably everyone will get up in the morning and get on with life, like with many forestry issues before.
The story certainly seems to draw a lot of comments every time it comes up, but I don't think the public outcry will lead to any changes in the plan. I wonder if the increase in allotment will fill the wood supply gap until a lot of the plantations become harvest ready? They won't get anywhere near as nice wood out of the plantations as they will get out of these stands though.
The wood will have wider growth rings and I'm pretty sure most won't be 80 years old before they are cut. The 80 year thing is good on paper, but I have seen Frasers try to get fibre from thinnings that were spaced 12-15 years before. I marked harvest trails in some and the wood was mighty small. A 4-5" dbh fir or spruce doesn't yield much. It certainly doesn't provide a 50 foot marketable stick. The trees are only about 30 feet tall, max. There has to be an intermediate thinning. A one time spacing leaves the trees too tight within 15 years. When you find big wood in the forest, the trees are not thick. On one private woodlot owned by a town, they cut red spruce over 3 foot through and hard maple 4 foot through. It was at one time a watershed under protection. But towns are on wells these days with water towers. So budgets often come off woodlots. The feds did the same with Agriculture Centres. Go look at their woodlots, they were all cut 20-30 years ago due to cut backs from government. Now they have sold the seed farm in Bon Accord. That's always the end, selling off assets.
Quote from: SwampDonkey on May 02, 2014, 04:15:33 AM
There has to be an intermediate thinning.
That's the one big thing missing from the NB silviculture program. We're very good at pre commercial thinning and planting but any treatments after that seem to be lacking. The Irvings do quite a bit of commercial thinning on their own ground but I don't think much is done on crown, I doubt if any is done on private ground. I noticed the YSC marketing board subsidizes semi commercial thinning but I don't think there is provincial subsidy money for it.
I think YSC and SNB boards use levy money for those treatments. I am pretty sure than the SNB board keeps a woodlot account for owners to do followup work on their land.
The Private Woodlot Silv Manual doesn't indicate any such treatments or rates. Long ago, the provincial government said they would not subsidize treatments that removed any commercial fibre. When the Cooperation agreement was in effect with the Feds they did have such programs, even pruning in some provinces (they did a lot of hemlock pruning in BC). There were some small scale Hardwood Crop Tree Release treatments. You had to have some fairly decent hardwoods to qualify, which only makes good sense. There wasn't enough of that work being done though to be significant. Many softwood secondary thinnings were soon clear cut anyway since folks don't seem to let their wood grow much in size these days.
Over the past couple of years some of the provincial silviculture monies are also available for commercial thinning in stands that are heavily dominated by tolerant species. The program is directed at restoring the Acadian Forest stand type. I did a few of these commercial thins last year and am currently doing one that is dominated by yellow birch. Ironically the one that I am working on now is a stand that I pct'd in the late 90's. We are removing in the range of 7-8 cords/acre. I remember that the stems in this stand were quite big when we did the pct work. I will get some pictures next week as it is coming out very nice.
That's good to know they have changed their policy a bit. We have lost our best hardwood ground up this way to potato fields. Glassville and New Denmark areas have more hardwoods left because of the terrain up there. Lots of big hills hard to farm. That makes cutting wood a challenge to. For the last 30 years the McCains have pushed hard for more land clearing. I've seen a lot of plantations bulldozed to clear back as well.
Yes, I now see in the manual where they offer $700/ha to the boards for this. And has to be premapped for approval. It's a paragraph outside of the regular rate structure.
However, I have seen some 20 year old hardwood PCT that still have a large percentage of stems barely merchantable. If there were fir and popple in the mix they were significantly larger and merchantable.
Hi SwampDonkey - so from your posts here and in other sections of this site I am getting the impression that Irving owns things over/up there? Is it just NB or all over Canada? Yes they are all over in Maine but I think they got that way by having clean, well kept stores. Back when that wasn't the norm around here. Now every one else does too.
They were able to expand because of diversity of the company and some major government handouts and back room deals. They got millions of acres of forest lands that belonged to the NB Railroad Co during the Lord Beaverbrook years for next to nothing. About everything they do as far as big announcements on expansions/upgrades/contracts costs the NB and Federal governments. Hard to loose when you feed on the government.
Then there are little jems like these over the years.
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03503.html
I hear you man. We have political issues over here too. Did anything come of those charges? I don't know your judicial system well. Can it be delayed for years on end like down here? If you have a good lawyer? $$$$$$
Still in the courts.
One time, back a few years ago, the feds investigated them over something else. The Irvings said they didn't have to tell'm anything and they didn't. And that was that.
They are also in court with our forest products marketing boards as well. Boards are woodlot owner organizations.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/forest-products-contracts-require-boards-approval-1.2422525
Well the march on the legislature has begun yesterday over this plan.
CBC News Article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/hundreds-protest-crown-forestry-deal-outside-legislature-1.2642289)
Not surprised to see Rod Cumberland leading the charge. :)
The one thing I learned from that article was there's a such thing as a "forest Sociologist" :-\
What is that? Sociologist?