Environmental and socio-economic objectives
One industry submission states that labour-intensive and value-added businesses should have a wood supply made available to them.
Input from an environmental group states that more wood should be processed locally to retain and create jobs.
The potential to increase awareness through education is mentioned in two submissions. One suggests educating people about what they can expect to see in the working forest landscape, compared to that in a park.
One public submission states that there should be more selective cutting experiments, and more old growth preserved within easy access of the public. It asserts that integrated resource management would be much easier if money were not our first priority.
One public submission recommends an old-growth inventory be done before an allowable annual cut is determined. It also urges that a calculation be performed of the number of trees needed for planting in order to have a sustainable industry.
A community submission states that the government has made a commitment to the stability of forest-reliant communities and forest jobs, and that this should be honoured. It also calls for a new socio-economic analysis to be done to account for potential changes in the forest sector and land use.
Examining the area currently considered uneconomical to harvest
Two industry submissions (and supporting technical information/maps) identify the potential to increase timber supply with a partitioned cut if the Klinaklini area could be accessed.
Others recommend that a partition for low sites or currently underutilized forest types be considered, with one respondent stating that this should be used to maintain the existing allowable annual cut for a licence that already targets those forests.
One local government submission discusses the possibility that a community forest could help mitigate impacts through the use of low sites, uneconomical sites and partial cutting.
An industry submission states that currently uneconomic sites should be made available as non-replaceable, rehabilitation forest management opportunities not attached to the allowable annual cut.
Partial Cutting
One industry submission maintains that the use of partial cutting would make available a large volume of timber currently unavailable due to visual quality requirements. Pictures showing selective logging at Chamiss Bay were submitted in which the author states that the viewscape is unaltered. The harvest level in visually sensitive areas could be based on performance, with a partitioned allowable annual cut.
Forest management issues
One industry submission stresses that issues like the old-growth site index and potential increased yields from managed stands should be addressed now, with direction and commitment provided to ensure that the benefits are realized in the future.
Allowable annual cut adjustment
One submission from a local government opposes an allowable annual cut reduction made on the basis that the current forest management practices cannot be maintained. Concern is expressed that this will set a precedent for other timber supply areas and cause detrimental impacts on communities dependent on the forest industry.
Other local government submissions state that flexibility should be allowed in the application of visual quality and adjacency/green-up requirements to enable a more gradual adjustment to the long-term harvest level. This approach will enable the government to maintain its commitment to the economic stability of forest-dependent communities, without compromising visual quality.
Submissions from another local government and one industry group state that the CFLA report should be considered in determining the allowable annual cut.
An environmental group stresses that the current guidelines should be maintained and that the reality of changed circumstances should be faced. Ignoring the current situation will only make things worse for future generations.
Two industry submissions support a gradual step-down and transition period to enable industry to adjust to the impacts, with perhaps less disruption of the workforce. One of these submissions states that flexibility exists in the Forest Practices Code (Sections 3 and 8) and in forest cover guidelines to support an allowable annual cut that would minimize the short-term drop, and remove the mid-term trough, without sacrificing integrated resource management objectives. The long-term harvest level could also be increased if the right management strategies are implemented now. Another industry submission also maintains a gradual transition is possible if choices are made to minimize the social and economic impacts.
Another industry submission agrees that relaxing forest cover requirements would make a more gradual reduction possible and provides the following rationale:
• compared to the south, activities on northern Vancouver Island should concentrate more on the growing and harvesting of timber. The message should be that this activity helps support the standard of living in B.C.
• the creation of the new parks should provide the areas for a substantial increase in tourism/recreation. The popularity of Whistler Mountain, in spite of the surrounding clearcuts, shows that forest cover is not always an indicator of tourism potential
• there is evidence of a growing "industrial tourism" industry on the north end of Vancouver Island
One industry submission contends that any reductions in the allowable annual cut should be made to the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program rather than to Forest Licensees. Licensees have come very close to meeting cut control requirements whereas the small business program has not.
One industry submission recommends that operability be reassessed before implementing any large allowable annual cut reductions.
One public submission states that the allowable annual cut should be reduced now to avoid large future disruptions.
An environmental group maintains that the allowable annual cut should drop immediately by at least 35 per cent because the current cut can not be maintained in the short or long term. Attempting to do otherwise will cause severe future problems.
A First Nations submission supports a 35 per cent reduction to protect limited resources, even if jobs are affected.
