How many of these government "watchdog" organizations find little to no fault within the industry they are supposed to be monitoring?

The RCMP watchdog re: Dziekański
The financial industry watchdog Re: global meltdown

I am sure many of the posters on this board can come up with more examples of the failure for these watchdogs to do their job.

It is a lot like the rosy real estate board reports of ever increasing growth no matter the economic reality.

Loki, you hit the nail on the head. The words in the reporting actually say it all to me.

"Of the close to 11-thousand hectares examined, 146 did have FAIRLY LARGE PATCHES of concentrated soil disturbance."

I have not got the faintest clue what the 146 refers to. Hectares? Does not look that way. Looks more like sites. If so, how many sites in total were examined?

If it is hectares, then 1.3% had concentrated soil disturbances. Were these the landings? Give us a hint.

What is the standard? Was the standard met? Yes or no? Simple!

How does the standard compare to the standard used by the various CSA and other Sustainable Forest Management Standards that work independently of the MoF?
---------------------------------------
"Gorley says the sites still complied with legislation because the allowable disturbance limit is averaged over a large harvest area, but, he says, the disturbance was avoidalbe and the board considers this a practice that could be improved."

ALL the disturbance was avoidable? Interesting. Or was is a portion of it that was avoidable, or the intense nature of it that was avoidable.

I suspect what needs to be improved is the standard. Looks to me that the standard developed is not a good indicator of what happens in the field. The level of disturbance in the actual harvesting area should maybe be separately assessed from that part of land which sees the construction of landings and road access.

Need to see if I can find the report on the Net.

The standards are fine as they are, it is the oversight that requires arms length improvement.

Oh Gus, Give Elaine and Ben a break.

I think, you should start your own blog site. I think they do a reasonable job on the news in the area.

I think we should be praising them to give us df's such a great site to have meaningless banter.

He spoke ....

What does it have to do with giving Ben and Elaine a break??

The words come from a media release by the MoF.

http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/Soils_protected_during_logging_in_Quesnel_Vanderhoof_areas.aspx

Don't tell me you did not know that!!!

That page also has the link to the actual report.

As far as starting my own blog, I would think that Ben and Elaine are no different than other media operations, they are interested in increasing or at least maintaining readership so controversy is not exactly what they would want to avoid. For their business, the more debate the better.
---------------------------

Loki. In my view the standard needs some rewriting. Sustainable Forest Management Certification Systems can and do create more refined indicators if the regulatory, and thus minimum, standards are thought to be insufficient to determine how well the land base is actually managed.

In this case it is quite clear to me that they are insufficient, especially since the report zeros in on insufficiencies but then glosses over them.

Words from the actual report, similar to those in the media release and in the article above.

"While the investigation found a high degree of compliance with soil disturbance limits, 146 of the 10,781 hectares examined consisted of dispersed patches, ranging from 1 to 20 hectares in size, where soil disturbance was higher. These areas were compliant because disturbance is measured over the entire standards unit (SU), but ARE AN EXAMPLE OF PRACTICES THAT COULD BE IMPROVED UPON."

So, because it meets the standard when factored over a large area, the 146 hectares will be accepted even though they are substandard. Reduce the area over which the non-compliance can be factored, and the non-compliance will be brought up to standard. Simple.

As it is, there is no leg to stand on.

I agree Loki!
Well said!