I ATTENDED the Algonquin Forestry 2005 - 2025 Algonquin Park Forest Management Plan's second information centre in February. Held in Huntsville, this "second" information session was actually the third stage in a five-stage process that takes place over five years. It was an open format held from 3 p.m. until 8 p.m. If a total of 10 people showed up during this whole time (not counting the several staff members of the forest management planning team and some Local Citizen's Committee (LCC) members), that would be high. It was great for me though, because I asked a ton of questions and looked through materials thoroughly enough that I was able to write up a request for what I would like to have sent. I was actually there for the entire time.

I went expecting some kind of presentation and discussion but the way the information was conveyed to the public was via tradeshow-like displays, charts, computer graphics, huge binders of information that remain with organizers -- one only has time enough to flick through. I learned a lot about their computer system.

The purpose of these information centres is public consultation. This was deemed necessary after three years of public hearings via the Environmental Assessment Agency. It is a time-consuming and expensive process that doesn't appear to work well. The staff was enthusiastic, knowledgeable and helpful. That's with the exception of the one staff person who didn't think any of Haliburton County was located in the park boundaries until we looked at a map. (An actual figure pertaining to number of hectares of the park is located within Haliburton County is to be given to me at a later date.)

The park is 761,447 hectares in total, of which 167,567 function as "parks within parks" (historical zones, nature reserves, wilderness zones). Foresters are allowed to operate in 479,343 hectares (not including water which would make it 593,204 hectares) called the recreation/utilization (RU) zone. Thus, Algonquin Park has 479,343 hectares of managed forest plus 54,497 hectares of water within the managed forest area. Forest management occurs in 73% of the RU zone, or 57% of the total park area. Other areas are reserved for shoreline, portages, trails, water, earth or life science features.

In terms of its forestry policy, the key aspect that stood out to me during a conversation I had with the Park Superintendent, John Winters, is that the planning team and management has a strong intention to operate in the most impeccable way given the time we live in, the level of public scrutiny and interest of environmentalists. Beyond intention, they feel that they are successful in practising the highest forestry standards available. Aside from reading the briefs about their approach to forestry that were printed on large posters, the enormous Forest Management Planning Manual contains all the information abut the park's forestry policies and practices, and I just didn't have time to read it all! Winters mentioned to me that the genius of the original park planning was that, where possible, access points were located on the periphery of the park. In his view, this helps with the preservation of the park's environment.

Algonquin Park is the only Crown Park in Ontario, and the States, and I believe they said all of Canada, in which logging (I was corrected to use the language of "harvesting") is allowed. The staff and volunteers pride themselves on:

1.) not harvesting much of the park (1.5% to 2% of the total forest area is harvested annually, which translates into 9,000 hectares, of which 95% is harvested via partial cutting systems and 2% is harvested by clear cutting);

3.) on their sustainability practices that include a considerable economic contribution to the local and provincial economy via harvesting and lumber sales (this 1.5% to 2% of the total area harvested results in sustaining 13 local mills that employ several hundred people in the area and generate, I think, about 25 million dollars in revenue for Ontario).

The park relies upon mostly natural regeneration; only about 500,000 trees are planted each year. The harvesting system is a function of the type of tree being harvested. Tree-marking is key to the park's forest management program.

I asked one staff member about how much old growth forest was in the Park. The definition of old growth forest adopted by the park is for white and red pine trees aged 120 years and greater, and they are harvested in accordance with their forestry approach. This definition is in accordance with the MNR's current conservation policy. The answer is as follows. The white pine forest unit consists of 74,261 hectares. The red pine forestry unit consists of 5,719 hectares. Together, they represent a forest group, which consists of 79,980 hectares of red and white pine trees of all ages. Seventeen per cent of this area consists of red and white pines aged 120 years plus, and thus is considered old growth forest. This translates into 16,639 hectares of old growth forest in the park.

This 17% does not include other groups of maturing red and white pines that will become what is considered old growth forest. In the pPark's 10-year plan, it is expected that there will be up to 43% of what is considered to be old growth forest. In 2006, in Ontario, the old growth forest definition will be expanded to include all species of trees. Currently, the longest-living trees in the park are hemlock and birch, some of which are 350 years old.

