The 10,000 Hectare Buzzcut
Province plans on huge jump in clearcut sizes to help caribou
by Brit Griffin
HighGrader Magazine January / February 2001
Under new guidelines being posted by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), clearcuts in Ontario could be making the jump from 260 hectare buzzcuts to 10,000 hectares.
The massive jump in cutting sizes is being touted as a way of helping the beleaguered woodland caribou. This past summer the elusive woodland caribou were added to the list of Canada's threatened species.
The draft guidelines have been creating some controversy. Some critics say the new plan would be more aptly named Clear-cut Stimulation Guidelines. Even members of the forest industry are worried that the trade-off in big cutting areas might mean an actual loss of timber. Then, of course, there is the question - are massive buzzcuts really what the caribou want?

The new fire simulation guidelines (still in draft form) intend to use clearcuts as a way of emulating natural fire disturbances. It is part of the directive of the Timber Class EA approval, and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, that more should be done to mimic natural disturbances.
"Presently, if you clear-cut within the guidelines, you don't have to have any other (official) approval," explains MNR biologist Bruce Ranta of Kenora, "So you could have a clear-cut, then 100 meters of buffer, then another clear-cut and so on. There are no over-all guidelines about this as you traipse across the landscape."
The new guidelines would create larger buffer areas and then allow the big clearcuts to be left to grow into mature forests.
Caribou prefer mature woodlands with forests averaging about 100 years old. But since caribou do not like forests that are over-mature, these mature forests will face the saws once they've served their purpose.
Ranta explains, "We need to identify where there are known caribou herds. Let's not go in and cut there until the trees are 110 to 120 years. By then the lichens will be displaced by feather mosses and the area won't be as attractive to caribou."
The MNR says that the 10,000 hectare clear-cuts will simulate natural fire disturbances and create caribou habitat for the future.
But is it even feasible to talk of creating good caribou habitat 100 years down the road when the animals are in danger now?
Mark Holmes of Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers doesn't think so. He believes the jump from 260 hectare clearcuts to 10,000 hectares is likely to wreak havoc with present moose habitat and may not even ensure caribou habitat for the future.
"Okay, so we cut 10,000 hectares today, and then not touch it for a hundred years, because that's how long its going to take, and then maybe you'll have caribou habitat. But this is all assuming that nothing will change in that hundred years, that another government won't say, 'oh go ahead, cut it again', or that there won't be any natural disasters (in this area). I mean, hello, not in my backyard."
But Joe Churcher, MNR spokesman from the Sault, says it is important to not just focus on the 10,000 limit. The intent of the guidelines is to create a range of sizes of clear-cuts. "Right now the landscape looks like a patchwork of basically 260 hectare cuts. What we want to do is encourage a clustering of those cuts into one area, stop the fragmentation and mimic the variety of natural disturbances. That way we can also allow larger undisturbed areas to remain intact."
One caribou expert thinks the move to bigger clearcuts may be positive.
Professor Frank Mallory is with Laurentian University's biology department; "Unlike the moose, caribou are not browsers. They have little teeth and like to feed on lichens and mosses. The really important habitat are the winter feeding areas. You need old growth forests with plenty of ground lichen and widely spaced trees."
According to Mallory, it's probably reasonable to move towards large cuts, especially in the north-west. There, he explains, the frequency of fire disturbance is much greater, the fire cycle shorter and the fires are much larger than in the east.
Mallory hopes that the the guidelines will mean that if large areas are cut, large areas will be left. "I think this could have a positive effect. Historically in Canada we've clear-cut. And we clear-cut along a strip moving north. This acts as a barrier to caribou moving south. By leaving large patches, we might be able to create a contiguous corridor for the caribou to move through."
It is this possibility, of leaving large tracts unlogged, as well as creating buffers within the cuts, that has some in the forest industry worried. Brian Nicks, a forester with Domtar, is quoted in the Working Forest (Fall, 2000) as saying that the guidelines may "... force companies to forgo up to half the harvestable volume in a planned disturbance for as long as 20 years."
MNR's Churcher says that some companies might lose some timber due to the guidelines requirements for greater residual forests (25%) to be left within the cut. But Churcher doesn't think there should be too much negative impact. "The total area of timber harvested shouldn't change, just the configurations of the cuts."
To soften the blow, the Ministry is looking at allowing the companies to go back in and take out some of the 25% that is supposed to be left.
"As we go back to work on the second draft, we'll be looking at these issues again."

