You're right, I should have written value of the logs. I don't know what their selling prices or costs are but I'd guess the muni will make more than 30,000$
I believe the 30,000 is the RMOW's cut of the profits split between the CCF partners…
You're right, I should have written value of the logs. I don't know what their selling prices or costs are but I'd guess the muni will make more than 30,000$
I believe the 30,000 is the RMOW's cut of the profits split between the CCF partners…
@forest - THANK YOU for catching the ha/ cubic metres mix up. I've corrected above. The idea is certainly to get the numbers right. (And thanks for also catching this on TGR.)
The dollar figure of $20,000 - $30,000 is what has been circulated amongst RMOW staff [HTML_REMOVED] Council. No one has yet come out and said otherwise. I would gather this is final profit after being divided by Pemberton, Squamish, Whistler and Lil'Wat and Squamish First Nations.
And YES, Community Forests are a step in the right direction, even as they are part of a broader agenda to deregulate provincial forest stewardship.
So the next question is precisely how RMOW and partners can step up and think ahead in terms of forestry practice, and take control of the reigns, rather than blindly following the Province's dictum from logging corporations to log come hell-or-high water. We're beyond that now …
So the point is to start raising awareness about how immediate logging practices will impact local recreation and tourism, so that the management of Community Forests becomes a municipal/local political issue, in which forestry use is decided through local consultation, rather than forestry maximums. The point is to create a model CF so that other areas which do not have Community Forests can fight for them…
FYI here is a response from WORCA Trails Director Jerome David on the issue. If you want to contact WORCA, you can do so at:
http://www.worca.com/?page_id=446
Frankly I am a little surprised that WORCA has not circulated this information to its membership. Either their hands are tied, or they don't want to jeopardize official provincial trail recognition…
==
We are fully aware of this and all the issues around it. I received the maps back in June and met with Tom and some other party's in July.
It was agreed to on a 50 ft buffer along all trails where possible.
Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do legally, these guys have had the licence for that zone before we made the trails what they are now.
We are working on getting these trail to be officially recognized with the province, but at this point we are happy that we have been able to have open
communicate with Tom and have him respect the trails to certain degree. His licence does not force him to even acknowledge those trails.
Processes have begun to have Trails recognized at a provincial level.
Thank you Jerome
WORCA Trail Director
Tom P, seral regeneration is regeneration after a natural event. For example the coniferous forests on Sumas mountain had never been previously loggedl; the regenerated forests were the results of continuing forests fires. It is easy to see the remants of these fires on the remaining stumps and the survivors. Biomass content in old growth forest is greater than second growth so the carbon sequestration is greater.
If you read provincial policy on old growth forests, woodlots and community forests are exempt from the policy.
So the point is to start raising awareness about how immediate logging practices will impact local recreation and tourism, so that the management of Community Forests becomes a municipal/local political issue, in which forestry use is decided through local consultation, rather than forestry maximums. The point is to create a model CF so that other areas which do not have Community Forests can fight for them…
thing is, this IS happening. WORCA and the CCF had talked about what the CCF said they'd do, we were uncomfortable with that so seeked a letter of agreement to put their promises in writing, which they have done. CCF and COm Rec tenure holders are going to be having a sit down meeting within a few weeks to hash out their issues, and the CCF has withdrawn the Callaghan block until issues are resolved. I want to see trails protected as much as anyone, but I also think this issue has been blown WAY out of proportion. WORCA is more comfortable with the CCF's plans now and while individuals may have their own opinions about the logging, as a trails group we feel that we're doing pretty good in getting commitments from teh CCF to protect our trail resources. Will logging take place close to some trails, yes, but at least now they're consulting us to minimize impacts, or more likely, completely avoid trails…and we have that in writing. LIke I said, you're allowed your own opinion about it all, but the board of WORCA is confident that we are protecting our trails.
and, for what it's worth, I had a look at the Cheak Riv block and while the overall area overlaps lower babylon, the proposed harvesting actually does not take place on the trail, but downhill from it…..and besides, lower babylon is an overgrown mess and a maintenance nightmare….
Seems like WORCA has their ducks in a row as usual.
Tom P, seral regeneration is regeneration after a natural event.
So its ok to log stands that have burnt previously, or stands that have been previously knocked down by windthrow etc. Does that not include pretty much every stand on the coast?
Biomass content in old growth forest is greater than second growth so the carbon sequestration is greater.
Yes overall carbon content in old growth is greater than second growth, but if we are talking about sequestration of carbon, then old growth does little to further remove carbon from the air compared to second growth. The key is to 'store' the carbon that is removed (logs) in such a way that they do not decay (buildings).
If you read provincial policy on old growth forests, woodlots and community forests are exempt from the policy.
you didnt explain why you think we shouldn't get top dollar for our timber?
