The five key principles…

The five key principles outlined in the proposed new forestry strategy, in principle are not contestable; but the devil is in the details.

This is particularly true in the context of the "Enduring Sustainability" principle. It appears as if the meaning of "Enduring Sustainability" at the moment refers ONLY to the need of the forest industry to have access to " - a guaranteed, affordable and consistent wood supply" The proposed policy thrust is clear with respect to intent; more biomass extraction and related access roads

What about the need for biodiversity and impacts on drainage/water courses? Are they of secondary concern? What I want to know is how MNRF plans to protecting biodiversity on the Crown lands under its jurisdiction (the current Biodiversity Strategy). I oppose any weakening of the current intent of the Biodiversity Strategy, if that is an underlying intent of the Biodiversity Strategy.If the Biodiversity Strategy is not already incorporated into the Crown Forest Sustainability Act then it should be,

The last published forest indicator report is telling in terms of the ratings provided. There are far too many categories in the mixed/Fair category e.g. forest related wildlife, forest birds, genetic conservation 0f native trees, native insects and disease/invasive insects and disease, disturbance within watersheds, water runoff/hydrology etc.We even have one category that is rated "poor". that being forest associated invasive plants What is even more shocking is that in one category, that being the state of natural capital and ecosystem services is unknown! Management of the totality of the Crown forests require sufficient PUBLIC funds to adequately support MNRF to undertake its statutory duties relative to the non economic side of the crown lands.

This being said the general thrust of the new policy is a reasonable one with the understanding that extraction plans must allow for linked wildlife/plant/tree corridors (connectors) with large areas relatively undisturbed or not disturbed at all.

Concerning the biomass/security of supply issue, it is pretty clear decades of mismanagement (last century) are still playing out as can be ascertained by other indicators of concern.e.g. forest growing stock, harvest area,invasive insects and disease, forest regeneration, afforestation,private land forestry. These issues should be top priority for remediation. Who pays for this is an open question, including building. maintaining and decommissioning logging roads. There is also the question of US trade challenges inasfar as much biomass in the USA is produced on private land, on which trees are considered a crop.