Letter sig

LETTER: Forestry practices not all bad

In rebuttal to the Will Webster July 8 letter, he segued from my comments on the protesters occupying the land administered by the First Nations and the request from their leaders that they vacate it to an apocalyptic view of forestry practices.

First of all, I would like to state that no one needs to visit all encampments to visualize the damage they can do to any environment. Equally, no one needs to see all sites of logging to imagine that landscape. I don’t dispute the environmental impact that current practices have on our ecosystems.

However, I have also seen the replanted areas. Tiny seedlings of different native trees, flourishing areas of salmonberries, native blackberries, salal, Oregon grape, alders, and native maples all provide forage and habitat for wildlife. In most cases, they are surrounded by blocks of uncut forest.

The carbon sequestration in both old-growth and new young forests remains a controversial topic, but it depends on which experts you prefer. Lots of opinions are out there, scientific and otherwise. Please read them; I have.

I think that the impact on wildlife may not be so much the cutting and replanting of forests, but perhaps because we are monopolizing their environment with our encroaching cities and development, roads and paving.

I would also like to point out that the grass and alders grow through the old unpaved surfaces of the logging roads much more quickly than through concrete.

Marie Wilson



Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

Letter to the Editor