Wrong Seedlings Planted in Several Quesnel Area Cutblocks

Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:18 AM

Quesnel, B.C.- An audit in the Quesnel area by the B.C. Forest Practices Board, has discovered 8 cutblocks where the wrong kind of seedlings had been planted. The audit was of BC Timber Sales' operations near Quesnel.

"This contravenes the government's limits for the transfer of seed between areas," said board chair Bruce Fraser. "This is significant because when cutblocks are planted with seedlings that are not native
to the area, the local climate may affect their ability to survive and grow into a healthy new forest."

BCTS has since indicated that they will monitor these seedlings and has corrected the issues that led to the problem.

The board also found some situations of excessive soil disturbance caused by timber sale licencees harvesting on wet soils. This can reduce the future productivity of the site. This practice is avoidable.

The board's audit fieldwork took place in July 2008, examining activities conducted during the period of July 2007 to August 2008. The audit looked at forest planning and practices of BCTS and timber sale
licence holders in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Business Area's Quesnel Field Unit, examining more than 300 cutblocks and 500 kilometres of road.

The audit assessed compliance with the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, Wildfire Act, and related regulations, as well as consistency with the Cariboo-Chilcotin
Land-Use Plan.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:18 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: He spoke on May 14 2009 1:35 PM

Hmm, replant them with the right trees, and let mother nature decide which trees she wants.

Posted by: He spoke on May 14 2009 1:35 PM

I'm sure it is not the first time, nor the last... so get on with it.

Posted by: seamutt on May 14 2009 1:38 PM

"of excessive soil disturbance caused by timber sale licensees harvesting on wet soils." new linguistics .for logging. I guess the term logging is too red neck sounding for lotus land.

Posted by: justhefacts on May 14 2009 7:45 PM

Looks like the management of forests should be left up to the private sector !!??!!

Posted by: herbster on May 14 2009 8:11 PM

justhefacts- a (used to be major) licensee in Mackenzie was caught making the same mistake a few years ago. Over 5 million trees were replanted. Funny how the private sector mistakes never get publicized.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 14 2009 9:59 PM

At least they weren't planted upside down,......were they ??

Posted by: skabowl1 on May 14 2009 10:14 PM

now now reasonableman........... no suggesting treeplanters are that silly.....one of them is after all my son......and yet another.....his gf.....so be nice to the planters.........as for the yo yo's cutting back on the amount of planting........yes makes sense because a lot less harvesting (ok logging) right now....but also a lot of beetle kill...would it not make sense for greater planting to be going on right now to take advantage of slack resources (and lower prices?)
OK..........so I have a declared self interest.......but still............

Posted by: Born in BC on May 14 2009 10:25 PM

"Over 5 million trees were replanted. Funny how the private sector mistakes never get publicized."

Who cares about the private companies as long as they fix it. When its a crown corp that ends up costing us.

Posted by: caranmacil on May 14 2009 11:48 PM

It hasnt actually cost us anything yet. The wrong seedlot was used but that does not mean plantation failure.
I agree that planting beetle kill areas would likely increase planting, however, given that these are pine stands it is also likely that most of the regeneration will be natural, where cone crops permit. It is important that people not confuse planting with reforestation. The former is just one approach towards the latter. The NDP and others have been trying to equate increased use of natural regen with poor forest practice. This is politics, not logic.
It is also a little early to expect increased silviculture as much of the beetle kill is still standing...

Posted by: herbster on May 15 2009 5:38 AM

born in bc- the mistake was caught by by public service employees paid with your tax dollars in the BCTS. Otherwise the mistake would not have been fixed. Its all about checks and balances. Put the fox in charge of the henhouse and see where it gets you.

caranmacil- if you had a cut woodlot, would you want it to come back in aspen and balsam (natural regeneration) or spruce,pine and doug fir (planted). Your choice, I'd really like to find out what you would choose.

Posted by: swingline on May 15 2009 8:46 AM

I guess it depends on who your customer is - you could sell aspen to a pulp mill or OSB mill, there is a market for these so-called weeds. Remember, pine used to be a "weed" too...

Pine, spruce and doug fir also naturally regenerate, by the way. No one planted our forests for us. It all depends on the site - pine wouldn't do well on a wetter site that is suited to spruce. Natural regen works in places, and some groups out there think that it's more effective, ecologically speaking, to let the site progress naturally as it would after other disturbances like fire, insect kill, blowdown, etc.

Posted by: caranmacil on May 15 2009 3:06 PM

herbster, i would want doug fir if i could get away with it (as in, if the site were suited). It is rapid growing and could do a lot towards reducing the mid term falldown effect. However, pine would have much the same effect and, depending on the crop i harvested might well regenerate naturally. If it saved me the 1000 bucks or so (without site prep) per ha in regen costs, i might well settle for Pl. I do like the look of fir better though, just a personal bias.
But swinglines post covers the topic well. There is a misconception that natural regeneration involves a drastic change is species composition or productivity. The fact is, if you take conifers off of your woodlot, you are going to have to re-establish conifers - either naturally or artificially. The species composition is not up for grabs.

Posted by: herbster on May 16 2009 12:07 PM

Natural regeneration will of course work. If you are waiting for spruce to come back naturally, be prepared to be patient, as it will take 300 years or more. So your great,great,great grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same spruce forests as you once did. A similar wait can be expected with Douglas Fir. Even Pine can not be expected to seed in well, with all the bugkill out there.
No one planted our forests-thats true. But we are living off Mother Natures bounty. If we aren't willing to invest in our forests, there are dark times ahead.