Much of the input indicated a strong perception that current forest management practices do not adequately address integrated resource management or the requirements for biodiversity. It was pointed out that riparian areas adjacent to streams or waterbodies were not specifically removed from the timber management land base in the Forest Service analysis. The old-growth requirements were also considered inadequate by many.
The loss of productive forest land to roads was also a concern to several respondents. One person indicated further mapping of sensitive soils would reveal the timber management land base was considerably smaller than estimated.
A number of respondents questioned the credibility of the Forest Service, government, and large forest companies in ensuring environmental impacts are fully accounted for in the Timber Supply Review.
Many of the respondents recommended a significant reduction in the allowable annual cut, in light of limited knowledge about forest ecosystems and uncertainty about the future. Of those respondents who advocated a significant reduction to the allowable annual cut, nine made specific proposals, varying from 362,000 cubic metres per year to 604,000 cubic metres per year, but they did not provide analytical rationales.
