Vedder Logging

[couch@nsmb.com]

I read the article on the front page and what would like to do something but what?

I refuse to write a letter that does not offer solutions so... what are proposed solutions that make sense, ultimately to city council.

I have ridden those areas but it has been a long time.

Help me out here.

Rich

[aShogunNamedMarcus]

Which paper?

[Nelson]

Originally posted by aShogunNamedMarcus
Which paper?

www.northshoremountainbiking.com

[aShogunNamedMarcus]

Originally posted by Nelson
www.northshoremountainbiking.com

**insert sheepish laugh here**

[ride24/7]

Well theres not a lot to be done... as far as I know the area is in the working forest.. that means sooner or later it will come up for harvesting...

be glad the shore isn't in the working forest.

Not to sound harsh but if you build trail in an area that is part of the working forest and someone owns the timber rights to it it will be logged.... you can find out the 5 year plan for an area from the ministry of forests. Basically second growth over 60 years is a candidate for harvesting.

so that means pretty much every trail on crown land is under threat of logging sooner or later.

[HeadOverWheels]

This is NUTS!!! :mad:

Why the hell do they need to take the trees down? THERE???

Besides the fact the recreational area is stunning, there's a huge lake, it's close to a city but certainly feels like you just entered wonderland and now this :mad:

Who Approves this shit?
Why can no one have a say?
Why would a city allow this type of quick buck work?

I could see if this was some crazy country that survives on it's very existance but this is freakin Canada, I thought Recreational fun was a positive thing and cutting down trees was a bad thing?

I think everyone with an old bike should take it to the Forrests and cable it do the cutting point of the trees. It beats the hell out of tying yourself to the tree and makes a point. Bike are here to stay.

OH, they say they'll stay away from the trails. If there is what they say there'll be movin in the quite peaceful sick trails of Vedder will not be the same.

Hope you guys get it sorted BUT there needs to be an official GREENPEACE of MTB/BMX Trails and Parks around the world that can come in with force.

[HeadOverWheels]

Originally posted by ride24/7

so that means pretty much every trail on crown land is under threat of logging sooner or later.

That might be true but if everyone just sits back and believes the same there aren't gonna be many trails left soon enough :mad:

AND if this is true, shouldn't the recreational people ALL stand up against this. What's more valuable? An old growth forest feeding the air and people with fresh air or lumber, machines, bla bla bla? It's time to stand up or Canada is gonna look like Europe, goin treeless. Yes, of course there's still trees but not much old growth, just sticks :???:

[GRIZZ]

i dunno I hate to see the trails go, but what the hell...we build on crown land that has been logged for decades and then when it comes to our trails we get all worked up...like i said i hate to see the trails go but surely everyone knew it was going to happen as the area has been logged before...i hope they leave the trails alone but it is crown land and we have no say imo

[Tom P]

Originally posted by HeadOverWheels
Who Approves this shit?
Why can no one have a say?
Why would a city allow this type of quick buck work?


The Ministry of Forests approves this 'shit'

People can have a say. All Forest Development Plans and subsequent amendments are advertised in the local paper and people are invited to send there comments/concerns to the Ministy of Forests.

The city has little involvement in the manangement of crown lands. I personally do not consider forestry to be a quick buck. The government wants to convert the stand from deciduous to coniferous trees, thus increasing the timber values of the land, as well as capturing the value of the deciduous trees before the stand becomes over mature and starts to break up.


Originally posted by HeadOverWheels
I think everyone with an old bike should take it to the Forrests and cable it do the cutting point of the trees. It beats the hell out of tying yourself to the tree and makes a point.

Plz tell me you're joking. Remember, its the government thats managing the forest. If you have issues with the management of the forest, take it to the government. Leave the loggers alone, they are just doing their jobs. Go camp outside the Liberals offices in victoria or something.

Originally posted by HeadOverWheels
What's more valuable? An old growth forest feeding the air and people with fresh air or lumber, machines, bla bla bla?

It's time to stand up or Canada is gonna look like Europe, goin treeless.

Remember, these are not old growth forests on vedder mountain, they are second growth, mainly deciduous forests.

Forestry in BC does not cause a net loss of forest. Loss of forest occurs from urbanization and development, which by the way is also the main reason Europe has so little forest remaining. :rolleyes:

[Uncle Duke]

the only problem is they are "harvesting"/destroying forests faster than they can replant and grow (60 yr cycle). it won't be long now and they will be harvesting on a 30 yr cycle... toothpicks...
as a nation we need to be "harvesting" less and manufacturing more (ikea)..make those foreign countries pay for our goods as it is canada is just hoing out her goods....:(....

Im w head over wheels on this one...but just like donnie iris Ive always been very european for an american girl...

