Several issues raised in the Discussion Paper prompted public input.
One forest industry submission suggests that in the section titled "Factors indicating the short-term timber supply may be lower than predicted in the base case," the assumed effects of the factors are based on speculation or unsubstantiated opinion. This submission contends the Timber Supply Review should work with the status quo and avoid speculation about the future.
Similarly, the licensees' review questions the value of those same assumptions:
• the areas designated as management zones for wildlife winter range and corridors are not official, and their inclusion in the timber supply analysis is speculative. Local industrial opinion is that deer winter range requirements were overstated in both green-up and maximum area requirements
• grizzly bear habitat can be managed by access management rather than habitat preservation. This would not affect timber supply
• since no biodiversity guidelines have been confirmed, the discussion on old-growth forests is speculative. Furthermore, preservation of old growth is part of the Protected Areas Strategy, not the Timber Supply Review
• the discussion on forest ecosystem networks is pure speculation
• under current practice, management of riparian areas results in minor land base withdrawals
• the Discussion Paper suggests that green-up requirements may increase to nine metres. The critique suggests that five metres is adequate based on calculations done using the Draft Watershed Assessment Procedures
