Dynamic Forest. Malcolm F. Squires

“A member shall … use their knowledge and skills to aid public awareness of forestry in Ontario.”11I am doing that through direct communication via one-on-oneconversations, public speaking, leading forestry tours, and with my visual art and writing.

      The forests that exist today in Ontario are a reflection of past citizens’ demands (or lack of) on politicians, the politicians who were elected, their willingness to enforce legislation once enacted, and, to a large extent, natural events that were beyond human control. As proactive citizens in a democracy, such as Canada, we have the power to require our politicians to pass the legislation we want and to hold them accountable for implementing that legislation. However, the onus is on us to be well informed of the consequences of filling our demands because many of the demands we are making will not give us the forest we want or will need in the future.

      Just How Dynamic Is the Boreal Forest?

      No individual or group has complete knowledge of the forest, so sharing what knowledge we have is essential to achieving responsible management. Sitting as we “northerners” do in the middle of the boreal forest, we have a responsibility to ensure its continuing health.

      I spent most of my boyhood roaming the bush where I developed a life-longlove for things natural — the scenery, rocks, water, flora, and fauna, the whole kit and caboodle. That doesn’t mean that I was a tree hugger or an animal-rightsactivist, no, not at all. Instead, I made use of what I loved because at an early age I realized that I was a legitimate part of the natural world in which my species, like all others, had evolved through competition for living space and food.

      As I observed the relationships among the different parts of the forest, I discovered that each individual living part of it was dependent on utilizing some other part, sometimes to the benefit of the one being utilized, but sometimes not. Sometimes the use of a species by another affected a third species — sometimes negatively and sometimes positively. An example of the latter scenario would be how dragonflies prey on other insects, such as black flies, deerflies, and mosquitoes, which in turn prey on moose and humans. The moose and we benefit from the dragonfly’s predation.

      Through my observations, I also learned that there is no single “balance of nature.” Nature is in constant flux. What today appears to be in balance may tomorrow be thrown off balance by some intervention, be it from another species, including man, or some weather, atmospheric or, potentially, celestial event. No patch of forest that one sees today will ever again be exactly the same, because as we observe the woods some plants are growing while others are declining and, with that change, mammal, bird, and insect populations also modify. Even the soil may be changing. The interaction of so many variables becomes so complex that the chances of a repeat occurrence are infinitesimal.

      After moving to Ontario, I familiarized myself and fell in love with this area of the boreal forest. As a practising forester in Newfoundland and Ontario, I prescribed clear-cuttimber harvesting. Since my youthful opposition to clear-cutting, my training and personal observations have taught me that, if we are to utilize the trees of the boreal forest, and return similar species without too dramatic a change occurring, even-agedforest management is essential. Boreal tree species have evolved for millennia, accommodating disturbances by insects, disease, wind, fire, and, yes, man. This has resulted in a forest that is made up of large areas that contain trees that are all the same age. Adjacent areas similarly have trees of a single age — the age being dependent on the time of disturbance from which that area of the forest originated. We call that an even-agedforest.

      Here in northwestern Ontario, forms of harvesting other than clear-cuttingwill more likely result in “uneven-aged” (multi-aged) stands, with a different mixture of tree species. For example, we will probably witness a transition from the current preponderance of jack pine and black spruce to more balsam fir and white spruce. What will then happen to any other plant or animal species that may rely on even-agedstands of jack pine and black spruce? I offer a partial answer to that question in the following chapters of this book. Please read on with an open mind.

      Sustain Forests with Wants in Mind, but Be Willing to Listen to Reason

      Humans have been a part of the fauna of the North American boreal forest since what may have been the first group of immigrants to the Americas crossed “Beringia” (the Siberia-Alaskaland bridge) during the most recent ice age. While living here, we have extensively changed the forest structure that will prevail well into the future.

      Some believe that the boreal forest has increased in area since we stopped burning the prairie grasslands. Frequent fires are believed to have maintained the grass cover by burning trees that advanced into the prairie. Areas in the vicinity of the voyageurs’ Dog River/Prairie Portage north of Thunder Bay, Ontario, are today forested with tree stands of various ages. However, after repeated fire or timber harvesting activities, tall grass quickly becomes the predominant vegetation at some locations as far north as Graham. As recently as 1856, approximately sixteen square kilometres of grassland survived near what is now the community of Stanley west of Thunder Bay.12

      A century ago, because of catastrophic losses of life and property, we began controlling fire in the forest. As we improved our success at fire control, the forest gradually began changing — with light-demandingspecies being replaced by shade-tolerantspecies, and associated wildlife. The change was enhanced by expanding timber harvesting that used horses, particularly in winter, which caused little soil disturbance, enabling the shade-tolerantspecies, such as balsam fir and white spruce, to thrive.

      A few decades ago, we got serious about managing our forest and began attempting to sustain former “natural” cycles and species. More sophisticated legislation and regulations passed responsibility to natural resource managers, primar­ily foresters, to manage the forest according to science-basedguidelines while, where possible, accommodating changing diverse and conflicting public desires.

      Our limited individual experiences and knowledge ensure that we tend to see our personal wants as being most important. How often do we ask ourselves, “If I get what I want, who must sacrifice what they want?” Sadly, some of us don’t even care what the other person wants or needs. Natural resource managers can act only after weighing the perceived benefits of those actions against the impact they will have on what others want or need, and, of course, ultimately on the impact that they will have on the forest. Inevitably, some people are never pleased with whatever decision they make.

      Today we hike, pick berries and mushrooms, fish, hunt, trap, sight-see, photograph, paint, canoe, camp, cut Christmas trees, mine, log, and carry on many other activities. Disgustingly, some of us carelessly dump our household and even small-businessgarbage in the forest. We live and move about in the forest in numbers never seen before. It behoves us to consider what kind of future forest we want.