Over the coming fall-winter period, the Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists are focusing on four specific issues ...

'Skills Development' .. to improve individuals' camping skills for safety and sustainability purposes by minimizing impact on Algonquin Park's campsites, portages, hiking trails and environment. The Park Superintendent is working to establish a Skills Centre and is interested in our thoughts on such a project.

'Reducing Our Impact' is key to two of the ABR's programs ... to educate about low-impact practices in the park's backcountry. The international 'Leave No Trace' program has recently been modified to apply to "frontcountry" and "backcountry" situations, which both occur in Algonquin Park. The ABR will be pursuing Leave No Trace membership, actively promoting that organization's ethics and practices, and supporting any LNT program that the Park should officially adopt.

'Routes and Campsites' are key to the ABR's goals "To preserve, protect and enhance wilderness-like experiences in the backcountry of Algonquin Park". A detailed and regularly updated Camping Values Inventory will allow us to determine when canoe routes are negatively impacted by segment closings, reduced maintenance of portages and an under/over abundance of campsites in individual locations.

'Logging Awareness' ties in directly with ABR's Objective #3 .. to convince society at large to protect and improve wilderness-like recreational opportunities. Low turnout at logging-related open-houses and workshops indicate that the general public is poorly informed about both planning and management aspects of logging in the park. The ABR intends to provide a concise description of logging, so that recreational "park values" are better protected and opportunities to enjoy more "wilderness-like recreational experiences" are improved.

Those who wish to involve themselves in discussions of any of these issues, are invited to check out ..http://www.abrweb.ca/Issues/Issues.htm

Barry Bridgeford
http://www.AlgonquinAdventures.com
http://www.ABRweb.ca .. Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists - Caring for Algonquin's Backcountry

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to raise the issue, but just a comment that while watching to see what is planned for the forest industry, it often not understood that while Algonquin Park is the size of a Forest Management Unit and has active forest harvesting going on within it, it is not operating with the staff of a Forest Management Unit. Instead of one biologist it should have many. It should have many forestry technicians whereas not it has one to handle forestry, wildlife and fisheries. It should have a staff of GIS technicians while I believe the Park currently has one. If most of the Park is utilization zone with logging, why is not even that percentage staffed appropriately. The Forest Industry is not the enemy, but it does help to have a balance in staffing. The Province should be explaining why Algonquin is only staffed as a park. Perhaps this is worth questioning?

Ahhh, the issues abound.

"Over the coming fall-winter period, the Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists are focusing on four specific issues ... "

And what form will this focusing take?

" "Minimize backcountry recreationalists' impact on Algonquin Park's campsites, portages and hiking trails." and "Minimize backcountry recreationalists' impact on Algonquin Park's environment .. its forest and lakes."

Of course the best course of action would be to not have anyone go in to the back country at all. Then there would be no impact and this objective would be fulfilled 100%. You might want to revisit your thinking on this.

"All I can say about this is "holy moley". That sounds exactly like the forest management plans. Phrases like "wilderness like" have no business in a backcountry advocates literature. That is the language used to justify at 50 meter ribbon of green next to a canoe route separating it from a huge clear cut. That is just so far away from the wish of most back country canoeists.

"'Routes and Campsites' are key to the ABR's goals "To preserve, protect and enhance wilderness-like experiences in the backcountry of Algonquin Park". A detailed and regularly updated Camping Values Inventory will allow us to determine when canoe routes are negatively impacted by segment closings, reduced maintenance of portages and an under/over abundance of campsites in individual locations. "

Now that sounds like something that should be done by those who are actually taking money from campers. When the SNow Mobile guys pay for their licences they no that part of what they pay is going o maintain trails and develop new trails. It would be so nice if Backcountry canoeist could find out the same information. It isn't cheap to camp in Algonquin these days. The fees for some of my groups have been over $300 for a long weekend. What we get for that is, we get to stand in a nice office and sign our paper work. If there is work being done other than collecting money, I've seen precious little of it.

"Low turnout at logging-related open-houses and workshops indicate that the general public is poorly informed about both planning and management aspects of logging in the park."

Actually as one involved in the effort to save caribou habitat in the Ogoki forest, I might suggest that those of us who have put long ours into trying to have forestry plans altered realize that they are nothing more than window dressing. Those who attend are often representatives of organizations, like the Snow Mobile Association or the ATV people, who develop trails and have control of the licensing fees for the use of those trails. They go to represent their members interests.

As a "member in theory" I have issues with an a fair bit of what's proposed here. And I'm sure a good number of lower case "algonquin back country recreationalists" feel the same way. I guess time will tell whether this organization becomes at all relevant to them.

Hi Norm

Good to hear from you. As most members realize, the ABR isn't a typical group. As recreationalists, a lot of us are 'out-and-about' a lot .. thereby the internet is a tool we try to put to good use over the long term. While formal organization hasn't occurred, we are nevertheless trying to affect some positive changes.

