One respondent contends timber supply forecasts are not sensitive to green-up, adjacency and visual requirements, and that this has significant positive implications for managing other resources such as wildlife, fisheries, water, biodiversity and recreation. This type of flexibility is important in trying to achieve sustainable economies, communities and environments.
Another submission maintains that because of the Forest Practices Code’s authority to regulate access, increased harvesting will not create more access problems. The respondent writes that with the development of land and resource management plans that address all interests, and with Forest Service and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks enforcement, access can be managed.
One respondent declares the Timber Supply Review presents a somewhat misleading baseline because it takes no account of other ongoing processes and because it assumes a 20 per cent increase from second-growth stands through intensive management for timber only.
Another submission lists a number of non-timber values in the timber supply area. It questions whether enough lower-elevation old growth has been excluded from the timber harvesting land base to meet fish, wildlife, recreation and biodiversity needs.