River City Cycle Club - www.rivercitycycle.ca
Comox Valley Mountain Biking - www.cvmtb.com
A rough estimate of the land harvested through the community forest Annual Allowable Cut of 20,000 m3 is 40 hectares at 500m3/hectare. The community forest landbase is approximately 30,000 hectares.
so 40/30000 = 0.1% of the community forest harvested per year doesn't really set off alarm bells in my mind IF it's obviously managed properly. As long as it's not royally pissing off a user group and some of the proceeds goes back to the community, who knows, a new logging road providing good access to some ski touring, sledding, mountain biking, hiking, etc. You'd think this could be planned win/win…
Just one example is Matt Gunn's scrambles book which is pretty much all based on logging/mining road acesss. This infrastructure let's us enjoy the mountains and appreciate where we live. So I think there's a balance somewhere to be found.
@FlipFantasia - yes, thank you. I've received some emails from WORCA's board after contacting them about the issue as a member. However it is worth noting that after attending the RMOW open house I had to contact WORCA about the issue. As far as I know WORCA has not contacted its members concerning the impact of logging on WORCA trails, nor released anything publicly concerning negotiations with the CCF etc (unless I've completely missed it - if so please let me know).
I think overall most everyone I've talked to - including here on NSMB - are onboard with a reasonable approach to logging in the Sea-to-Sky… however I would say that before the "issue got blown out of proportion" these discussions were simply not taking place in the public sphere. Most people including the WORCA members I've spoken with didn't know and most still don't know that logging will impact WORCA trails. And with due respect to the Board, I would assume this would be an issue that is very imporant to the membership, and perhaps steps should be taken to communicate it with some clarity…
@Mark-R: ya, we've discussed this, I think we're on the same page. The devil is in the details as usual. The new road that might be put in would be at the Sea-to-Sky Trail bridge crossing the Cheakamus River (we biked across it at the end of Runaway Train). The idea is to turn this into a logging bridge + bike bridge so that logging can be opened up east of the Cheakamus. Previously the river provided a natural barrier. Frankly, I'd rather not see this area opened up to road development. Do we really need new logging roads? Developing some backcountry access at the expense of damaging subalpine ecological systems doesn't balance out in my books… what would make more sense would be stewardship logging of fire fuel, creation of firebreaks, and Hydro line logging which to their credit the CCF is focusing on, and not the felling of new cutblocks.
As always thanks for writing, I've learned quite a bit from these exchanges and elsewhere. At the least, I felt it important to raise the issue in a public forum to hear various opinions on the matter. And I'm quite happy to see the level of engagement and concern as well as balanced considerations of recreational use, logging practices and tourism…
I think its pretty awesome that the Muni spent money on trails like Comfortably Numb and Train Wreck Etc. then is gonna spend more money to destroy and reroute some of for a little bit of coin that would not even come close to the money the spent building the trails in the first place…with the whole Ashphalt Plant bullshit plus other little things this council has been doing I am shocked there hasn't been a recall in the works….all these bums will be out come next election I think…and I thought Melamed would be a good mayor with all his enviromental standings in the past, what a hypocrite!!
Nothing new here really, over 20 years Council has shoveled it in regards to this stuff..
20 plus years ago Lost Lake area used to be bigger. RMOW and Council stated we will never develop anything in there.Shortly after the Nature Trail was bulldozed for housing.
FYI….
The Cheakamus Community Forest Society will also work directly with the Whistler Off Road Cycling Association (WORCA) to ensure forest management planning for the community forest meets mountain bike recreation needs. Whistler council voted at the September 21, 2010 meeting to give WORCA a seat on the Forest and Wildland Advisory Committee, the public input body to the CCF.
[HTML_REMOVED]#8220;The Cheakamus Community Forest Society recognizes that WORCA is the voice of mountain biking in the Whistler area and is integral to forest management planning that meets community needs,[HTML_REMOVED]#8221; said Ackhurst. [HTML_REMOVED]#8220;WORCA will attend the Forest and Wildland Advisory Committee monthly meetings and meet as needed with the CCF so that it can stay current on activities and have continual updates and input into forestry plans.[HTML_REMOVED]#8221;
Congrats WORCA ..
Also of note, the logging has been delayed according to the Question:
Opinions vary on whether this is really because (a) it's simply taking awhile to process the CCF apps or (b) the Province thinks Whistler's selective logging is too radical and they are uncomfortable with it as it might encourage others in seeking forestry alternatives (this is a power shift from Provinces to Munis in forest management, and is shifting forestry from larger corps to muni chosen partners, in this case the much smaller Richmond Plywood, and though the Prov wants to offload responsibility, they still want to maintain control over the conditions of the CCF).
Guess we'll see.
The alarmist note in the question is somewhat ridiculous - ie that if not logged now, we'll have to log more later - what this delay does do is create more time for alternatives.
Go WORCA, I hope the seat on the Council holds effective weight and isn't just smoke on the water…
Forum jump: