Editor:

Again I feel compelled to respond to comments attributed to MLA John Rustad in the Lakes District ÑÇÖÞÌìÌà edition of April 18 in the story, “Timber supply review raises issues."

It certainly does.

Several of the comments caused me concern.

For brevity I will limit my response to Mr. Rustad's apparent contention that loosening constraints on non timber values such as visuals, wildlife habitat or winter range, biodiversity, leads to a choice between $30 to $35 per hour forestry jobs and $10 per hour jobs in tourism.

I find this choice overly simplistic and uninformed.

To better understand the nature and value of the other values, I have included a quote from the mid-term timber supply project report for the Minister of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

“The value of existing ecological and recreational forest assets is only partly reflected through normal market values.

Willingness to pay, travel cost and compensation estimates may be used to calculate some economic value but they can fail to capture the full extent of ecosystem services such as water balance, including effects on hydrology, agriculture and fisheries, pollination, pest control, spiritual value and other amenity values.

When all these contributing factors are included, the real value of these ecological and recreational assets, even in high mortality pine forests, can be significantly higher than market estimates show.

Other real but unquantified economic impacts include loss of hunting and trapping opportunities, especially for First Nations.

The Association of BC Forest Professionals also made a contribution to the same report.

Members felt that the existing higher level plans were still relevant due to their long term view and that the original reasons for the forest management constraints still apply.

They commented that in their view, changing management requirements (on other values) would not prevent mill closures.

Rather it will just postpone the inevitable fall down in timber supply. There was a concern that the consequences of such forest management decisions would be worse than the benefits derived from an increase in today’s timber supply.

Harvesting a wildlife tree patch or old-growth management area now would make it extremely difficult to recreate them in the future.

I hope these quotes help readers better understand that the choice espoused by Mr. Rustad is not as clear as a simplistic per hour comparison.

For the complete reports go to the following websites: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/Mid-Term-Timber-Supply-Report.pdf or http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/Mid-Term-Timber-Supply-Report.pdf .

Gunter Hoehne