Offline
Vid showing a drive through a logged-over area in the park, goes on and on and on for seven minutes. No comment from me relative to any other recent news, viewers can decide for themselves whether this is real, and representative of the effects of logging on the landscape.
Barry, since there is an "Ethics" section here and in the past AA has had a "protect and preserve" function on APP-related issues, this seems appropriate. In addition, there does seem to be some potential for change in the newly-formed ministry wrt parks and in government generally, together with other initiatives already set in motion.
The developments are slow, and at times controversial, but according to news reports, they are real and will determine what happens with APP, for better or worse. The new Ontario government, a new park plan, and the recent Ontario Parks Act, just a few developments suggesting that something's in the wind.
As always very interesting reading (for me anyway), we wait and see as new information comes in... cheers.
Last edited by frozentripper (8/13/2018 7:25 am)
Offline
Without accompanying verification and documentation, that video could be showing anything from a wind-damage salvaged area to a select-cut/natural regeneration area of logging operations. Algonquin Park is a multi-use park.
Regardless, the AlgonquinAdventures.com website's "protect and preserve" initiative was focused on "concern over the degradation occurring to the campgrounds, campsites, portages, trails, and shorelines of Algonquin as a direct result of not enough wardens, conservation officers and their regular patrols".
While efforts by the associated Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists did opt to support the process to "Lighten The Footprint of Logging", by supporting the increase the setbacks of logging from shorelines, the AlgonquinAdventures.com website has never been intended as a venue for the promotion of anti-logging sentiments.
Efforts to stretch the application of terms like "ethics" and "preserve and protect" from the recreational use areas to the industrial logging use areas will not be supported by this website. Individuals who try to use this forum to argue about uses beyond the recreational use areas may find their postings or membership deleted.
As the forum operator, I've no interest in refereeing arguments over logging. I enjoy facilitating the exchange of recreational information, not overseeing political or environmental arguments. Simply put, it's my forum and I call the shots!
Offline
"Efforts to stretch the application of terms like "ethics" and "preserve and protect" from the recreational use areas to the industrial logging use areas will not be supported by this website. "
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, it's your website. I would have thought by now the effects of the logging industry on recreational use would have been more obvious. In terms of recreation, the most serious being the effect of logging road construction allowing motorized and illegal access to trout lakes that should have been better protected in the first place. This has an effect on the quality of backcountry experience, both by overharvesting depleting populations and in introduction of exotic species which creates an irreversible impact. Other effects on recreational use have been summarized by the Ontario Parks Board, written about in the Doug Ford thread which it seems, has been closed.
The legal mechanism to work against this sort of damage is with Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights, overseen by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, and appointed by the Ontario government's Legislative Assembly... fortunately not within the jurisdiction of any political party currently in power.The ECO does have the power to subpoena ministries to ensure they are in compliance with the existing legal framework governing policy. As you know, the ECO has made a recommendation that logging in APP be phased out and if the phase-out is adopted, the benefits will include benefits to recreational use.
As I wrote in the other thread, I started the Doug Ford discussion mostly for information-gathering purposes... that will carry on whether or not it's included here, and it's part of the reality of APP being what it is. If you'd rather not have this bigger-picture news, let me know. Otherwise, I think it's valuable as time goes on and helps to benefit APP, one of the benefits being the recreation that APP provides.
Thread StarterOffline
Hi "Frozen". This website was always intended for discussions of the recreational experience. The Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists came into being to proactively address the larger scope of issues impacting the recreational experience within the park. One can review that effort at
As was recorded on the archived ABR website ... "While some serious concerns involving the park's backcountry do remain, the ABR-EC believes that the agencies involved have become sufficiently unresponsive to negate future substantial accomplishments. As a result, its decision has been made to dissolve the ABR. The ABR's accomplishments and key documents will be archived on the Algonquin Adventures website. In the future, if a backcountry concern reaches an important level, it can be identified on the Algonquin Adventures forum and subsequent actions decided, on an ad hoc basis."
For seven years, the ABR addressed a number of frustrating impacts upon the backcountry experience. The frustrations you are describing are nothing new. After seven years of poorly supported efforts, the ABR executive committee chose to end their efforts.
In the ABR's formative period it proclaimed .. Objective 3 - React against influences which may negatively impact wilderness-like recreational experiences in Algonquin Park. While this wasn't an "environmental concern" it did include impacts that were increasing from what one may consider non-logging use of logging roads.
My 'ad hoc' suggestion to you is you may try to establish a similarly motivated community group. I can only hope you get increased support from the public and more favourable responses from the agencies involved.
Offline
If there is a question regarding the veracity of the video, I was in the Bissett Road section of the Park in September 2010 and took the accompanying photographs. They seems to match the video recently posted.