[ride24/7]

So I'm curious what part of the provincial budget do you want to cut back on when you shut down the forest industry. Lets see theres heathcare, or eduction.... lets face it everyone in this province benifits from the forest industry and nobody gives a shit until the logging starts where they can actually see it. If you don't like the system get out there and do something about it. Did you even bother to vote in the last Prov, election.

[skifreak]

Originally posted by ride24/7
So I'm curious what part of the provincial budget do you want to cut back on when you shut down the forest industry. Lets see theres heathcare, or eduction.... lets face it everyone in this province benifits from the forest industry and nobody gives a shit until the logging starts where they can actually see it. If you don't like the system get out there and do something about it. Did you even bother to vote in the last Prov, election.

There is no need to shut down the forest industry

first have them take all the wood where they harvest... (soo many times there are huge piles of wood left behind) why else does Timberwaste have the nickname

second make the cut blocks work with trails - fairly easy to work around creeks why not also around major trails

third go back to harvesting by more traditional means rather than 1 guy running a feller buncher ripping more trees in a 12 hr shift than a whole crew did back in the day.

[Uncle Duke]

yea well thats why I propose we manufacture products not just export raw goods.

also i think BC should market itself as a tourist destination and rake in rich adventure tourist monies while maintaining our lands for yrs to come.

there is way more money to be made off forests in the long term by developing them recreationally rather than just destroying them.

and yes I did vote but those assoles got in anyway.

[Tom P]

Originally posted by duke
yea well thats why I propose we manufacture products not just export raw goods.

Well then start a business producing value added furniture, perhaps you could produce alder furniture and flooring...and get your wood from a company like Northwest Hardwoods....oh wait, u dont want them to log any trees.

Originally posted by duke
there is way more money to be made off forests in the long term by developing them recreationally rather than just destroying them.

The reality of the situation is that there is more money to be made off forests by converting them to subdivisions than by any other use, recreation or forestry. At least crown land under tenure with a forest company is going to remain in a forested state, whether it be a young plantation, a young stand, or mature timber.

And if you think forestry "destroys" forests, it would seem you have a limited understanding of forest ecology. We are discussing 'beautiful' forests on vedder mountain, these were logged less than a century ago, are these forest now destroyed??.

[baloom]

Let me address the many issues that have been raised here:

1) the coalition representing mountain biking and recreational user interests on Vedder Mountain are not anti=logging....we are about sustainable access to trails (trails that have existed for up to 50 years or more in some cases...we recognize that this area has been part of the working forest for over 100 years

2) the working forest strategy in BC necessitates that all user and stakeholder group interests be addressed through public consultation prior to a permit being issued to the forest company.....several stakeholder interests are being usurped in this area (namely the Soowalie Indian band as there claim to this area falls under federal jurisdiction and not provincial as do the forests

3) simply because a forest has been logged in the last 100 years does not give 'de facto' legitimization to any rationale for present day logging in this area except from the standpoint of the timber company getting a return on the investment made to tend a plantation. This area was once considered remote. It is now 5 minutes from a rapidly urbanizing center with dramatic increasing recreational needs and desires. Does it still make sense in light of this????

4) the 3150 hectares of Vedder Mountain make up only 0.01% of the working forest of BC. The 280 hectares of Northwest Hardwoods proposed cut, less than 0.01%. Though this area is one of the most productive growing areas, it is still small and still on a 50-60 year harvest cycle. Is this a significant part of the forestry engine that is driving the economy of BC? I hardly think so.

5) When we remove small, recreationally significant areas from the working forest does this harm the economy? According to Pacific Analytics, a Victoria based consulting firm that undertakes studies for a wide range of clients including the BC Government, "Bc could gain 200 million dollars in economic investment in its coastal rainforest if it focuses on sustainable activities such as recreation, and tourism and adopts less-intrusive logging methods."

An anectodotal tally in the area of Vedder Mountain suggests that $40,000 is left in the community from non-resident recreational use of Vedder Mountain during the weekends only in the course of a summer. This includes only consumable items and does not factor in lodging. It also does not factor in that expenditures are being made every day of the year as this is a year round destination. It also does not factor in the economic spinoff from residential use. The annualized expenditures are enormous , growing and sustainable and will easily outstrip revenues generated by the forest sector in this area.

6) Can logging and recreation coexist? Absolutely. We are presently working to have trails sanctioned and protected. This allows the logging companies to have a harvest while respecting the existence of trails and the importance of recreation. It costs the companies more to log this way but is a modern standard that they are going to have to evolve to. This is the best economic reality for the people of BC.

7) Crown land is our land. This land is owned by the people of BC. We have agreed to allow forest companies tenure here to harvest for the benefit of the people of BC. When this does not meet our needs anymore when done in the old ways, we need to change it. This is forward thinking.

