Deforestation In Alberta

[Taco]

or maybe not so much

 

http://mountainlegacy.ca/

 

 

[troutlover]

Nice photo shop..... or are you just showing off one of those new cameras that take the pictures in color.

[bcubed]

Ya no confirmation bias on that one...

[Taco]

Link too bothersome?

[bcubed]

Just as easy to find ones that show it differently..

 

[RedBeard]

On perspectives:

 

 

Oldman river in the foreground flowing L-R; Headwater creeks from the valley on the R to L: Pasque cr., Straight cr., Oyster cr.

[bcubed]

 

[bcubed]

On perspectives:

 

 

 

yikes..

[albertatrout]

It really depends on the area you are looking at, forest encroachment is severe in many parts of Southern Alberta where we have continuously put out fires. Parts of the Castle probably (lots of older historical data is anecdotal/ hard to confirm 100%) burnt every 30-40 years, some of those areas have not been lit up in close to a century. Indicators show it may be why the sheep populations is still depressed, possibly elk/bears as well but baselines are tough to confirm. The Crowsnest Pass would have had a lot more grass at one time too, that's based on some photo's but also soil profiles/ archaeology data. By the time photo's were being taken humans had already been at work in many cases so baseline value is limited, plus its only a snapshot, what did it look like 100 years earlier, 150 years earlier...

 

Likewise, in areas north along the rockies, where fire's were not always the main disturbance pattern (wind, low disturbance, fire, area specific) logging is taking 70%+ of the merchantable pine over the next 5 years as part of beetle management. Some of these blocks will be adjacent to extremely sensitive class A fish habitat. These areas will likely be balder than they have been since the last ice age. Not saying there is no old growth/not fire reliant forest down south as there are a few unique valleys but for the most part the forest was supposed to burn. Does logging imitate fire? In some ways, but in other ways not so much (probably smaller footprints at once, but drawn out more so over time).

[Taco]

https://mlplibrary.s3.amazonaws.com/medium_4a01540a-716a-11e2-ada4-c82a14fffed2.jpeg

https://mlplibrary.s3.amazonaws.com/medium_480029d8-716a-11e2-ada4-c82a14fffed2.jpeg

[Ricinus]

I blame Global Warning.. Thanks Suzuki..

 

Mike

[dryfly]

So soon we forget history. Many people can't see past last week or maybe a few years ago and have poor knowledge of the earth's history and view everything as "unprecedented." Must be the green-colored sunglasses, eh?

 

It is easy to cherry pick one or two photos to "prove" either side: more trees or less trees. Sure some areas show blocks of logging...wait a few years and they WILL grow back...like ALL of the huge areas of greenery showing in the ML photo database. Remember there are NO old-growth forests here in the same sense as (say) Vancouver Island. The predominant species: poplar, pine, spruce and fir all have finite lives. Most don't live longer than a few decades...with only a few over 100 years. Insects, diseases and occasional droughts all take their toll...just like on people. Trees age and have a finite life span...something seemingly lost on many enviros.

 

There is no debate about how should be logging is done and no doubt we can do better. But I am sure Shannon knows best as she seems to be a scientific expert on most things.

 

But if you look at enough ML photos, it is readily apparent that overall there are far more trees in SW Alberta than 100 years ago. Well-managed logging, re-forestation, fire suppression and increased CO2 are all contributing factors. (As has been shown elsewhere the entire plant is greening despite rantings to the contrary. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/

 

According to Shannon Phillip's forest managers, there are large areas in the SW that are developing into "fires waiting to happen" and one day we will see a huge fire that will make thew 2003 Lost Creek fire look like a weenie roast.

 

Read about the SW fires of 1910 ... very interesting.

http://mountainlegacy.ca/research/documents/Annand-1910Fires-FinalReport.pdf

 

There is some good reading here. The discussion regarding the SW starts on page 29. On about page 35 or so, one gets the impression that the massive burns of 1910 were the start of the "fire suppression" mentality in Alberta.

 

Onward.

 

Clive

 

[bcubed]

Guess I'm viewing different pictures there Clive, but then again I still consider burnt trees as being part of the environment... clear cutting is hardly the same thing as a fire, and laughable to be called well managed.

[Taco]

What do you suggest we do in the absence of fire in a forest whose ecology has evolved around a 40-50 burn cycle ??

[bcubed]

You mean, the fire that we are actively preventing... Let em happen. Hard pill to swallow when everyone (including me) want's a nice house in the mountains surrounded by forest.. It's funny to consider logging the solution, when the problem is caused by human intervention in the first place. Fires create biodiversity that is simply not matched by human design. We're going to have one hell of a fire at some point that we cannot suppress, and likely could have been dealt with by letting the occasion fire burn, regardless of the logging companies bottom line.

 

Selectively log, ditch the block cutting, lots of other options, however again, they hit the profit statement so aren't considered valid. Really, stop logging in the headwaters and allow for natural processes to take over.

 

If the photos that Redbeard aren't enough to piss you off, then nothing will. That's where the water that is in you right now begins, and yet this is considered 'good' management? But then again, we'd hate to disparage any sort of development, being Alberta and all..

