Other issues raised in the Discussion Paper prompted public input.
Timber Supply Review process
Six submissions comment on the Timber Supply Review process. One maintains that the review is an exciting start but, because the chief forester can be politically influenced, continuing public input is essential. The respondent refers to the Village of Hazelton’s Framework for Watershed Stewardship and says she sees movement toward the vision contained in the framework (real stewardship of the total resource and the varied uses crucial to people in the area).
Three submissions say the recommendations of the Harvest Level Committee must be met or at least given strong consideration as part of the Timber Supply Review. These recommendations were agreed to by a very diverse, well-informed committee of residents. Two respondents state they are disappointed the Harvest Level Committee’s recommendation regarding the allowable annual cut was not considered in the Timber Supply Review, nor were the committee’s other recommendations considered or tested in the analysis. One of the submissions contends that if public input is truly desired, the chief forester must give considerable weight to this committee’s recommendations.
Another submission says the author doesn't have the time or resources to review the Timber Supply Review documents, nor is it optimistic about its input being effective. It believes that, because of the forest industry’s fibre flow requirements, changes to the allowable annual cut province-wide have been capped; therefore key decisions have already been made that limit what can happen in this timber supply area. The respondent adds that it supports the recommendations of the Harvest Level Committee and rejects the Kispiox Consensus Management Decisions as too arbitrary, unscientific and discretionary.
Another individual questions whether the scale of planning used in the Forest Service analysis is adequate to permit accurate consideration of other values.
Another respondent asserts that the maintenance of an untenable harvest level reveals the bias of the Timber Supply Review process towards satisfying timber companies’ fibre needs. He contends that real alternatives—such as reducing the concentration in the forest industry by providing more woodlots—and their impacts are not considered.
Another submission contends the Forest Service analysis flagrantly disregards the principle of participation in resource developing planning by ignoring the agreements and information in the Kispiox Land and Resource Management Plan.
allowable annual cut adjustment
Many suggestions are provided on whether and how the allowable annual cut should be adjusted:
• four submissions support the base case forecast of maintaining the current annual allowable cut. The reasons cited include the favourable impact on mineral exploration through development of access into new areas in the northern part of the timber supply area. It is also stated that the base case underestimates long-term productivity by 20 per cent
One individual supports the maintenance of the current level if harvesting is emphasized in older stands, and non-productive stands are not removed from current harvesting plans.
• nine submissions recommend a gradual (1 or 2 per cent) reduction in the allowable annual cut, beginning immediately. The reasons include the following:
1. it is preferable to avoid the abrupt change that will occur later
2. it will allow time to prepare people for larger reductions in the future and to encourage alternatives; the availability of Forest Renewal funds is noted
3. this is the recommendation of the Harvest Level Committee, agreed to after extensive study and discussion
4. starting the reduction now will relieve some of the pressure on the land base and allow other activities and other harvesting methods to develop and/or exist
5. maintaining the current allowable annual cut will liquidate old growth and may destroy the basis for alternatives such as tourism
6. fibre needs of industry must not be the determining factor in setting the allowable annual cut
7. uncertainty in the data and assumptions suggests a conservative approach is needed; for example, the analysis talks about over- and underestimating some factors by 20 per cent
8. the effect of land claims settlements is not yet known
• one submission recommends an immediate reduction of 20 per cent, followed by a reduction of 2 per cent per year until the long-term timber supply is reached. This recommendation is based on concern that the Forest Service analysis did not make sufficient deductions from available timber estimates to account for protection of other values.
Another submission says the allowable annual cut should be not be subject to sympathetic administration and should be stratified based on timber type, slope and ecological classification. As well, the estimated impacts of aboriginal rights on timber supply should be considered now, rather than postponed to the future.
