Nova Scotia Hunting Forum banner
21 - 38 of 38 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
That wasn't my quote Hawkeye:)

We simply can't compete for a major share of the pulp market, it is a by product of a log harvest but growing trees simply for pulp in our climate with our rotation is a losing proposition when we are competing with semi-tropical countries that can produce merchantable fibre in a 20 year rotation.

We have the forest type that is perfect for high-quality timber for the most part, there'll always be pulp, but it shouldn't be the main product IMO.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
To me, by the time they get around to limiting clear cutting there will be nothing left. When I bought my property in 1999, it had already been mostly cut(early 90's). It was a mess!! Three of the properties next to mine had also been cut and left in a horrible mess that you couldn't even walk through. One of those properties was over 1000 acres. The last property that borders mine was wiped out last year. Every property within a couple of miles from me has been cut, accept one large piece of crown property(600-800 acres). Well guess what , thats being cut now!! I'm really going to miss walking through that big mature woods. I won't have to worry about any more clearcutting in my lifetime as there is nothing left. The woods are in various stages from 0-30 years. I supposed that good enough to come and cut out anything the is now 3.5 inches. Here is a pic I took this spring. They are still cutting and the big trucks are hauling it out like there is no tomorrow. Well, I guess there is no tomorrow in my area.>Pete

Look at the nice timber to the left, some of it must have been 30 inches across. I should have taken a better picture of that as I may never see that again. I was scared to stop the muck was so deep.

 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,018 Posts
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
 

· Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I don't think an outright ban on clearcutting should be created, but some limits on it's size and locations. Also, IMO, there should be an immediate ban of mono-cultured single generation replanting projects.
I am hardly an expert, but I do hold a couple hundred acres of woodland, with the 20-30-50 year goal of high value trees. I guess also I am lucky that there are no finacial reasons (as yet) to force me to sell wood. It isn't really my property that worries me, it is what my neighbors might do. I am less scared of a clear-cut than I am of a tree plantation.

I also can't support anything that would force the hobby woodlot owner to hire a forester to create a management plan.

I would also recommend to anyone interested in NS forests to read 'Restoring the Acadian Forest' I don't want to schill for the guy, as his stance on varying enviro issues differs from mine, but this book at least is a good laymans guide to forest stewardship specific to our woods.

Pretty soon we will be forced to realize we lost the pulp and paper race, and only allow it's continuance through the subsidized and horrific forestry practices now in place. NS and especially her forests will be better for it. High value selective harvest should be the goal.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Get the government out of subsidizing the industry. Large woodlot owners (and the rest of us) would be better off paying for a consultant themselves rather than getting subsidized services. The owner could then put his property to it's full potential."Free Services??" These owners might fidn that you get what you pay for.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,018 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,018 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Good points CT. I wonder if the carbon credit deal goes through if that will positively affect things? The landowner would be able to sell credits for the carbon that is sequestered in each square meter of wood that is actively growing on their lot based on a timber cruise, from my understanding.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
this carbon credit just ends up being more nonsese. I went to a bunch of agricultural info sessions on this stuff it is realy not impressive when you understand the concept . Basicaly every activity is a carbon emiter , cutting/ burning wood / energy ; so the big poluters instead of reducing there outputs could buy creadits from someone who is in a surplus position ;farmer /landowner. Sounds like a good idea polluter pays others to clean up his mess , but what you need to realise they are not just going to pay someone for doing as they always have .to be able to have credits to sell you would need to do somethinf diferent to reduce your emisions to have the surplus .Ie take land that was being plowed and cultivated (corn/grain )out of production and seed down to permanant cover (pasture or trees).As soon as you cut your trees or plow the feild you increase you carbon again . now you are the emitter .Over the years alot of ag technology has improved farms have done alot more no-till planting and reduced excess fertilizer less erosion etc , etc. but non of this progress counts ...it would have to be new improvements from then on . The only one that will benifit are those that have not done any effort to improve and do so now while guys who have been steadily improving will get nothing for what they already did.you reward the improvements but not guy who is doing the best job.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Not quite the same with woodlots big bore. If you are managing your lot under a selection system, the trees that are your crop trees are consistently growing to the top capability of the soils there. As they increase in growth, more carbon is sequestered in the wood fibre, when these trees are harvested there should be trees there that are established already to take up where the originals left off. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the carbon in lumber is pretty much stored there (with some loss) until the wood is burned or naturally rots down. So any long term structure is actually carbon storage.

Not saying that it isn't a messed up system with the big polluters paying to cover up there mess, but it would be an extra incentive for a different management scheme and may encourage some industry to clean up their act once it gets expensive.

CT, I believe that some of the Certification set ups in NS are pushing forward with a carbon credit trading system, working out the bugs on monitoring and measuring.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
That wasn't my quote Hawkeye:)

We simply can't compete for a major share of the pulp market, it is a by product of a log harvest but growing trees simply for pulp in our climate with our rotation is a losing proposition when we are competing with semi-tropical countries that can produce merchantable fibre in a 20 year rotation.

We have the forest type that is perfect for high-quality timber for the most part, there'll always be pulp, but it shouldn't be the main product IMO.
I think you should run the forestry industry in Nova Scotia!!!! I agree totally and the sooner we come around to your way of thinking we will be better off.
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top