Buyers cannot have access to White Pine products, some from Algonquin Park, without some messiness (just as in making sausage). As I understand it, the first part of the harvest cycle in the uniform shelterwood system involves a preparation cut in which diseased, damaged and poorly formed trees are removed. Then, about 20 years later, when cones are produced, mature trees are cut/harvested to one-half crown spacing (roughly as shown). The remaining trees are left to seed naturally from the mature trees which also perhaps provide some of the shade necessary for the growth of young pine. I believe unshaded trees are susceptible to White Pine Weevil. After 20 years of regeneration and growth of the seedings/saplings half of the mature trees are harvested. After another 20 years the remainder of the large trees are harvested and the stand is allowed to grow for another 40 years before the next preparation cut.
In theory, in an ideal natural fire situation while most of the trees would be burned, but some mature individuals would escape the fire and reproduce naturally. The uniform shelterwood sysyem at the stage shown in the images sort of mimics that fire situation, and grows more pine, instead of a scrub forest.
I intend to make no judgement about the operation, except to point out that if it doesn't look pretty remember that a farmer's field for juicy cobs of autumn corn doesn't look very pretty either when the manure spreader has deposited its load in the spring.
Offline
In reading the previous post about the recreation focus of the forum, I note that the zone in which logging occurs is called the Recreation-Utilization Zone, not just the Recreation Zone, so issues of logging and recreation and opinions related to them cannot be completely separated. Should a recreationist be so adventuresome as to venture into the Recreation-Utilization Zone forest far enough from well-travelled recreational routes he or she might see sights as posted above. However, the AFA strives to separate logging and recreation in a physical sense and thus minimize the opportunity for recreationists to see the various stages of forest harvest and forest regeneration. The AFA has to follow rules set out in the Park Management Plan and the Forest Management Plan to accomplish this. Forestry and forest harvesting in Algonquin Park especially is not a free-for-all. It is also important to note that the presence of Areas of Concern, not marked on public maps, reduces the area in the Recreation-Utilization Zone available for forest harvest.
I am trying only to provide information, not make a judgement about whether logging should continue in the Park or not.
Offline
In re-reading Barry originated messages above it may be that my posts are inappropriate, since it appears Barry has suggested another venue for discussion about logging. So an apology to Barry may be in order. However, I would point out that when the ABR was disbanded, along with its good work, there was another government in power. The ABR was a strong advocate for many issues which made or could have made the Park better run from a recreation perspective, and with a new government in place perhaps it might be worth another kick at the can.
Offline
For clarity. I cannot vouch for the location of the video, but the two images in #5 above were taken just north of the east end of Radiant Lake, near the Bissett Creek Road, well within the Algonquin Park boundary.
Offline
last clarification, then I am off this thread.
In 2010 I was conducting research on a camboose shanty in Algonquin Park (research since published) as a licensed archaeologist with Park permission. Algonquin Park has no historian and no archaeologist on staff (neither does Ontario Parks). I was invited by Park staff to voluntarily accompany them to observe an unusual two-roomed shanty foundation found by AFA tree markers in the vicinity of Radiant Lake. Somewhere along the Bissett Creek Road near Radiant Lake I took the two images above.
Offline
Rory,
"The ABR was a strong advocate for many issues which made or could have made the Park better run from a recreation perspective, and with a new government in place perhaps it might be worth another kick at the can. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something tells me that, with the spending cuts the Ford administration is planning, there will be less attention paid to NGOs (non-governmental organizations) than in the past, but who knows. The reorganization of Ontario Parks in the new Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks may well mean policy change and NGOs will be heard. The new ministry might be more supportive of environmental assessment and policy review as APP management moves on with time.
The legal framework governing policy should be checked out and if there is news on this, I'll post the info here.
Don't hold your breath on anything happening soon, the budget and spending audit may be the first indication of how things might change wrt parks and that's due mid-Sept, IIRC... (and may be subject to criticism once it's out since the Ontario Auditor General already makes independent recommendations on an annual basis so why the duplication, except for political reasons). Anyway, cheers.
Thread StarterOffline
From the previous post...
"The legal framework governing policy should be checked out and if there is news on this, I'll post the info here."
Information on these matters is no longer allowed here, so nothing more from me. Anybody interested in these developments as time goes can get their info somewhere else... cheers!
Thread StarterOffline
Genuine news items describing changes in government policies impacting our enjoyment of the recreational areas of the park can be shared on the forum.
However, any non-recreational issues associated with such decisions shouldn't be debated on the forum. Likewise, any associated provocative comments and/or images may be considered as incitement of such debate.
As I've said before, this forum isn't provided for argument or debate of political and/or environmental issues based outside the recreational areas of the park.
Thank you for recognizing the distinction between the discussion of recreational issues .. . and the debate of non-recreational issues.
1 of 1