The THLB is the area that is legally and economically available for logging. Aren't any old growth requirements, along with all other non-timber requirements, subtracted from the forested landscape before the THLB is defined? Isn't the THLB simply the area of productive forest that is left after all the deductions for non-timber values like old growth and visual quality are made? So by definition, the THLB shouldn't include old growth management areas, because those areas are off-limits to logging and are therefore not part of the THLB. It's possible that no spatial old growth management areas have been identified, but still 9% of the area of productive forest could have been left out of the THLB to meet old growth requirements. Is this possibly what occurred in these TFLs?
Also, as I understand it, old growth protection should be 9% of the forested land base, not 9% of the THLB, so the amount of old growth off limits to logging should be higher than the 132,400 ha that you mention. Am I wrong about all this?
How did 22 TFLs in BC evade having legal old-growth management areas?
in Journalism: Loss of primary forest
Posted
The THLB is the area that is legally and economically available for logging. Aren't any old growth requirements, along with all other non-timber requirements, subtracted from the forested landscape before the THLB is defined? Isn't the THLB simply the area of productive forest that is left after all the deductions for non-timber values like old growth and visual quality are made? So by definition, the THLB shouldn't include old growth management areas, because those areas are off-limits to logging and are therefore not part of the THLB. It's possible that no spatial old growth management areas have been identified, but still 9% of the area of productive forest could have been left out of the THLB to meet old growth requirements. Is this possibly what occurred in these TFLs?
Also, as I understand it, old growth protection should be 9% of the forested land base, not 9% of the THLB, so the amount of old growth off limits to logging should be higher than the 132,400 ha that you mention. Am I wrong about all this?