Chris Henschell, of Toronto-based Wildlands League, thinks the fire emulation is headed way off in the wrong direction.
"Clear-cutting does not emulate forest fires, it's as simple as that. There's no real ecological meaning to the strategy. The only thing the MNR is focusing on is the size (of the disturbance) and that's just one of many factors related to large scale forest fires."
Thunder Bay resident Bruce Peterson agrees. He's with the group Environment North. "The whole idea that clear-cuts emulate fire is fallacious. The only way they can imitate it is in size. There is a natural beauty to a real forest fire - fire jumps, it leaves trees behind and cleans out the over-burden that creates disease. It rejuvenates the forest."
Peterson says the problem with caribou habitat is a much bigger one - the fact that we are turning our boreal forests into industrial forests.
"I think we are fooling ourselves if we think these huge clear-cuts are going to help the caribou."
Phone calls to various MNR officials suggest that there isn't complete clarity on how exactly these new guidelines will work. A second draft is in the works that might iron out some of the kinks.
But the MNR's Ranta says not to worry. "Even if it's not the best, at least I believe we won't be unduly threatening the caribou with the new guidelines."

No Consultations
As with so many issues facing Ontario's forests, the issue of increasing the clearcut sizes is marked by charges that, once again, the MNR has failed to consult with the public.
OFAH's Mark Holmes maintains that greater consultation with the public would help everyone understand the guidelines and maybe come up with a better approach.
"Let's consult with everyone. There are many northern communities whose cultural nature is tied up with wilderness - hunters, fisherman, the logging industry. And there are tourist operators who depend on the moose hunt. How is this going to effect them? You have to manage for a variety of values. I don't want to slam the MNR too much, it is one strategy they are putting forward, one school of thought, but let's talk about it some more and see if it is actually do able. Let's get the best over-all integrated system. And you need consultation for that."
Andrew Chepaskie is with the Taigi Institute in north-western Ontario. He agrees that consultation is very important. And for him, there are some experts in wildlife management that are consistently over-looked: First Nations people. He says the belief that there was untouched wilderness prior to the coming of white traders and settlers is flawed and may lead us in the wrong direction when we tackle the restoration of wildlife populations.
"You have to remember that we did not replace 'wilderness' with a human scape but one humanscape with another. The first one, the Aboriginal one, might have been better at maintaining bio-diversity, but it was still a humanscape."
Chepaskie says Aboriginal people relied on fire in transforming the forests. "Europeans are phobic of fire, but fire was to the Aboriginal people what the plough was to Europeans."
Chepaskie says he has heard stories of aboriginal communities making hay to attract elk or caribou and other stories of how people created 'prairie' by burning. There have also been reports of communities who's interaction with the caribou was so deliberate they were essentially 'keeping' caribou as herds.
Chepaskie says that an assumption has been made that it is simply logging that has pushed the caribou north, when, in fact, the reasons may be more complex. He feels that since Aboriginal habitat alterations are no longer being practiced, human interaction with the caribou has been altered. Chepaskie feels that traditional knowledge could be used to help restore the caribou presence.
"We really don't know how tightly wrapped these Aboriginal peoples were with the caribou. We don't know, and we don't ask. Why aren't we seeking out these local knowledge systems. There is too much of this top down stuff. It is a shame that we are not talking to the old-timers, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal."

Back
This article may be downloaded but any reprints reuquire prior permission.