Misguided policy

Dear editor:
The Ministry of Natural Resources has directed forest planning management teams to defy the law by relaxing the 260-hectare legal limit on the size of clearcuts.
In part, this is compensation in exchange for the forest companies’ co-operation in fulfilling the “Lands for Life” mandate. Moreover, the MNR argues it is ecologically-sound business.
Under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the MNR and forest companies are charged with maintaining natural processes. And by reasoning that clearcuts mimic natural disturbances by fire, the MNR has determined clearcuts of any size are acceptable!
This, however, is bad science. Natural systems, of any kind, are not that simply understood.
Ecosystem components (air, water, soils, plants, and animals) are in a steady state of flux as they move towards the constantly changing target of equilibrium. And, in a naturally operating ecosystem, equilibrium is rarely–if ever–achieved and is never maintained.
Natural disturbance, such as fire, results in change among and between ecosystem characteristics, such as evapotranspiration rates, soil nutrients, and species composition and population structures. While clearcuts may stimulate historical patterns of forest fires, they do not, in the same manner, contribute to adjust the mix and interactions of ecosystem components.
Recent comparative studies conducted by the University of Guelph and the University of Toronto demonstrated that natural processes associated with fire are not mimicked by clearcuts. Statistically significant differences were shown among nutrient availability, vegetation, and bird response.
Clearly, the MNR is misguided in making policy and practice changes to the maximum size of clearcuts. If this issue bothers you, write the provincial minister of the environment demanding an environmental assessment and public consultation.
Signed,
Gordon Earle
(Hons. B.Sc.; B.Ed.;
Fish & Wildlife
Management Technology)