>>2513303>>2513300Logging companies can't do shit without the approval of their regulators. My background is only in Canadian forestry ; it is public knowledge that the canadian government regulates timber removal through the forests act, these forestry majors that you guys are shit talking are the regulators on behalf of the government as well as the first line "internal checkers" of these so called megacorps (lmao as if anyone is getting that rich on logging the scope of BC logging was ~$10B in 2020 )
Anyways these guys are like spending most of their time fufilling regulatory requirements to keep their timber base or claim operating. The canadian government in my opinion does a pretty good job with their rules and certain practices that are industry standard are actually defined by law : ie the creation of "blocks" as opposed to clear cutting, the need for someone to physically place the boundaries of cutting as a flag line, etc.
Point is usually these guys are on the side of the forest because of the sheer difficulty of the task at hand re: working around creeks and other site conditions. The abundance of trees in canada is key... With so many possible areas to look for trees it makes little sense for a company or the government to allow for logging of compartments containing sufficient "features"/streams/biodiversity...etc.
This post in particular is about old growth however, which represents a slightly type of problem as the "reforestation" requirements may actually be impossible. If you look at the tree diversity of NWCanada in the valley south of Prince George you can see the evidence of the western red cedar especially along the Kinbaskett which is a lake in the valley that leads all the way down to Revelstoke and the Mica Dam.
I think it would be a fair case to make that none of the 100+ DBH stumps that line the edges of this reservoir will ever return
