Obvious troll is obvious, but I’ll bite.
21.4 per cent — occurred in Canada.
Pretty exact numbers there from Forest Watch.
Not all the degradation is due to logging — some of it is due to forest fires, which Forest Watch’s Lee blames on climate change.
And the percentage due to logging is? And the percentage due to fires is? And what exactly did ‘climate change’ do to cause fires? And Pine Beetle?
Yeah…not so exact.
Like I said before, it’s the Huffington Post.
Blame Canada?
I examined that map thoroughly with the areas I am more or less familiar with.
The map shows the area around Birks Falls as unforested….lotsa virgin ground there abouts. Algonquin Park is all forest….shown as unforested….yeah it wuz logged out in the square timber trade but thet wuz a long, long time ago…not shown as reforested but as unforested.
Northern Pennsylvania, western New York is now more or less overgrown with mature regrowth….not shown as reforested but as unforested.
This is as relevant as Mikey Mann’s graph.
Probably pal reviewed.
This can also be found in the Vancouver Sun:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/world/Canada+leads+world+forest+decline+report+says/10174609/story.html
That would be the “Glue-Huffing Post”…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Earth Pattern Baldness.
Greenland looks fake from space.
I thought that forests in north America were at the highest level in a couple of hundred years.
I miss the days when fools were laughed at. Now we give them degrees and influence over public policy.
Actually, I think the actual number is actually 21.396721% (+/- 22%).
Don’t encourage them by sending traffic, Lance
So if I’m reading this right, 4280 ha / day of forests are being degraded in Canada?
This doesn’t pass any sniff test. The report is agenda saturated.
I can tell you right now this study is 100% BS as far as Northern Ontario reforestation data is concerned. The forests in Northern Ontario are subject to conditions set out in a Forest Management Plan which includes forest regeneration. Every area cut gets regenerated. These plans are readily available here http://www.efmp.lrc.gov.on.ca/eFMP/home.do . Every plan goes through an exhaustive approval scheme which includes consultation with eco groups, First Nations and other stakeholders. Any legitimate concern has to be addressed to get approval of the Plan.
Absolutely right. I worked in the bush in northern Quebec back in the 50’s as a student. Did it for two summers. Guess what I was working on? Reforestation.
I am not sure where the forest degradation is coming from in Alberta? For every acre of land that is logged, an equal or probably greater amount is planted. I guess reforestation might be considered degradation because it is limited to commercial species.
The area of the oil sands is miniscule and guess what? – is subject to 100 % recovery and reforestation. Trees might actually grow better in recovered land than they do in oil.
I suspect that the biomass in Alberta forests is growing.
Mike, exactly.
Some of the commenters to the article mentioned the devastation shown on the photos are in the areas that were caused by the pine beetle.
This article is typical of the AGW fraud being peddled by so-called scientists.
They should worry about IndoChina where forests are being chopped down illegally to feed Chinese demand.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/20/deforestation-south-east-asia
Just like in the US of A, the forest-watch-type folk only look at negative changes over a short term. They’ll count the acres cut down, then conveniently forget to add in acres that were re-planted a couple of years back. Certainly, in the lower 48, the acres of forest, and total forest biomass is growing overall. I suspect the same happening up North.
It seems like a lifetime ago but I , at one time, had the idea I wanted to get into forestry/wildlife management so I took the requisite silviculture courses (those in Canadian universities are the world’s best outside Sweden).
One of the things our instructors impressed upon us is that the exact extent of the useable wood mass in the uncultivated Canadian boreal forest asset is unknown due to its vastness and rapid growth and degradation rates.
Exact figures like this indicate creative off-site “studies” which fill in massive blanks with speculation or wishful thinking – more blather from the usual media/special interest suspects.
This reminds me of an article in one of the last National Geographic magazines we got in the 1990s in which it talked about the fact that there were more trees in North America now than there were before the white man arrived. This increase was due to forest fires being checked.
Their key word is “virgin” forest. Timber harvesting amounts to about 1 to 1.5% per year and under provincial laws must be reforested. The Boreal forests are at least 50% unsuitable for timber management and so when fires start in those sites, there is little to no suppression done. Aside from that I won’t waste my time looking at their data as they are nothing more than hysteria pimps.
I post on this last night but the filter ate it…..maybe a Chinese hack…
Algonquin Park was founded on logged out land….not cleared but they had cut everything for the square timber trade. In my time rotting logs, which had been discarded, due to some defect, way back, still remained. Time and bears have made them finally disappear.
The map depicts this as unforested land…not reforested.
I recall our farm woodlot was labled “regrowth” when in my time I recall selling hard maple pealing (veneer) logs from stumps which showed 200+ annual rings.
I suggest this “map” is an artifact not reliable data.
The article gets around the facts of reforestation listed above by the use of the term “virgin forest.” They don’t care about actual forest, only those “untouched by man” are valid in the climate change debate – as if planted forests are somehow less effective at carbon capturing. Sustainable harvesting of resources is irrelevant to the narrative so it is completely ignored.
Bc has had a BIG reforestation program since at least the 1960’s,and possibly even before that.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/sof/2010/SOF_2010_Web.pdf
According the this website, roughly 200,000 hectares are logged every year, 90% on Crown land,the rest private land. By law,all of it has to be replanted.
There are 55 million hectares of forest land in B.C.
I worked for the BC Forest Service for 11 years, we had an entire branch dedicated to reforestation.We replanted thousands of hectares in my Forest District every year, and the same was done across the Province.
With modern techniques, survival is much better than it was in the 60’s and 70’s.
Environmentalists are horrified by the destruction of the pristine forest they see when they visit a logging show, much like vegetarians are when they visit a slaughter house. So, they do what they do best, panic,over react,call for moratoriums and outright bans,and never stop to consider the consequences.
Greens can wipe their butts with devil’s club, I prefer Charmin’.
This is part of a pattern. Unfortunately, as with the hate-Russia campaign, it will probably extend across the US
political spectrum. Of course Canada was one of the first countries to protect its forests and to institute widespread
reforestation measures. On another front, my “friend” R from central Pennsylvania has been writing letters to the effect
that Canada has never pulled its weight militarily. He himself is a lousy draft avoider.
This treachery with allies – close allies – is a reason why the US … oh Hell, finish it yourselves.
Like the Huffington Post, the Vancouver Sun has become a propaganda rag. Worth *zilch* as a legitimate news source.
I checked the interactive map of the area where we live. It showed a lot of blotches of forest loss along a logging road. These blotches were the logger’s staging area! Been there to gather firewood from the leftovers. 12 cords at a time (nice maple and beech). The actual logging here in QC is done strictly selective and in the winter to minimize the damage to the forest floor. The slider on the interactive map starts in 2002 and it shows a lot of clear cut blotches. Move the slider to start at 2007 – nothing, it all grew back. We went there to pick raspberries at first, but now the forest has taken over again.
So there, and that’s the truth.
It’s getting to the point where actually reading the content isn’t necessary.
1. It’s Huffpo
2. It’s Forest Watch
Therefore
3. It’s crap.
I have been a Registered Professional Forester in BC for over 47 years. This story is pure crap!
Yeah, Dave, how could you know anything about forests when you didn’t even go to journalism college?
Lot of the clearing in Northern BC is Oil and Gas related and they don’t have to plan to the same extent that forestry does. I saw the forestry practices in the early 80’s and they were bad, but they have come a long, long way from there and do a pretty good job. However the early handling of pine beetle wood was not great and helped spread the problem. Pine beetles are a serious threat out here, one that is not going away anytime soon.