The
Forest Around Us |
Comment By Bill Moore |
Allowable
waste – a philosophy |
....“But economically it is not
sound.” |
....For
you see, the mills were not set up to take these odd-ball cuts of wood.
I remember seeing giant spruce logs, sitting in a pulp mill log pond for
a year because of the fact that no one would take the time to cut them
down to a size that was useable for the mill. In fact the philosophy worked
so well that someone finally turned them loose so the problem could drift
away. ....Red cedar has been loved and hated in this industry. It used to be said that more loggers made fortunes or went broke on red cedar than on any other species. The waste in this tree has been appalling - for it is a tree that, because of its huge size can easily smash to bits when it is felled. A cedar slash is a sad memorial to those beautiful giants that had stood their ground for hundreds of years. The stumps will be large because of the difficulty of falling the tree, the slabs will be abundant because of their fragility, and the tops will litter the ground because of the immensity of the branches on the trees. Cedar slash has formed a big part of our eleventh commandment “allowable waste.” ....In truth, maybe we are no different than other industries. We in Canada have come of age from a land of “allowable waste.” We wasted our buffalo, we wasted our fertile deltas by putting houses on them, and we have wasted our farm produce and plowed it under. And in truth it was done in the name of progress. But along the way we caused a waste to our most precious commodity—our people — the native Indian—the poor—and the slum dweller. We grew used to waste and we could rationalize it by a philosophy of “allowable waste.” ....I criticize not just our forest industry, but I criticize ourselves for so long accepting this odious philosophy—and I have lived in that industry that grew to believe as a commandment, that philosophy. So what? You say. So this—it’s a darned hard commandment to break. Our people in the woods, in our Forest Service and in our leadership |
still cling to that handed
down philosophy. They can’t help it, because they can rationalize
it by the word “economics.” This funny looking word is the
saving grace—the “pardon” to our actions. ....I am in disagreement with the general view of Foresters that in order to have a good secure second crop, we must slash burn the waste left after logging. I believe this view is a direct descendant of the philosophy of “allowable waste,” and our Foresters in government or in industry are only following its heritage. I’m against slash burning because it’s a waste of perfectly good material that even under close utilization policies we have come to accept as permissible or allowable. I’m against slash burning because it is also dangerous. Even under the best controlled methods there is still the real possibility that things may get out of control. Man does not yet control the weather and until he can say he is able to do so there is the chance of damage to standing timber, to adjoining new growth and to a host of damaging conditions from felled and bucked timber to towns. ....The simple pros and cons of controlled slash burning—as it is called—do not weigh in favour of the flame. Why in the name of sanity, at this stage in our so-called modern world’s development we continue this annual salute to the fire gods is beyond my thinking. For every piece of good wood we burn, be they stumps, chunks, tops, slash or fringe damage, we must cut down more prime forest to make up for the loss. And aren’t we trying to conserve our forests for perpetual yield? ....Oh, yes—economics. Well what’s so cost saving about burning useable wood that sits on the ground begging to be made into some product—and then turning around and cutting down more trees to keep our quotas up? If our governments or big forest firms are so concerned about the future of our industry—or its environment — |
82 | British Columbia Lumberman,
March, 1974 |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (. page break )
or its competitiveness—then why do they tolerate this continued
“allowable waste.” It makes little sense to worry about
the next crop if we don’t look after this one, which we shall
never see the likes of again. |
the old philosophy
of the ancients on “allowable waste” and simply start a crusade
for utilizing what we are now leaving behind. What we leave behind makes
us burn—that causes smoke, that the public hates us for, and destroys
good fibre we could utilize. What we leave behind causes people in other
lands to look upon us as wasteful and “fat cats.” What we
leave behind causes us to be lazy with new ideas and allows our competitors
to beat us to the customer’s dollar. ....I have listened to those who tell me that great plans are afoot to solve this |
problem of waste. Professors are working on it at large
universities, research directors are working on it in labs, industry and
governments are developing ‘white papers’ on it. But look
you lowly logger, you are still committing the sin of the eleventh commandment.
When do we start? Where’s the action? Or do we continue to rationalize
the old philosophy—‘allowable waste?” ....So, sue me! |
||
Keep out of the bight, |
British Columbia Lumberman, March, 1974 | 83 |