Several submissions discuss whether and how the allowable annual cut should be adjusted. This input varies from a suggestion that a reduction is not needed, to support for immediate reductions—either to the long term sustainable level or by as much as 40 per cent to protect tourism, biodiversity and wildlife values. Most of the input agrees a reduction to the allowable annual cut is inevitable, at least over the long term. Several alternative ways to implement a reduction are suggested:
• based on its re-analysis of the data, the licensees' analysis indicates the current allowable annual cut can be continued for 40 years, followed by 10 per cent reductions each decade for the following 50 years. Alternatively, the licensees' analysis predicts an immediate 10 per cent reduction could be implemented and the resulting harvest level sustained for 70 years
• to allow for the implementation of the regional land-use plan, Forest Practices Code, land claims, and measures to offset impacts, one individual recommends a maximum five per cent reduction for the next five years
• to ensure the industry will be stable in the future, to protect future generations from suffering for our overcutting, to protect non-timber values, and to accommodate the uncertainty inherent in some critical factors or created by current initiatives such as the Forest Practices Code, three submissions recommend reducing the allowable annual cut to the long-term level as soon as possible. One questions whether this level is low enough to protect all other values
• one respondent states it is important to step down the timber supply so that it never drops below the long-term timber supply level;
• one industry submission contends that any reduction would seriously jeopardize its operations because of its precarious timber supply position, but does not specify a preference for an allowable annual cut level
• in order to slow the conversion of old forests to younger, managed forests, one submission prefers an immediate 40 per cent reduction
One submission suggests no more than 50 per cent of the allowable annual cut should be allocated to the two major licensees, with the remainder going to the woodlot program, small business program, specialty and value-added manufacturing sector, and commercial thinning.
Another submission expresses concern about the distribution of the cut across the landscape, stating that prolonged concentrations of harvesting in his guide-outfitting area will adversely affect his business.
