An Example of Why The Suzuki Foundation Annoys Me.

Reposted from the Smoke Pit.

---

This CBC article (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/18/bc_pinetree031118) talks about the province increacing the allowable cut in order to help control projected timber supply losses associated with the mountain pine beetle infestation.

The Suzuki foundation response is

"There's no evidence in any jurisdiction that clearcutting has actually slowed the spread of the mountain pine beetle… we see this as a grave short-term solution to a very long-term problem," said Cherie Burda.

Clearcutting could destroy the habitat of the beetle's natural predators and decrease the diversity in the forest, she said.

Now take a look at BC's Chief Forester Larry Pederson's presentation to the Mountain Pine Beetle Symposium (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/pubs/MPBKelowna.pdf).

Nowhere in the presentation is clearcutting mentioned. How they got from "increaced cut" to "clearcutting" is wholly spurious. In fact what is mentioned is selective logging of "green infestation" (meaning trees already infected by the beetle but not yet dead, with the specific purpose of killing the beetles before they have a chance to fly and infect other trees). The increace in allowable cut is also to get at the standing dead trees before the wood rots. But "clearcutting" is the scary word the public and press want to hear.

The Suzuki Foundation spokesperson calls the solution "short term", whereas the plan itself, if you read it, talks in terms of 250-year projections. Does that sound "short term"?

The Foundation also nebulously mentions decreacing diversity in the forest, but they fail to mention that the work done behind the reccomendation specifically looks a biodiversity and talks specifically about maintain biodiversity. And the Foundation utter ignores the fact that one of the causal factors in the infestation is that there is three times as much mature pine standing today as there was in 1910. Why is that?

The Foundation spokesperson also says

There are alternatives to large-scale logging, including controlled burns and selective thinning of dead pine stands, she said.

No fucking shit. That's what's being recommended. Selective thinning and cuts that follow natural disturbance patters (i.e. mimicing real fires). So when the forest industry doesn't clear cut, does selective thinning and the other things already planned, the Suzuki Foundation can then stand up and proclaim victory over the evil lumber industry.

There's your documented example. Not that I expect it to make any difference.

---

This isn't by any means the first time I've seen them do this sort of thing, it just happens that I was asked for an example a while back, so it tickled my fancy to put this to together when this one came up in the course of doing my work today.