8) People who spike trees, or sabotage logging equipment are criminals. This does not hurt the logging company. It hurts the logger who is just a poor dumb sap like you and me, trying to make a living. We can have differences with the companies and we can be intelligent enough to think of productive ways to solve these problems without hurting people.

9) To make an immediate difference you need to act during the public consultation phase of the permit proposal. This is the 60day period prior to the proposal being officially tendered for permit approval. You must write the Forest District officials, government officials and forest company execs and tell them that you value this area for recreational use and why. You have to make a case for economic benefits of recreational use and you have to make a case of "Estoppel" law for the existence of the trails. When this is done, the company has to address these concerns adequately prior to be granted a permit. Most progressive companies will try to do this to avoid a "war in the woods".

Presently, a motion is being put before the stewardship forester of the Chilliwack Forest District to sanction any existing inventoried trails thus preserving them from harvest. Any citizen can make this suggestion to them. The mountain bike associations can then apply for legal stewardship status over the trails.....they then take care and control of these areas on behalf of the province and the people of BC.


Sorry for being long winded but as the spokesman for the coalition working in this area, I do have the ability to address these issues.

[couch@nsmb.com]

Thank you.

Rich

[Tom P]

Baloom I realise you are trying to work with the Forest Company and the Ministry, and I wish you luck in coming to an agreeable solution for all parties.

My 'pro forestry' comments are directed at those who think forestry is evil and all foresters want to do is rid the planet of pesky trees. Their unscientific comments containing half truths that they found in some greenpeace literature remind me of those made by a certain frog lady. Just replace the words 'forestry' or 'logging' with the words 'mountain bike trails.'

May your experiences be a wake up call to all those other communities who have unsanctioned trails on crown land. Get the trails sanctioned before they end up on a logging plan, and you will save everybody involved a lot of work. Hell if Port Alice was able to get legal trails with only 3 local riders it should be a cakewalk for associations with 100+ rider memberships.

[HeadOverWheels]

Originally posted by .f|oW.

Plz tell me you're joking. Remember, its the government thats managing the forest. If you have issues with the management of the forest, take it to the government. Leave the loggers alone, they are just doing their jobs. Go camp outside the Liberals offices in victoria or something.



I'm joking, of course ;) But it just pisses me off. I'm living in Europe now and I'm sure the lack of real trees has to do with the sames rules that are being used in Canada now.

Working together with the Forestry makes sense but it's this cycle part that scares me. If they're cutting before the cycle is finished then is Forestry even going to exist in another 100 years?

Also, Timberwaste is screwed up :mad:

Hope the Vedder trails stay...

[biopace]

I think most people in this province do not have a problem with forestry or logging in general. They just have a problem when it encroaches on their lives.

Chilliwack does have many areas with trails, whether on Little Mountain, secret trails on Elk, or out in Columbia Valley. However, Vedder Mountain is the center of mountain biking in Chilliwack. The majority of built and maintained trails are there, as are the majority of trail users. I haven't heard mass complaints from any of the other logging going on in the area, just Vedder - the problem isn't forestry or logging, the problem is Vedder Mountain.

Ideally, this could be a good thing if a standardized approach to protecting trail use could come out of it, instead of trail users being forced to go to war to protect their trails every single time someone threatens them. How many times will we have to fight the same battles?

However, an asphalt plant on the mountain? That's just dumb. How about putting it in an area that won't wash contaminants towards one of the most popular summer spots in BC. (Oh but I'm sure that the plant will be totally safe and enclosed :rolleyes: )

Another thing, (not totally related to this thread but oh well) where were the environmentalists when they paved Promontory in Chwk for a housing development? Or when they flattened the forests on the mountains just north of the #1 in off Whatcom road exit for housing? Or with the forests by Ledgeview?

[Tom P]

Originally posted by HeadOverWheels
I'm living in Europe now and I'm sure the lack of real trees has to do with the sames rules that are being used in Canada now.

So you are saying the European Forests have been managed over the last 1500 years in the same way BC Forests are being managed now? Do you even look around and notice all the cities and farms everywhere? I have lived in Europe, its nothing like BC, give your head a shake.


Originally posted by HeadOverWheels
If they're cutting before the cycle is finished then is Forestry even going to exist in another 100 years?

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The Province manages the harvest of Crown lands based an annual allowable cut which is determined using a Timber Supply Review which utilises sample plots and extensive forest measurements to determine a sustainable harvest. Read more here http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa30/tsr3/rationale.pdf

[skifreak]

Originally posted by .f|oW.

May your experiences be a wake up call to all those other communities who have unsanctioned trails on crown land. Get the trails sanctioned before they end up on a logging plan, and you will save everybody involved a lot of work. Hell if Port Alice was able to get legal trails with only 3 local riders it should be a cakewalk for associations with 100+ rider memberships.

