7 Billion and Counting – Silviculture On an Upswing
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 @ 12:16 PM
Prince George, BC.- It is a double milestone for silviculture. The 1st tree for Carbon was planted by the Executive Director of the Carbon Offset Aggegation Cooperative, MaryAnne Arcand.
The ceremony at the Railway and Forestry Museum in Prince George was also cause to celebrate the new era of silviculture as the 7 billionth tree was planted in March in Maple Ridge.
“Seven Billion trees have been planted, and now with our extra planting for carbon offsets, many more will be planted, to reforest and rehabilitate the land affected by mountain pine beetles and wild fires.” states Arcand. Silviculture is vital to the future of forestry in the Province, “The BC forest industry has been through some tough times in recent years and so too has the BC silviculture industry” says Arcand “Thankfully the forest industry is back along with the silviculture sector that sustains it.”.
The Executive Director of the Western Silviculture Contractors’ Association, John Betts, says nearly a quarter of a million seedlings will be planted this year alone.
BC’s reforestation programs started in 1930 and reached the one billion planting mark in 1981. The 5th Billionth Tree was planted at the Prince George Exhibition grounds in 2002.
Comments
Carbon offsets. Isn’t that a program set up to hand over taxdollars to business?
no, its the replacement program for silvaculture replenishment.
The mills did not seem to do a very good job of replanting what they harvested per their contracts, so now it is this extra taxation on consumers paying the way on their behalf.
This ceremony is nothing more than government propaganda, for the sheeple masses!
I agree the sawmill companies did not do a very good job replanting Loki. A scathing report by the BC Auditor General says failure to replant enough trees puts future forest harvest at risk.
“Retired Forester Anthony Britneff has estimated there are 2 million hectares of land within the 22 million hectares of commercially viable forest land that have NOT been sufficiently planted.”
“Britneff said that number goes up to 9 million hectares if you include all areas disturbed by fire or pests that are not stocked.”
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/02/17/BC-Government-Killing-Forest-Industry/
“John Betts, says nearly a quarter of a million seedlings will be planted this year alone”
quarter of a billion I am assuming…the company I worked for planted 7 million seedlings per year by itself
PeopleFirst don’t confuse NSR with not planted. There are SR (sufficiently restocked) and NSR (not) areas throughout the forest region in BC. Take a 20 hectare cutblock, say 15% is wildlife area and 5% are roads – only 80% (16 ha) of the block will be planted to SR and the 4 hectares will be NSR if the wildlife area is swamp/gully/creekbed etc. Some people are advocates to mounding swamps to plant trees in but ecologically we need the natural meadows and seasonal creekbeds as much as the planted areas
People#1 Some pine beetle and fire areas are not SR (some do have spruce undergrowth and in a few years will be SR), but you have to go in with a Cat and mow it all down before you can plant the area. Ever heard of WCB or Danger Tree? Buy yourself a Cat and see how long it takes you to mow down a hectare.
Slinky, I think we both know mountain pine beetle kill is no longer suitable as wood chips for paper production, but it is still useful as bio-fuel.
Get in there, take it out, and replant it!
Mr. Britneff states there is 22 million hectares of “commercially viable forest land”. It should be assumed that the estimate does not include swamps, creek beds, lakes (small and large), rivers, streams, etc. that are not commercially viable forest land.
slinky: “PeopleFirst don’t confuse NSR with not planted.”
Bingo slinky.
I see a lot of plantations that were planted in the 70s and 80s that are completely overrun with willow, poplar and other competing species. It is one thing to brag about planting billions of seedlings, but management after the planting is sorely lacking.
that’s what happens when you plant a third growth species as a first growth.
first is grass and bushes
then comes the fast growing deciduous
then the coniferous
Forest thinning and tree spacing use to be as common and popular a source of employment as tree planting.
Yet But is correct; “management after planting is sorely lacking.” Times have changed, we have a short sighted forest industry and government that has not managed our number one natural resource in a sustainable manner.
Spacing and thinning are still done by licensees but mostly down south where competing veg grows quicker than crop trees. Cutblocks have to be surveyed before they can be transferred back to the province, if they do not meet SR requirements then they are brushed or fill planted. With companies planting at 1,000 – 1,200 stems most areas do not need to be spaced anymore in the north.
The 23 million hectares is land available for harvesting which includes swamps, meadows, rivers, creeks, gullies – get educated my friend, don’t assume anything.
And wait…beetle kill is no longer suitable for pulp? They take punky old spruce and chip them whole for pulp. Here is a small excerpt about beetle kill as pulp:
“Whole log chipping of heavily checked grey-stage trees resulted in high ratios of pins and fines, but otherwise good quality chips. Kraft and TMP pulps made from such whole log chips did not show any quality concerns. Heavily-checked, grey-stage mountain pine beetle-killed wood thus provides a suitable source of raw material for whole log chipping operations and the resulting chips can be used to supplement the chip feed of kraft and TMP mills.” (from Pulp and Paper Canada Magazine)
You can use pretty much any type of wood for pulp as long as its not burned and it isn’t grey driftwood with sand in the checks. The beetle kill wood works just fine and the any log not suitable for the saw will yield pulp. Some people here need to ask people wo work in the industry before posting jibber jab.
I stated earlier; Mr. Britneff states there is 22 million hectares of “commercially viable forest land”. It should be assumed that the estimate does not include swamps, creek beds, lakes (small and large), rivers, streams, etc. that are not commercially viable forest land.
Deciduous (broadleaf) stands are not commercially viable forest and are excluded, along with a number of other areas. Here reading this link article might help anyone following this discussion thread. All of the listed items are deducted as a percentage to determine the commercially viable forest land base that can be harvested.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsr1/ration/tfl/t10/t1000012.htm#E11E4
From a web site dealing with carbon offsets it explains that “offsets from tree-planting projects are problematic for a number of reasons, including their lack of permanence and the fact that these projects do not address our dependence on fossil fuels”.
It goes on to say that “another important issue to consider when purchasing offsets is “additionality”. An offset project is considered additional if it isn’t business as usual. Typically, this means that the project wouldn’t have happened without the extra funding from the sale of offsets.”
I think the question which needs to be asked is why the “carbon trees” are addtional to what has been planted in the past and continues to be. Are licensees not replanting to the amount they should be and are they not bringing NSR lands up to the standard they should have been at in the first place?
Good question gus, Dragonmaster and Loki brought up that point, which is the transfer of forest replanting costs from forest companies to us taxpayers!
I am just pointing out how behind we are with forest revitalization! This is not good news all around, but hey, it’s not dire enough… lets go for 4 more years. LOL
Comments for this article are closed.