[Trapper Gary]

The money for the silvicultural has noting to do with the government. It all comes from the private mills who must do silvicultural based on the amount of wood they buy .So if there is no buying of wood, there is no silvicultural money.
I dont know if they know it, but there is supposed to be a court case in 1958 where the owner was charged for clear cutting under the small tree act. It was thrown out because the department could not prove that there would be any more wood at the end of 80 years rotation, then if it was clear cut. That will be interesting to see how that works out.
Then there are the tax issues with revenue Canada. You can leave your wood lot to your son or daughter, and the capital gains is deferred onto them. But if you give your woodlot to some one else, your estate has to settle the taxes you owe. So if your a broke pensioner who never set enough a side to pay the taxes for the person you want to give it to, then that will leave two options if the new owner does not have enough either to pay the taxes to keep the land. Since the land can not be cut to sell the wood, the wood lot will go for sale Most locals do not have enough to buy the land, so that leaves only non Canada ownership, or it gets sold to a local pulp mill or saw mill. Either way the land is gone.
On the positive side when I worked in Germany 15 years ago building wooden houses, people drove for up to 1000 km away to come and watch us build a wood house, as it was a novelty to see one. At that time 2x4 over there was selling for just over $10.00 each. So if your going to build a shed or camp, you better get it done this year.
Since most of the chater has come from non owners about the cutting owners, this might also be a good time to make every one take a course, and then buy a habitat stamp if they do not own the land or work there, before they can enter a forested area. This would put close to $1 000 000 in to the fund each year, the fund could be expanded to include silvicultural funding directed through the local forestry co-ops run by the wood lot owners.

 

[Trapper Gary]

I think the minister means what he says, and he seems to have a way to get things done. I read most of the stragety reports, which is where the info came from I think. This government often spoke before becoming elected that they wanted someting done about the harvesting practices, and the reports give the tools to do this.
It also said in the reports that trapping and hunting where important. that was a good thing as far as I am concerned.

 

[Trapper Gary]

http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/strategy2010/framework-update.asp

This might change hunting access? A landowner might need a management plan, if they are doing anything other then cutting some fire wood.There are a lot of private wood lot owners that do not do there own work, so they might very well become part of the companies management plan. If that is so, then the definition of wood land might take on a new meaning.

For a wood lot operator like my self, it should mean more money for my product. This proposed harvest reduction might mean they will be looking in more corners to fill the demand, but the demand can only be filled by stricter guidelines.

Might be worth every ones read

 

[Trapper Gary]

A few years ago when I was receiving $150 a cord road side for my stud wood. My father and I cut about 600 cord over a three year period from our lot. We also cut pulp that went along with cutting the stud wood. I did selection cutting , so now have nothing but the best trees left. I counted most of those trees I cut and I received from $5.00 to $10.00 for every tree cut. I don't disagree with the process we are going through with this new forest policy, as I firmly believe that it will push up the price per tree left on our wood lots.

But along with this process wood lot owners do need to be given a credit for trees left on the ground for wildlife habitat.

I hear a lot of chiming from the speciality groups applauding the new policy as well, as also many experts who sit on the recommending board for this new policy. Not one has spoken about such a credit.

The reason why i think the credit is important. As the value price per tree increases, as trees on the wood lot mature, they will be selective cut and taken out of the forest. So were is the biomass needed for example to help the NS marten population? You need course woody material of at least 6 cubic metres per ha, with a diameter of about 15 cm to maintain an active marten population.

I dont believe that there will be a lot of large required trees left on wood lots with the new proposed system, unless there is some form of renumeration to the land owner. We have on our wood lot about 300 tress per acre that are creeping up in value very quickly. So lets say that I can look at those in a few years and see a minimum of a $50.00 per tree, its going to be quite the decision process to just stand back and let that one go to the point of falling down. If its not left to fall down, then the new process will become a recessive process regarding wild life as far as i am concerned. Just my opinion.

 

[Trapper Gary]

you raise some valid points but I have some significant concerns regarding your proposal.

who pays the credit- the taxpayer? besides subsidizing a private industry this may cause some problems with our American friends regardng NAFTA.

Is this credit a one year or multi year credit.

If a one year credit then how does the government authority have to monitor the situation??

If government monitored who/what pays the yearly expenses to administer the program??

if monitoring discovers cheating in the program how much is the penalty and would a fraud or theft charge be the most appropriate penalty.

Untimately I think your suggestion, while worth looking into or modifying, would lead to taxpayer waste, questionable results and massive fraud by some individuals, another bloated breaucracy wasting money.

using your 300 trees per acre works out to 15000 dollars per acre. I would suggest a better use of government resources would be to get the government out of the wood business, eliminate subsidies and let private business/woodlot owners hire and pay their own foresters and land managers and let them manage their private lands to their full potential unencumbered by government as opposed to more subsidies.

the 15000 dollars per acre saved could then be used to purchase more Crown land. under your proposal the "land" is merely leased and would never become a resource for all Nova Scotians.

The silvivultural credit program is dirived from current forestry regulations. This program is 100% paid for by the private lumbering companies. If a lumbering company chooses not to due a silvicultural progam based on the volume of wood being cut, then they must pay a cash sum to to government so a silvicultural program can be completed. Except for selection management credits that can be reclaimed every 10 years, providing stand criteria is maintained, all other credits are a once payment.

Depending on tree size and volume, a wood lot owner would be able to create a marten habitat or wild life habitat, then if appproved as a credit, they would be able to sell that credit to a lumbering company, which in turn ould use the credit as part of there requirements meeting current existing government regulations.

There is no such wild life credit in existance at the moment, so a new catagory would have to be created. Following existing policy and procedures, there is already a system of checks and balances in place reguarding such credits as specified by regulation.

A wood lot owner like my self could sell this type of credit based on the reguirements estabished to maintain the wild life. For example leaving two trees per acre might give me a value credit worth $100 per acre if the credit value is tyied to the actual value of the tree. It certainly would not be less. If the course wood matter has to be replaced every 30 years to maintain the wild life, then at the end of each 30 years a credit could be sold by the owner if the established criteria is met.

70% of the forest in Ns are privately owned. Our new forest policy moving away from clear cutting will increase the value of single trees. Our mills in the province that remain will need a certain volume of wood to maintain operations. When shortages come, usually the price increases. I have absolutaly no doupt that as single tree value increases, there will be less biomass for wild life left as it will be harvested by the owner.

 

[Trapper Gary]

Nexgen I do not know any thing about the carbon credit program.