Allowable cut determination
Several respondents rejected the base case timber supply forecast presented in the timber supply analysis. They suggested maintaining the current allowable annual cut for the next 20 years should not be considered because the long-term sustainable timber supply is half the current allowable annual cut.
Most respondents urged an immediate reduction in the allowable annual cut. Many suggested postponing this action would:
• reduce future flexibility for integrated resource management decisions
• hasten the development of uniformly aged stands; this was generally viewed as undesirable
Many respondents considered job loss impacts would be more manageable if the allowable annual cut reduction began now and continued gradually. Maintaining the status quo for the next 20 years was perceived to simply defer and perhaps exacerbate the impacts. In the words of one respondent, "sticking to the present forecast of 895,000 cubic metres a year is like racing down a slippery road, refusing to lower our speed until we receive official word about the location of the ice."
One submission suggested a reduction in the allowable annual cut be tied to local employment initiatives in the forest sector and elsewhere.
Historically, the allowable annual cut has been allocated between long-term licences (650,000 cubic metres) and temporary licences (245,000 cubic metres). One respondent suggested these temporary licences were not intended to be sustained and a decrease in allowable annual cut was inevitable.
A few respondents commented that major industrial restructuring is imminent due to current sawmilling over capacity in the region regardless of the allowable annual cut determination for the Bulkley Timber Supply Area. One respondent observed that the Bulkley Timber Supply Area is relatively economically diverse now and is in a reasonably good economic situation, so a timber supply reduction and restructuring are appropriate now.
The Northern Interior Woodworkers Association suggested harvests be maintained at current levels as long as possible in the interests of community economic stability. Maintaining current harvest levels should be linked to a commitment from license holders to:
• implement a comprehensive incremental silviculture program
• produce more value-added products from the forest resource
It was also noted that the base case timber supply forecast allows the harvest of older, dying forests sooner, thereby generating a greater financial value. Additionally, as more intensive forestry is practiced in the Bulkley Timber Supply Area, the long-term timber supply may increase.
Some respondents favoured separate allowable annual cuts for sawlog quality timber, marginal timber and pulp to gain greater control of the harvesting of these classes. Further, these allowable annual cuts should be proportionate to the availability of these timber classes in the forest. A separate allowable annual cut for deciduous wood was also suggested.
Another submission suggested separate allowable annual cuts to encourage logging of inoperable timber that is currently considered uneconomic or infeasible to harvest provided adequate environmental safeguards are in place.
The suggestion was made that an allowable annual cut be determined for each watershed individually. If a watershed was deferred, its associated allowable annual cut would be deferred as well.
Some individuals and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks stated maintaining the current allowable annual cut while shifting to a greater pulp log harvest would lead to increased pressure on some high elevation ecosystems. These respondents suggested this was unwise given the lack of information about high elevation regeneration.
