Recently I read a letter to the editor from a Bragg Creek resident ("Bighorn Country an opportunity," p. 23, Dec. 11 Gazette) about why a park in our backyard will be good for us. As a professional forester I would like to provide a different perspective.
I would need to be convinced about the notion that tourism jobs will bring more wealth to the region than the forest sector. What is important to know is how tourism dollars are calculated. Every time someone stays in one of the local hotels or eats at a local restaurant those are calculated as tourism dollars.
Yes, no doubt, some “tourists” stay in our local establishments, but by far and large hotel and restaurant visits are from those folks involved in our local industries.
Together those industries (including tourism) contribute to the local economy. To suggest that our economy would be better off without one of those contributors is not something I would agree with.
Are parks a good alternative to offset the impacts of climate change or flooding? I suppose I could put my head in the sand and think that putting a fence around a large area of forest is a good thing to moderate climate change and flooding. The truth is that our forests in Alberta are old. They are old because we have been aggressively fighting forest fires since the 1950s. Large landscapes of old forest are very unnatural and from an ecosystem perspective they are not good.
Such ecosystems only provide the type of environment that is good for animals and plants that like old forests. What about all the species that require young forests or a combination of old and young forests? Grizzly bears is one of those species that comes to mind. How will we create young forests if we do not disturb, harvest or burn old forests?
By forcing our forests to get older we have increased the risk of catastrophic fires or outbreaks of insects and disease like mountain pine beetle. Just drive through Jasper to see how well that management plan has worked out.
Think about the 1.4 million hectares of beetle-killed forests that went up in smoke this past summer in B.C. and how that might not be so good for climate change and flooding.
At some point we should wake up and realize that the fence idea around forests is not working. That we need to actively engage in managing forests and that managed disturbance of our forests is good for the ecosystem and good for Albertans.
We really have only two methods to introduce managed disturbance into our forests. Prescribed fires are a good option, but they cost us money. The other is to harvest the trees in an effort to gain some economic wealth while creating the disturbance.
Much of the research in the forest sector is focused on how we can harvest trees to create similar effects to that of burning forests. The closer we can emulate the effects of fire the better it will be for the ecosystem. The effects of fire are good for the ecosystem.
I am not advocating that we should be harvesting every forest area in Alberta. I am simply suggesting that putting a fence around an area and keeping disturbance out is not a good model. I realize that many people will not want to recreate in active harvest areas. That impact is only temporary and soon a regenerating forest will be growing on that site. At some point most would not even know that the forest had been harvested and all they see is – forest.
Waterton used to provide a hiking experience in old mature forests which I admit was pretty attractive. But that opportunity is more or less gone till the forests regenerate.
Kananaskis is a real-life example of exactly what I am suggesting. The more recent history of Kananaskis is that the area burned and was subsequently salvage logged and reforested in the 1930s to 1940s. As noted above most people only see the forests. Now there seems to be a lot of energy spent on keeping tree harvesting out because it will ruin . . . What exactly?
Tom Daniels,
Sundre
