Shade needed
AFR: The article by Chris Tufts in your July 2022 issue (“Do we really value silviculture?” page 28) sure tells it like it is. It tells me that industry and our forestry department sure have it wrong. Too few men and too-large machines and trucks are doing a good job at ruining our forests and killing our rural communities while making the largest contribution to global warming. Imagine trying to thin and plant in the heat and mess that has been continually made since the end of the Nova Scotia Small Tree Act in 1965. A 50-foot overstory has value, far more than people realize from an air-conditioned cab or office. However, we have to admit that keeping 75 percent of a tall overstory is impossible using a $300-per-hour harvester. Too much wood has to be produced.

What I am saying is that it is best to make smaller interventions – cutting selectively but keeping that tall shade, and thick enough to prevent wind damage in hurricanes, but enough holes to release spruce trees that start naturally in the shade. That way, there can be a light selection cut every 10 years or so. This sounds good if you have trees that are ready to be cut in that manner. But what about the huge tracts that have been clearcut and came back in 90 percent fir and the rest is sprouted hardwood? Who pays for all the work in clearing out the mess so profitable trees can grow, especially at today’s stumpage prices? The present system of clearcutting must be stopped now. Let the harvester owners and operators get on the ground with a power saw and clear up the mess they made since they started that method of cutting. I have often said that we need the diameter limit back, but first we have to grow over half our forests up to the minimum limit so it can take effect. Then, at least, the workers would work in the shade.

Your magazine is too full of larger and larger machines cutting smaller and smaller trees. That is no direction for our young people and no direction toward a healthy forest. And when an eight-foot two-by-four can go from $3 to $9 with none of that increase going back to the land, then it is very clear that silviculture is “dire, neglected, and undervalued.” At that rate, nobody can improve their forest even if they want to.

Charles Jess
Yarmouth, N.S.

Low-grade at what price?
AFR: I read with interest your editorial in the July issue, “Wood heat for the whole town,” and would like to offer a comment or two for consideration, should a follow-up article find a space in a future issue of AFR.

I have 180 acres of woodland consisting of mostly over-mature Balsam fir, some White spruce, juniper, Red maple, and a few acres of Christmas trees. Earlier this summer I had a local contractor perform my first commercial harvest since the Juan cleanup, by creating strips of cut forest, as opposed to a clearcut. I am pleased with the results and the rate at which I was paid. What surprised me the most, however, was that close to 75 percent of the wood landed was marketable as studwood, whereas years ago, a lot of this fibre would not have made the grade for pulpwood. The remaining wood processed (low-grade fibre) netted a pittance in terms of stumpage.

So here is my point. The article mentions that the wood supply for the mill will be from “low-grade fibre derived from ecological forestry treatments,” “which is readily available within a 100-kilometre radius,” (and) that the supply of wood would consist of a base of landowner engagements. Many of us know how much good timber went to the NSP biomass plant to fulfill contracted quotas. I’m wondering, therefore, how many woodlot owners would consider having their wood harvested by such contracting for prices paid for low-grade fibre?

The article mentions that the wood supply needed to support the project is small in comparison to the wood consumed by Northern Pulp, being about 50,000-100,000 tonnes annually…. This is quite a spread, in terms of an estimate, mind you. Regardless, at the lower end, 1,500 trailer loads of wood will be required annually; that’s 1,500 more trucks on the road; that’s woodlot owners having their wood cut, porter ruts on their landscape, woods roads damaged, all the while essentially receiving nothing in terms of financial compensation. So, on the surface and without knowing the details of where this wood will come from and what the woodlot owner could expect in terms of compensation, road maintenance assistance, etc., it certainly doesn’t look like a viable home/business heating solution, in my mind.

I think we can all agree that our many forestry contractors need support. And the project could provide this assistance, and the project may be worthwhile in terms of a pilot program under review. But unless the woodlot owner gets paid for their wood, there will be no wood supply, unless the government steps in and allows contractors to harvest Crown land for this project. And, if the infrastructure is built, who will guarantee this wood supply?

Finally, in terms of climate change, it seems to me that the co-gen option should be an essential element when considering the viability of this project. And there was no mention in the article with respect to how this project would compare economically or ecologically to a plant generating heat for the town from geo-thermal or solar sources.

Thank you for publishing these and other interesting articles, and for the opportunity for us to offer comments and opinions.

Don Levy
Musquodoboit Valley, N.S.