The Rural Voice, 2003-02, Page 61
Tree bylaws designed
for protection, not
good management
1 read with interest the response in
the December issue of The Rural
Voice to the October 2002 article
Spare the Axe.
It might be interesting to note that
Tree Cutting Bylaws were originally
enacted with an emphasis on
preventing additional clearing of
forest and less focus on encouraging
good forest management. The
diameter limit approach was taken in
most cases as it allowed for fairly
straightforward enforcement,
however, it has often been
misinterpreted that these minimum
size standards are also good forest
management. Forest science has
proven that this is not the case, as
over the long term, solely diameter
limit management tends to result in
reduced forest quality and
productivity.
A number of factors must be
considered, but in many cases it is
also likely financially advantageous
for landowners to grow their trees to
sizes beyond the minimum sizes
prescribed in the bylaw. There may
be an option to include more forest
management standards in Forest
Conservation Bylaws in the
upcoming process of incorporating
them into the Municipal Act.
Of equal or greater importance,
there is some discussion in the letter
of the business of, and various
approaches to, buying timber. I
encourage all landowners to make
good business decisions when
approaching sale of timber from their
woodlots. 'It is good business for
landowners to ensure they receive
fair market value for their timber as
well as maintaining the productive
2 THE RURAL VOICE
Feedback
potential of their woodlot for the
future. Selling timber is not
something most landowners do on a
regular basis and most are therefore
not knowledgeable on current market
conditions, what volumes may be
present or what management options
may be appropriate for their woodlot.
I'd suggest that as a minimum, in
order to learn what they have and
what it's worth, it would be good
business for a landowner to have the
woodlot marked and get several bids
before making a sale.
By marking the trees prior to
selling them, both the landowner and
potential buyers know exactly which
trees are included in the sale. It also
allows the landowner to see the
number of trees likely to be removed
and make changes, if they wish,
before a sale is made.
By estimating volume for the
marked trees and obtaining several
bids from interested buyers (based on
a lump sum value for all the standing,
marked trees), the landowner is more
certain they are receiving fair market
value. This lump sum approach also
allows for the landowner to receive
payment in full before any trees are
cut, although landowners sometimes
choose to negotiate other payment
arrangements, depending on their
knowledge of the buyer.
Landowners may choose to hire a
consultant as one option for getting
their woodlot marked.
There are other considerations of
course, including having a legal
corm= with the buyer, ensuring the
cutting is done in a responsible
manner, etc.
Landowners interested in learning
more about all aspects of managing
their woodlots and meeting others
with similar interests are encouraged
to join their local woodlot
association. They may also wish to
access some of the considerable
literature available. Feel free to
contact me at 519-482-3661 for your
local woodlot association contact
information or literature on specific
forest management topics.0
— Steve Bowers
Registered Professional Forester
Stewardship Co-ordinator
Huron Stewardship Council
Large trees can
quadruple value
1 would like to respond to
"Diameter -based cutting more
productive" letter in Feedback in the
December 2002 issue.
The authors of the letter are
mistaken when they state "minimum
density criteria (Basal) is detrimental
to this process (diameter -based
cutting) because it encourages the
retention of older, less desirable
species and quality of trees". In fact,
using density control properly in
selection silviculture advocates
removing low -quality trees,
maintaining a variety of tree sizes and
species and, yes encouraging large
trees that provide valuable wildlife
habitat or have potential to quadruple
in value when they are high quality.
Some jurisdictions use diameter
limit restrictions to regulate cutting of
trees. This is sometimes
misinterpreted as promoting diameter
limit cutting as good forest
management. Research has proven
that long-term management under a
diameter limit system results in a
reduction of quality and productivity.
Selection silviculture based on basal
area control (tree density) is
recognized as good science and based
on scientific studies in Wisconson,
Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania
and Central Ontario all of which have
similar forest species as southwestern
Ontario. Some experiments in these
areas have measured comparisons of
diameter limit harvest and selection
harvest dating back 70 years.
An important difference between
selection and diameter -limit
management is the cultural treatment
of immature stems. Selection harvests
remove some trees from all
merchantable diameter classes in
order to control stand structure and
afford an opportunity to influence the
quality of the residual stand.
Diameter -limit, on the other hand,
disregards stand structure and tree -
quality development in stems smaller
than the cut limit.
The widespread habit of extracting
products rather than deliberately
managing the forest is exploitative,
high -grading and may have negative