In the latest announcement, the percentage of the land area identified for Individual Tree Selection (All Age Management) jumped from generally 0% and consistently less than 10% to 55%
|Date||Total Area||Individual Tree Selection|
|July 15, 2021**||605 ha||332.7 ha (55%)|
|July 5, 2021||80.7||0 ha (0%)|
|June 24, 2021||481.6||0 ha (0%)|
|June 14, 2021||268.7||0 ha (0%)|
|June 3, 2021||515.1||37.8 ha (7.3%)|
|May 25, 2021||32.8||0 ha (0%)|
**For July 15, 2021 All Prescriptions, as % of the 605 ha
– Individual Tree Selection 55%
– Shelterwood 12.7%
– Variable Retention 32.3%
So does this represent genuine change towards Ecological Forestry and we will continue to see high proportions of Individual Tree Selection?
Does the % Variable Retention represent the % planned for High Production Forestry?
Is it Pre-election window-dressing?
Is it related to a high demand for timber/low demand for Low Value Wood?
Is it High-grading?
No comment is provided with the recent mail-out, except to repeat the mantra that “only emails submitted using the comment function on the Harvest Plans Map Viewer will be considered during the harvest plan review process”, it’s been ages since there have been any updates on the L&F Ecological Forestry page and the Lahey Progress Report remains outstanding. (Clear Message: L&F doesn’t really care about the public stakeholders or even their own commitments.)
Click on the dates above for the mailed out announcements.
Older announcements (back to March 5, 2020) can be viewed under Harvest Notices
Go to the Harvest Plan Map Viewer to see where the stands are located.
And/or visit one of the sites before and after harvests to find out more about it all. (Unfortunately the public is not told when they will occur or have occurred.)
Or ask email@example.com about it. (I have & ‘will share any response.)
Some comments on Social Media
BW: I’m requesting PTAs on all of these Individual Selection parcels to see what they have on them.
GF to BW: is the proposed areas to be worked on not layered on the provincial landscape viewer ? The provincial land scape viewer shows species and mix .
BW: I was finally able to get the PLV website to work last night — it and the HPMV were running extremely slowly, so it took about an hour to get the PLV to download enough to see anything. Anyhow, there’s not all that much about any of these that I can see. I requested the PTAs on 3 parcels to see what they say – not that they usually say very much on them.
GF to BW: I was thinking when they set that all up that’s how it was supposed to work.
GF to BW: our muncipality just put on all the properties they own in the county using the same platform.
BW to GF: What has never made any sense to me is that the PTAs have to be done before the HPMV harvest list is created each time, right???. Why don’t they put a scan of the PTA into their system so that when someone wants to see it, they click on the PTA icon and it is visible. Instead, when you request to see a PTA, the Forestry Maps person (people) at DLF have to send an email to the manager at WhatFor and ask for a PTA, which is then emailed to DLF after a few days – or recently – about 4 to 8 weeks later — and then they send an email to the person who asked to see it with a copy of the PTA. This is a ridiculous way of doing things. Doesn’t DLF keep *any* copies of the PTAs on file? Why do they have to request them from the licensee — aren’t they getting them before they even get to the stage where they are putting the parcels up for comment on the HPMV? If they don’t actually have a copy of the PTAs yet, how are they even approving these parcels as the IRM (integrated resource management) team at DLF is SUPPOSED to have reviewed the PTA requests and approved them so that they can continue on with the rest of the process. If DLF doesn’t even have the PTAs in their system, what is the IRM even using to review parcels? Does this mean they don’t even bother looking at the PTAs? This is all really pretty bizarre and doesn’t smell very good.
GF to BW: not really . The silvicultural work is random audit as well.
BW: How does the licensee prepare the request for a parcel then, and what are they sending to the IRM team to review before the parcel is listed for the public to comment?…Really, when I read the process of listing a parcel – I just read it again on a report – if it is so hard for DLF to provide a copy of the PTA, why don’t they (instead) provide to the public, the “proposed harvest plan” that the licensee is allegedly supposed to be sending to the IRM team to review before the parcels receive approval and are listed on the HPMV. It would be far better for the public to be able to REVIEW EACH PROPOSED HARVEST PLAN so that we see what it is that the IRM is seeing and approving. That would make things more transparent. As it is, we don’t even know how much “looking” the IRM team does before it approves parcels. For example, they are supposed to verify that that operations won’t disturb Species At Risk. I sent a comment via the HPMV on some parcels a couple of years ago — after checking the Nova Scotia bird atlas records for those areas and having found that Canada Warblers (SAR species) nested in those areas and had been recorded there. Using a FOIPOP, a friend got a copy of the IRM teams paperwork after they read my HPMV submission and someone had written on it something like, “Do we check for this kind of thing?” Well, you know, that’s their job! They are supposed to be checking for SAR wildlife and plants, etc.. before they rubber stamp these things. If they aren’t doing proper checking, then they shouldn’t be approving parcels for havest, should they?
