|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|
We should allow healthy old beech to decide their fate on their
own. We don't know if the latest invasive pest, Orchestes, will
suddenly subside, slow its spread, or whatever. Even if the pest
continues to spread, the trees you mention may live for another 20
years or more, which is extremely important for ecosystem services
and wildlife. Instructing/demanding LAF to save any large,
healthy beech in our public forests is reasonable. Ask them to
flag the trunks before harvest begins. In fact, if the land is
growing tolerant hardwood, such as beech, the forests are likely
pointing toward becoming more tolerant and heavy removals are
entirely inappropriate. Managing shade on the forest floor is
extremely important, and even more so in the context of climate
change. Beech is so very important for wildlife who find less and
less food sources on Crown land where the very best harvest
practices are to take place. The 10 % retention levels are
absolutely not acceptable on lands that are likely to be allocated
for ecological forestry. This is essentially a seed tree release,
even-aged forestry. We should be well past this type of
prescription now as we approach nearly 3 years since Lahey made
his recommendations.
For more useful info, check out mother trees. Why mother trees are crucial for fighting climate change.
And here is a case that shows why retaining 10 % canopy is not
recommended as new, Canadian science of how forests work is
discovered: Dispatches
from the mother tree forest. This new focus since it is not
just about maintaining old growth but recognizes the functional
advantage these trees provide to other trees within mycorrhizal
networks.
It's sad that we all must keep asking for better forestry after a Natural Resources Strategy (2010) and now Lahey recommendations, and still there is little change in forestry practices and our last forests are falling. Logical requests like retaining healthy old trees are often addressed by industry people using derogatory tones and who taunt and label us as 'anti-forestry' when we simply want sustainable partial harvests to meet requirements for biodiversity, wildlife and a better future for all. Keep up your efforts, Mary.
Regards,
Donna Crossland