Within the managed forest area, all trees have been, or will be, harvested. Old growth forest is no exception. Of the 16,639 hectares of old growth forest, 13,221 hectares is managed forest that permits harvesting and 3,418 hectares is set-aside in nature reserves.

When I asked why any 120 year-old tree would be cut down, a look of fear came over the fellow's face that revealed he expected 20 sign-waving tree huggers to be waiting for him in the parking lot! He became less informative. I was just curious - I really didn't know how they approached forestry. It wasn't a loaded question. I really wanted to know the park's rationale. Other than being told that, as of a certain age, trees rot, I really wasn't given a thorough explanation. By the way, the reason the information centre is structured in the manner of displays and binders is because of past confrontation with environmentalists when the format was presentations and panel-discussion type format. The staff is a little defensive.

I asked about wetland policy. Wetlands are considered to be marsh, fen and bog and are deemed different from water bodies (lakes). The park doesn't have any officially designated provincially significant wetlands because they feel their internal system of nature reserves and wilderness zones provide better protection of wetlands. There are several wetlands that could be designated provincially significant, and some are located in the area of the park that is located in Haliburton County. There is also little development in the park and some of the bigger lakes allow motors. There is a desire to no longer permit motorboats on many lakes within the park that currently permit motorboats. While canoes and recreation are allowed in most wetland areas, some wetlands are completely protected as moose feeding areas.

There are many cultural and heritage sites and endangered species within the park that they do not give out information on; in particular, location information, as they do not want to encourage people to visit, and potentially harm, these sites and species.

There are 305 leases in the park, which expire in 2017. It is not clear what will happen with these leases after this time. This will likely become a controversial issue in the next few years.

This process is also due to start for the Bancroft region, which includes Haliburton and Minden. The Bancroft MNR and the Bancroft LCC oversee the process for this particular region. Check your local paper for an upcoming invitation.

Basically, I took the crash course on Algonquin Park, and for me that included a crash course in forestry and the provincial politics around forestry. I feel I learned more about the staff's dislikes of this process; if not for any other reason than the public didn't show up. From my perspective, I arrived to navigate an overwhelming amount of information that I attempted to wade through in an effort to gather information that EH! might be interested in. I am probably the least environmentally knowledgeable person involved with EH!, so that's a funny task! The information available was broad. Though I participated in a great discussion about moose, the main focus of the information centre is forestry. I had little time to gather specific information regarding other plant life and wildlife.

After being there for the full five hours and after being told about their disappointment that more of the public doesn't show an interest and that more committed volunteers aren't coming on board, I realized that the staff hadn't asked me my opinion about the process or the information. To uphold the goal of public consultation, I offered that I had expected some kind of presentation and discussion. I'd been pretty bombarded with written information, maps and some interesting chit-chat, but I had no opportunity to integrate the experience so that I could offer meaningful consultation. Though I had asked for information regarding wetlands and sustainability prior to the meeting, it was suggested that I attend the meeting to get the information. Consequently, I attended in an information-gathering capacity rather than being able to make any great offering to be included in the draft report.

However, what I could offer for their record was that, after being there for so long drinking only water (I don't drink coffee), I suggested that, in the future, they serve some food - maybe some chicken fingers or cheese and crackers - because it was past supper and I was hungry!

The larger and higher red pine trees are the result of a plantation that was established about 50 years ago. The understory, mainly comprised of hard maple saplings, is the result of natural regeneration processes which have occurred at no financial cost

whatsoever. This is one example of forest succession where it is pretty obvious that the future stand will be represented mainly by tolerant hardwoods, such as maple, rather than an intolerant conifer, such as red pine. Tolerance is an extremely important factor to consider in the practice of forest management ... one which should not, can not be overlooked. In this case, red pine, a species which is intolerant of growing in shady conditions, does not regenerate in its own shade, while the very shade tolerant maple from neighbouring seed sources establishes and develops relatively well in this environment. Granted, this stand receives lateral sunlight, being situated adjacent to the roadway; nevertheless, the shade/sunlight effects do apply.

