As a forest scientist, I do not agree with Eldon Gunn's assertion that GPI Atlantic's recent report on the forests of Nova Scotia is devoid of science, and thus "not worth killing the trees to print it."
I've read the report and I support GPI Atlantic's position that clearcutting has left us with severely degraded forest landscapes. Similar scientific opinion was recently presented at a federal conference on the state of Canada's old-growth forests in Sault Ste. Marie. Unfortunately, Gunn wasn't in attendance. If he had been there, he would have heard scientific evidence presented by myself and my colleagues on the negative impacts of clearcutting on plant and animal biodiversity in Nova Scotia.
I find it surprising that Gunn believes that our historical forests were never old-growth. This simply is not true. Numerous studies have shown that old-growth forests were a significant component of eastern North America prior to European colonization. Unfortunately, a long history of land settlement and logging have resulted in the dramatic reduction in the current area of old-growth forest. Almost no virgin woodland exists today in Nova Scotia and, sadly, the remaining old-growth stands are small, isolated and without legal protection.
There is strong scientific evidence that the loss of old forests caused by clearcutting is having a devastating impact on the plants and animals that depend on such habitats for survival. The federal government's own data shows that long-lived species, such as eastern hemlock and red spruce, have experienced a severe reduction in population size and distribution as a result of past forest management.
Before the cod fishery crash, scientists pleaded with policy makers to reduce the pace of fishing in order to prevent a marine ecosystem disaster. I fear that our voices are being ignored once again.
Faisal Moola, Forest Ecologist
Department of Biology, Dalhousie University