[Taco]

'K thanks

[albertatrout]

You mean, the fire that we are actively preventing... Let em happen. Hard pill to swallow when everyone (including me) want's a nice house in the mountains surrounded by forest.. It's funny to consider logging the solution, when the problem is caused by human intervention in the first place. Fires create biodiversity that is simply not matched by human design. We're going to have one hell of a fire at some point that we cannot suppress, and likely could have been dealt with by letting the occasion fire burn, regardless of the logging companies bottom line.

 

Selectively log, ditch the block cutting, lots of other options, however again, they hit the profit statement so aren't considered valid. Really, stop logging in the headwaters and allow for natural processes to take over.

 

If the photos that Redbeard aren't enough to piss you off, then nothing will. That's where the water that is in you right now begins, and yet this is considered 'good' management? But then again, we'd hate to disparage any sort of development, being Alberta and all..

 

It's not the cut-blocks that bug me, its all the un-reclaimed roads one can see in those slides. A cutblock itself vegetates rapidly, the roads continue to be chewed up, collect runoff, and generally funnel it (and ATV's I suppose) right into the creeks. Also, there's more than a slight hanging culvert issue in Alberta, mostly due to those logging roads that are falling into disrepair/ being forgotten. I think focusing on getting the roads fixed/ removed is a wise use of time vs fighting to have all logging removed from certain regions. Cut-blocks definitely provide some good edge cover for certain wildlife species, very much in the same way fires do. Not the same, but in some ways they do provide similar niches. I have also seen streams degraded in areas that "naturally" burnt a bit hot, there are also streams largely damaged by bad logging practices. Problem is, if we turn it all back to natural it will be an awful long walk to many of our favorite fishing holes. I'd say HWY 40 contributes a lot more sediment every time it rains than the majority of the cutblocks do. Its hard to see for most people but next time you're on the trunk and it's raining look at what kind of water is running off the road with no settling ponds/ checks in place.

[creekside]

well said albertatrout. The devil's is always in details.

[bcubed]

It's not the cut-blocks that bug me, its all the un-reclaimed roads one can see in those slides. A cutblock itself vegetates rapidly, the roads continue to be chewed up, collect runoff, and generally funnel it (and ATV's I suppose) right into the creeks. Also, there's more than a slight hanging culvert issue in Alberta, mostly due to those logging roads that are falling into disrepair/ being forgotten.

 

Very good points all around. So why arent the roads being reclaimed immediately following cutting? Or better prevention measures put in place so more yahoos don't go cutting trails into the roads?

[albertatrout]

That's the frustrating part. Cutblock's (or mines, or even burned areas) are an easy target as they show up in pictures, many more of the smaller but more ecologically significant issues are missed as we have so little enforcement/ controls in place. I am an optimist though, and there are solutions. There has been some remarkable fish recoveries in heavily impacted areas over the past few years and if the will is there, many of our species can show some resiliency. Maybe we will see designated trail rules become more widespread, paving of logging roads, settling ponds/ check dams built along other roads, one can hope we move forward.

[WinstonConfluentus]

There are very clear rules regarding logging in the Oldman headwaters; clearly, they have not been followed.

Thanks for the great pictures, especially the one of Slacker Ck. and friends; this was ground zero in 2013 and in places the sediment off the blocks is over a meter deep. The raising of cutties to the Canada Gazette should be very helpful in mitigation and should also help insure the situation doesn't degrade further.

Next on the block, pardon the pun, the upper Livingstone River, Todd and White Creeks - all Cutthroat Trout Critical Habitat. Time to act on behalf of your fishery!

[albertatrout]

Was sent this link today about the area, this report was wrote over 45 years ago. Its not a discussion directly about logging, but deforestation and past industry go hand in hand. It has good descriptions about damage to many of the same creeks that are still being discussed today. It's amazing how parts of the area recovered without any effort by industry whatsoever while others are still much the same with exposed slopes and awful looking run off points (like Tent and Grassy Mountains). Even Blairmore and Gold Creeks are mentioned, "the detrimental effects on life in these streams has been enormous". Still a mess to clean up but I don't think we are seeing anything like what was occurring 50+ years ago, crazy to think cutt's survived this era. I have been researching on who is responsible for a few of the sites mentioned in this report, interestingly enough several are still owned by businesses still operating in the province today.

 

http://abwild.ca/coal/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/19690401_rp_mining_damage_in_ab.pdf

 

Figured others may appreciate the read.

[WinstonConfluentus]

That's a great read, I've had it for some time. Morin and Cauldron Creeks provide the refusia in the Gold Creek System; no refusium was found by the Bull Trout in the upper Crowsnest River. There used to be four-footers in the lakes, now there are none above Lundbreck Falls. Cutties are down to five percent of their native range -ya we've done a great job. The knowledge of accountability should be shared.

[DonAndersen]

Taco,

 

My thanx for the links.

 

Sure does illustrate the forest issues are not that readily resolved.

 

Doing my homework for the East Slope Hearings held about 1975, a report from Oregon said the silt from cut blocks was less than access roads. Seems like the lesson hasn't been learned in some area of Alberta.

 

Regards,

 

Don