It seems, at times, that almost everyone will agree that clearcutting is “bad,” and that all forests should be managed in a “good” fashion as uneven-aged vegetation communities. That certainly enhances biodiversity, maintains aesthetically appealing forest cover everywhere and eliminates ugly scars on our landscape caused by even-age management systems such as clearcutting. Don’t get me wrong on this matter. I’m not about to make a case for widespread use of clearcutting operations. For now, I’m just asking the reader, Joe or Josephine Public, the people who, over time, so strongly influence management practices -- and rightly so -- to consider this! How would you best manage any forest of tree species which is not able to grow in shady conditions?

It takes 100 years more or less (depending on species) for a tree in Haliburton County to grow to maturity. These trees may either be observed as similar-sized trees in an even-aged forest or as a variety of sizes and ages in forests comprised of shade-tolerant species. Trees that are preferred and selected to grow to maturity are called “crop trees” when production of forest products is a management objective.

Sure, there are many other objectives or concerns as well, including wildlife habitat, protection of water resources, flood control, air quality, recreational, aesthetic values, ecosystems, old growth forests and so on. The values that our forests provide are incredible and almost certainly beyond our abilities to absolutely quantify them. But one thing is beyond denial: commitment.

If we are to manage forests well for any or all of the above, the commitment must be one that is constant, unfailing and of long duration. Just as the farmer or gardener holds to his or her objectives for at least one full crop rotation, so must forest managers ... it is only the rotation duration that is different.

A one- or two-year commitment won’t work in forest management. Five or 10 years isn’t good enough, either. You don’t have to look far to observe examples of conifer plantations that were once planted with great enthusiasm and are now in decline and “breaking-up” due to the lack of subsequent thinning operations.

And you don’t have to look far to see hardwood forests that show the consequences of a history of high-grade logging; that is, taking the best and leaving the rest! That’s like leaving the weeds in your garden while harvesting your vegetables as soon as they are edible. Not a good way to ensure best use of a food supply throughout the growing season. No, don’t blame the logger. He’s just trying to feed his family when he is tempted to harvest the tree while he is there, rather than wait another 15-20 years.. when he may not be there! You would probably do the same if your living was made by logging!

OK then, unless we decide to let Nature manage our forests - accepting that “uncontrolled” wildfires are one of Nature’s silvicultural tools - then who will? Who has the dedication, the desire and motivation, the vision today, to commit to 100 years of future management.

No, not the logger. The politicians ... looking ahead 100 years? That’s a redundant question! The forest industries? Well, maybe, although that scenario suggests it’s a good idea to have the fox guard the chicken coop. Besides, as a friend in the forest industry long ago said to me, “There’s not a !@#$% mill in this country built to last a rotation!”

Maybe we are left with no one else but you! You ... a tiny fraction of the silent majority. If you don’t care, some of the worst forestry practices are almost certain to continue, or increase.

But you don’t own a forest? Well what about the more than 80% of Crown forest land in Ontario, albeit mainly in the northern portions ... it’s yours! And what about the private land forests in the province? Don’t you enjoy any of the benefits of these, some of which have been noted above.. just as you enjoy those of all forests, almost regardless of ownership?

In my view YOU have a stake in sound forest management which is only exceeded by that of your grandchildren and theirs. OK, OK, I know ... your grandchildren don’t have any grandchildren ... yet. But you get the idea!

and which if it speaks “a little louder” will certainly be heard. This, like proper long term forest management practices, will NOT hurt the logger, will NOT hurt private land forest owners, will NOT hurt the forest industries or even the politicians. Some will say it will involve major costs. No, it involves investments. You as a taxpayer are already investing but it is certainly doubtful that you know what you are getting for your present investment in forest management. Why not educate yourself and find out?

Do yourself a big favour! Do an even bigger favour for your grandchildren! Take an interest, speak up and ask questions. EH! will try to help you find the right answers. It is important because only you can see 100 years ahead.. Right?