Unfortunately there are areas on vancouver island that are private timberlands with companies which have little to no interest to work with communities or associations / trail users / clubs... those will be a tougher process.

[TylerDurden]

Originally posted by ride24/7
Well theres not a lot to be done... as far as I know the area is in the working forest.. that means sooner or later it will come up for harvesting...

be glad the shore isn't in the working forest.

Not to sound harsh but if you build trail in an area that is part of the working forest and someone owns the timber rights to it it will be logged.... you can find out the 5 year plan for an area from the ministry of forests. Basically second growth over 60 years is a candidate for harvesting.

so that means pretty much every trail on crown land is under threat of logging sooner or later.

I agree with this poster and Grizz. I'd also like to point out that the forested areas of Roberts Creek which surround much of their MTB trails were recently having their creeks surveyed - which makes me think they are gearing up to log that area in the near future. The stand is of the right age too. Anyone know more about their plans?

Also the Mt Prevost trails are in a 'working forest' (we ride up a MoF Forest Service Road) - anyone when this area is to be logged next?

[HeadOverWheels]

Originally posted by .f|oW.
So you are saying the European Forests have been managed over the last 1500 years in the same way BC Forests are being managed now? Do you even look around and notice all the cities and farms everywhere? I have lived in Europe, its nothing like BC, give your head a shake.




You really have no idea what you are talking about. The Province manages the harvest of Crown lands based an annual allowable cut which is determined using a Timber Supply Review which utilises sample plots and extensive forest measurements to determine a sustainable harvest. Read more here http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/tsa/tsa30/tsr3/rationale.pdf

True enough dude :P I'm just pissed that some trails I rode in the past are gonna be gone :( or managed or circled by a bunch of well, flat areas and timberwaste :(

Sure forests of being managed better now then in the past when it wasn't managed at all but Come on, Vedder mountain is in a pristine location, there's reason to cut in other isolated locations but this one seems a bit out of control:???:

Oh, I read some of that document and it seems almost like a computer spits out the locations and amounts of tree to come down...then it also says that the Chief forester must consider biophysical, social and ecomonic information.

Do you think this is going to be better for the area? present/future also considering the pavement plant.

And yes I know it does suck for the actual works that depend on this for a living including many residence in the area. Of course if no one wants logging alot of loggers would be shit outta luck.

[Uncle Duke]

Originally posted by .f|oW.
Well then start a business producing value added furniture, perhaps you could produce alder furniture and flooring...and get your wood from a company like Northwest Hardwoods....oh wait, u dont want them to log any trees.



The reality of the situation is that there is more money to be made off forests by converting them to subdivisions than by any other use, recreation or forestry. At least crown land under tenure with a forest company is going to remain in a forested state, whether it be a young plantation, a young stand, or mature timber.

And if you think forestry "destroys" forests, it would seem you have a limited understanding of forest ecology. We are discussing 'beautiful' forests on vedder mountain, these were logged less than a century ago, are these forest now destroyed??.


sweet land of denial.


unsustainable industry+short term thinking= bc logging practices..
time will tell.in the mean time you can sit in your clear cuts and tell me Im wrong.

[Tom P]

Well the fact you think forestry is unsustainable shows that we will not agree on this. We live in a global society approaching 6 billion people. Like it or not, people need resources. Trees are the only resources we humans use that is renewable within our lifetimes. Maybe we should build houses out of steel studs and plastics? would that be more sustainable....... :rolleyes:

If you know of another renewable resource that we can utilise to build homes, furniture and other products out of then I suggest you let the rest of us in on it.

[Uncle Duke]

mr.. floW,
you are correct in that, technically forestry is sustainable, just not the way we are doing it...


in the mean time here are some alternative building material sites..


http://www.housingzone.com/topics/pb/cmaterials/pb03ea007.asp


http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha01209.html




HEMP AS A BUILDING MATERIAL

Madame France Perier was the prime mover in developing Hemp as a building material. In 1987 she perfected the process, which allows the bulky core of the stem, known as the hurd or shiv, to be used as a building material. The shiv makes up seventy-five percent of the plant and until now was seen as a waste product. The treatment process crystallises the sap and turns the chiv into an inert mineralised material, which is a lightweight, dense and durable product called “ISOCHANVRE”


_http://www.feasta.org/documents/wells/contents.html?six/woolley.html


http://www.tab.fzk.de/en/projekt/zusammenfassung/ab61.htm

http://www.chanvre-info.ch/info/en/article584.html




http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/good_wood/hemp.htm


I proposed the ikea style product building factories as a method to employ more canadians, and milk more monies from our resources rather than sell things off so cheap and then pay lots to get them back as finished goods..I dont think we should do away w all logging, but the way its being handled now is rediculous...its a small percentage at the top truly benefiting from these practices...our grandchildren will think we were retarded.


cheers...