The problem with this whole system is that DLF and the licensees have not had to be accountable to the public when it comes to Crown land forests. They are unaccustomed to having to provide anything to the public and they expect us to just “trust them”. Then you see things happen like the Old Growth forests at Loon Lake cut down and find out that the IRM people (or somebody) never looked at the maps, or that the maps are old, or they are inaccurate, or whatever excuse it was that they used for approving those parcels. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE!! These are living forest systems that are habitat for all kinds of wildlife. If these people aren’t even bothering to do full assessments on these properties and are basing decisions on “old” outdated maps, and taking the “say so” of licensees as gospel, etc… before rubber stamping these parcels, they are NOT taking proper care of a resource that belongs to the PUBLIC and isn’t theirs to pass along to someone in the forest industry without proper assessment. If these people don’t have all the information to do proper assessments, then they shouldn’t be approving ANYTHING.
BW to DGP: Add to the above:::: And furthermore, they (DLF) should be able to supply PROPER full disclosure about each forest asset to the public so that we know things are being done properly. If they are unable to do so when that is requested, then there is something VERY WRONG with the system.
DGP to BW: Indeed. There is something(s) VERY WRONG with the system.
GF to BW: that’s not completely correct. When I worked there there was 8 technician out of two office . Not only did we do forestry but also law enforcement. There were licensie as well , but also many other tenders . The government started cutting back to take that money for employees some were else . So those employees never got replaced. The other aspect if you wanted to know something you had to go to an office , not a keyboard. You need to remember they don’t get over time , In titled to vacation and sick days and work 35 hrs a week. So you come in and 500 emails have arrived , a lot from some one that does not even live there . They all have to be read and sent some where . In a recent question abd answer session over the biodiversity act, our mla recieved so many email from a blanket mail out by the ecology action center, as she stated it interfere with her trying to help elderly get covid shots. Every one wants better service, you need to figure outba way to get it paid for , not blast employees. When you tear a department apart it’s a direct attack on employees as they only work under there directives. Getting more funding will solve the issue, or narrow the scope who can respond others wise every one goes to file 13.
DGP to GF: Thx for that perspective. I don’t think BW was blasting the employees… it was about “the system” – and that is the responsibility of the higher-ups and at some point all of us who vote. Dishonesty & simply poor management by those making the decisions hurts all of us.
BW to GF: I appreciate all of what you’ve said, but when systems are supposedly automated now — or at least made to appear to be so — so that the data can be accessed on websites, then it should function properly. We see the budgets for these departments and it isn’t pocket change. If they can’t get their systems working properly after paying people to build them out, then they should be upfront about this — yeah, here’s our website — it doesn’t actually work the way it’s supposed to work and it doesn’t actually do any of the automated things that you would think it should do. And, yes, I agree — obviously not enough money going to the right places to make the system work properly. Who knows where the money’s going — which, actually, is another issue that one has to wonder about. DLF has a pretty large operating budget and cuts plenty of cheques. Anyhow, all that to say that, to the public, none of what happens is very evident. A list every 10 days, and a website to make a submission that doesn’t work worth a crap on a rural internet connection — I know.. took me so long to try to get the parcels to come up last night on the HPMV that I just left it trying to download while I made dinner and did some other work around here. Managed to see one parcel, moved the map to look at the next and it took another 20 minutes to get it to download. Horrible internet connections are a FACT OF LIFE here in southwest Nova Scotia. I know the city people at DLF don’t have any grasp of that reality, but that’s why telling people that the ONLY way they can submit comments is via the map is just pure BS. Anyhow, I was in a horrible mood about forestry yesterday and vowed to not let it ruin another day today, so I’ll just leave it all at that and get on to other things. There’s nothing I can do or say that is going to improve anything about the way DLF does anything, so it’s reallly just a big waste of my time to even try. They will do whatever they like because that’s just how they operate.
GF to BW: interesting conversation say the least . NP announced yesterday that there complete emissions etc will be viewable any time via the web . Even if there never approved that’s a high bar for any waste going into the strait. I don’t know of any system that can be viewed like there proposal. So what’s the responsibility of the rest going forward
ARC to BW: I am so in agreement Bev. Our comments automatically go to WestFor for Garden Seed~! That is why I was appreciating the email option. That way I had a record of what I said and on what parcel. I hear Bell is bringing fibre optic to our neck of the woods soon so I remain hopeful. Rural broadband/satellite is not for the weak of heart, nor the short of temper,. In other words, it has me whipped~!
BW to GF: Actually, I have seen systems where you can check emissions. I can’t remember what they were — I think actually it was something going into water. I’ll have to think about that. Also, I think in the U.S., they have real-time air sensing particulates or something in areas. Been awhile since I looked at some of this stuff. It’s going to be the way of the future because emissions are going to have to be controlled better or the environment is going to be even more messed up than it is. I know there is monitoring of CFCs now — because there’s been a lot of flak over sensing systems picking up CFCs being emitted from some very localized spot in China. Things are changing. The eyes of the world are watching now.