Canada's degradation of pristine, intact forests leads world

[Guest]

British and balding? Cripes.....how did we let you in?

I lied on the application.

I still only see one thread about forests. I want to post a couple of times on the other one so no-one can accuse me of favouring WCR because she's a woman.

Edited September 7, 2014 by bcsapper

[Accountability Now]

Are folks not responding to my post because I'm a woman and there is more credibility responding to the other thread started by a man?

A few things on this:

1. I don't know which 'other post' you are talking about

2. I have responded to your posts as did others. Perhaps you just didn't like the content of the responses?

3. IMO, the issue you brought forth is a non event. As other posters have stated, Canada, Brazil and Russia have the most IFL and therefore one would expect we'd have the most IFL degradation. The method they determine the degradation is questionable and the article certianly plays the angle it wants by chatizing oil and gas when all other supporting articles claim other industries are the root cause. Not to mention the supporting websites go after other countries more than Canada which again asks why the CBC is so intent in this.

Ultimately this is not a high interest topic which is probably why you're not getting much response.

[overthere]

Most of the trees in northern Canada are not marketable and are unlikely to be logged for two reasons: they are too far from major markets (there is better wood closer) and the vast majority of trees are too small and slow growing to be economically made into dimensional lumber.

Anecdotally, I have driven from Alberta to northern Yukon perhaps 25 times in the last 25 years and there has been no substantive change in the vast and endless expanse of trees that covers over about 85% of the route.

This time next century I daresay there will be no forests to speak of. No big mammals either, in the wild.

I guess you've never lived anywhere that has big fires. Large mammals are quite likely to survive them as they can escape whereas smaller animals cannot. The big animals are back on the land quickly, because burns regenerate grasses and shrubs quickly, the trees take much longer. That means more food for the grazing animals than they would typically have in a mature forest. The big wheel turns..

[Accountability Now]

I guess you've never lived anywhere that has big fires. Large mammals are quite likely to survive them as they can escape whereas smaller animals cannot. The big animals are back on the land quickly, because burns regenerate grasses and shrubs quickly, the trees take much longer. That means more food for the grazing animals than they would typically have in a mature forest. The big wheel turns..

I was just camping in Lake Louise and was astonished to learn about the rapidly declining grizzly population. The grizzly used to roam widely across western Canada and US and is now significantly reduced because of the lack of forest fires. Apparently the grizzly likes to roam in non-intact first areas which are normally created by forest fires.

[overthere]

I was just camping in Lake Louise and was astonished to learn about the rapidly declining grizzly population. The grizzly used to roam widely across western Canada and US and is now significantly reduced because of the lack of forest fires. Apparently the grizzly likes to roam in non-intact first areas which are normally created by forest fires.

Parks Canada completely changed their firefighting tactics in the 1980s. From the creation of the mountain parks long ago they fought every fire, as policy. That 'management' resulted in an ecosystem which was the complete opposite of their mandate. an artificial forest that had far too much deadfall and distorted the numbers of all resident animal species too. It made fires worse too, the amount of fuel available was beyond what would normally be found in a natural cycle.

Their rangers started a program of sometimes oxymoronic 'controlled burns' to reduce the buildup of thatch and deadfall. Fire control these days tends to focus on the controlled burn program to restore the normal cycle, and strongly protecting physical assets like towns with traditional firefighting intervention when they must.

It will take decades to see where this new management regime takes them. I recall a massive fire on the east side of Jasper NP about 10 years ago that burned for two years and started with a 'controlled burn' that ended up going for two years, mostly out of control completely. In the end, it just did what nature intended, though on a much bigger scale than what had been planned.

I don't think the biggest threat to grizzlies in Banff NP has been fires or lack of fires. It used to be vehicles, but the Trans Canada highway has been fenced for many years now. The CP mainline runs through there and the grain cars spill grain on the tracks, which omnivorous bears love to eat. It results in dead bears.

[waldo]

This is just a pointless and phoney definition in order to make Canada feel guilty about developing it's land. Apparently, Canada shouldn't be allowed to build roads or pipelines through it's land, even though the vast majority of the rest of the world has already done so. This concept makes about as much sense as defining 'poverty' to be 'half the median income', as many so called 'poverty activists' do.

But I guess it is easier to make phoney environmental issues and attack Canada, than it is to tackle real environmental issues in countries like China or Saudi Arabia.

imagine that! Somehow you miss the point that the most significant cause of Canadian forest degradation is as a result of forest fires... you know, one of those climate change related impacts! As for your sacred-cow energy development angle, well...that even plays next to logging which is the second greatest impacting cause on Canadian forest degradation. You're certainly free to dispute the claim from Peter Lee (Forest Watch Canada), who states, "There is no political will at federal or provincial levels for conserving primary forests. Most logging done in Canada is still to this day done in virgin forests."

.

[Hal 9000]

Have you ever even been in a real forest WCR? This is just more environmental hysteria from the left - looks to me like somebody needs grant money.

P.S - I wasn't going to respond to you because, well....you're a woman!

Edited September 8, 2014 by Hal 9000

[Moonlight Graham]

With all due respect though, It always surprises me, with posts like yours, and some of the AGW posts we see, that there seems to be an idea that we can populate the planet with billions of people and still hold on to everything that was there before we did so. There will be more logging, and more fires, and more oil and gas related degradation, because there will be more people.

That's why we need to slow population growth. In fact, zero population growth over the long-term and just roughly maintaining the current global population is more than enough people on the earth. Even a reduction in total human population would probably be quite healthy for us all and virtually every other species of plants & animals.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[WestCoastRunner]

You play that card too often. Much simpler than that. The other is by an antagonist. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Please tell me when I have played that card? And if I have, why would you try and sweep my post under the carpet. If I brought it up again, then obviously it is an issue. What gives you the right to dismiss my post and treat it so light heartedly. Are you an expert in these matters?

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes WestCoastRunner. We are all misogynists working for the evil patriarchy who are purposely trying to suppress your opinion through lack of responses on an online forum because you claim to be female (even though for all we know, you could be lying about your gender/sex). How did you ever figure out our plot?

Edit: btw, this was sarcasm

you can lose the 'btw, this was sarcasm'. We kinda figure when you are being sarcastic.

[WestCoastRunner]

Well, that's very easy to say.

If you would be so kind, tell me what you see in 2114 with regards to the environment.

That is such a stupid question and is irrelevant.

[WestCoastRunner]

Have you ever even been in a real forest WCR?

Again, a stupid irrelevant statement.

[Guest]

That is such a stupid question and is irrelevant.

Well I have to say I'm offended.

Anyway:

With all due respect though, It always surprises me, with posts like yours, and some of the AGW posts we see, that there seems to be an idea that we can populate the planet with billions of people and still hold on to everything that was there before we did so. There will be more logging, and more fires, and more oil and gas related degradation, because there will be more people.

This time next century I daresay there will be no forests to speak of. No big mammals either, in the wild.

Try again.

Edit> I'm not really offended...

Edited September 11, 2014 by bcsapper

[WestCoastRunner]

imagine that! Somehow you miss the point that the most significant cause of Canadian forest degradation is as a result of forest fires... you know, one of those climate change related impacts! As for your sacred-cow energy development angle, well...that even plays next to logging which is the second greatest impacting cause on Canadian forest degradation. You're certainly free to dispute the claim from Peter Lee (Forest Watch Canada), who states, "There is no political will at federal or provincial levels for conserving primary forests. Most logging done in Canada is still to this day done in virgin forests."

.

They are ignoring your information and attacking me. I get that, however, I wish they would read the articles pertaining to forest degradation but they choose to not do so.

[WestCoastRunner]

Well I have to say I'm offended.

Anyway:

With all due respect though, It always surprises me, with posts like yours, and some of the AGW posts we see, that there seems to be an idea that we can populate the planet with billions of people and still hold on to everything that was there before we did so. There will be more logging, and more fires, and more oil and gas related degradation, because there will be more people.

This time next century I daresay there will be no forests to speak of. No big mammals either, in the wild.

Try again.

Edit> I'm not really offended...

I can't speak for everyone else, but I think that my responsibility is to protect the planet as much as I can for my grandchildren, my future great grandchildren etc. I certainly don't have all the answers but I will do my best. As far as 'posts like mine and other AGW members', well like I say, I can only do the best that I can.

[Guest]

Well, you could have said that the first time instead of calling me closed minded and stupid. And you worry about being attacked?

It's good that you do what you can. I do too. It won't make any difference, but it's good.

[bush_cheney2004]

The planet does not need any "protection"....it only exists in its present form because of a long history of changes that will continue regardless of what we do with our plastic shopping bags.

Edited September 11, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I think that my responsibility is to protect the planet as much as I can for my grandchildren, my future great grandchildren etc. I certainly don't have all the answers but I will do my best.

Good intentions do not imply good results. Just look as the Islamists in Iraq and Syria. They do their actions for the sake of the great creator of the universe, Allah. What could be a better cause?

[WestCoastRunner]

Well, you could have said that the first time instead of calling me closed minded and stupid. And you worry about being attacked?

It's good that you do what you can. I do too. It won't make any difference, but it's good.

Said what the first time?

[WestCoastRunner]

Good intentions do not imply good results. Just look as the Islamists in Iraq and Syria. They do their actions for the sake of the great creator of the universe, Allah. What could be a better cause?

You are comparing forest degradation in Canada to Islamists in Iraq and Syria. Alrighty. Leave me out of this debate.

[Guest]

Said what the first time?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I think that my responsibility is to protect the planet as much as I can for my grandchildren, my future great grandchildren etc. I certainly don't have all the answers but I will do my best. As far as 'posts like mine and other AGW members', well like I say, I can only do the best that I can.

[WestCoastRunner]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I think that my responsibility is to protect the planet as much as I can for my grandchildren, my future great grandchildren etc. I certainly don't have all the answers but I will do my best. As far as 'posts like mine and other AGW members', well like I say, I can only do the best that I can.

You lost me. Not sure where I needed to qualify this statement. Shouldn't this be uppermost in all our minds?

[Guest]

Now I'm lost too. It should be uppermost in all our minds, as I'm sure it is, because we have everything we need and more.