If you hop over to the ABR website's "Current Issues" page, http://www.abrweb.ca/Issues/Issues.htm you'll be able to read more details about the '4 issues'. We've also got 4 'mini-forums' set-up to discuss each of the four issues. Unlike some other forums where debate and argument sometimes reign supreme, we're specifically asking for positive and constructive discussions.

In its current state, Algonquin does have some 'Wilderness Zone' area. However, once one gets into the 'Recreation/Utilization Zone', the narrow no-logging setbacks do unfortunately offer recreationalists nothing more that a 'wilderness-like' experience.

The ABR supports the "Recommendations of the OPB" in "Lightening the Ecological Footprint of Logging". Their recommendations would improve the situation by redefining larger logging-free areas and replicating the situation of newer 'water-way parks'. While it obviously doesn't eliminate logging, it would effectively protect a water-way network with modern levels of setback protections.

The ABR isn't an environmental or anti-logging group. It hopes to encourage an improvement of the 'wilderness-like' experience in Algonquin's backcountry .. by improvements in users' practices relative to camping values and the environment, plus affect moderate re-alignments of the park plan and it's management.

It's also accurate to call us 'moderates' in our stance regarding logging. We have no intent to become a venue for an anti-logging debate. There are plenty of other venues for that.

So if one has positive and constructive comments in support of our efforts .. please make them in the relative sub-forum(s).



Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to raise the issue, but just a comment that while watching to see what is planned for the forest industry, it often not understood that while Algonquin Park is the size of a Forest Management Unit and has active forest harvesting going on within it, it is not operating with the staff of a Forest Management Unit. Instead of one biologist it should have many. It should have many forestry technicians whereas not it has one to handle forestry, wildlife and fisheries. It should have a staff of GIS technicians while I believe the Park currently has one. If most of the Park is utilization zone with logging, why is not even that percentage staffed appropriately. The Forest Industry is not the enemy, but it does help to have a balance in staffing. The Province should be explaining why Algonquin is only staffed as a park. Perhaps this is worth questioning?

IIRC, the Algonquin Forest Authority Act was passed in 1974 to allow the AFA to be managed differently from a forest management unit. The AFA is responsible for contracting out forest cutting to individual operators, managing the forests in the recreation-utilization zone and monitoring operations to ensure that operations comply with all legislation, policy and guidelines.

The AFA does have staff on board to carry out various responsibilties. They may also be contracting out private consultants and silviculture experts as needs dictate.

Another difference is that AFAA is not subject to the Environmental Blll of Rights, like the FMUs are under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. So the public does not have the full range of rights in commenting on how forestry operations are carried out. Maybe that lets the AFA off the hook to some extent, as far as being legally responsible for their operations.

The park superintendent, John Winters, is responsible for ensuring that logging operations comply with the CFSA and the new Parks Act, which emphasizes the larger goal of ecological integrity in park management, and maybe he could help clarify all this. There is also the need to comply with the park's management plan which requires logging to be carried out with regard to aesthetic and ecological values.

A few years ago, the AFA acquired certification under the international standards ISO 14001 and CSA Z809-02. As part of the CSA designation for sustainable forest management (SFM) certification, I acquired advisory status as a representative of recreational users' interests. The process is documented, from my personal perspective, on the Algonquin Adventures website which was the reason I was requested to serve in the advisory group.

If one's interested in the degree of detail involved, that documentation can be viewed here ..http://www.algonquinadventures.com/forest/ForestIndex.htm

Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca

Barry,

Certification for "sustainable" forest management by the CSA SFM standard defines "sustainable" in terms of the forest industry's interests and not necessarily the best interests of a protected park. If, from the standpoint of park protection, logging was a "good thing" for forest ecosystems, then it would be adopted in the other parks. Of course, it is not, and logging in the other parks is banned.

Here are the AFA's operating criteria intended to comply with sustainable forest management:



Registration to the CSA standard requies the evaluation of AFA practices and adherence to the following criteria.

1. Conservation of biological diversity.
2. Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity.
3. Conservation of soil and water resources.
4. Forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles.
5. Multiple benefits to society.
6. Accepting society's responsibility for sustainable development.



With regard to the first, it's known that logging is changing forest species composition from the original state, and there are other effects on biodiversity. There are also indications that remaining old-growth forests continue to be logged, when they could be identified and protected to provide multiple benefits, including ecological benefits, and to backcountry recreation, now, and at some future point in time.

WRT to the second criterion, "maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity"... this is fuzzy and probably means keeping the forest productive so that wood supply is ensured for the industry. The concept of ecological integrity has been around for some time now and nowhere is this mentioned. As you know, it is the main goal of the new Parks Act. The previous, older act passed during the thirties or forties required Ontario parks to be managed for benefits to park users.

The Ontario Parks Board acknowledges that logging has an ecological impact, by releasing it's recommendations to lighten ecological footprint resulting from logging. In this document, ecological footprint is reduced by reducing the land area available to logging, as you know. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) has also recognized that logging has ecological impacts in Algonquin.

There seems to be a conflict here with the Parks Board and the ECO, both recognizing ecological impacts and the AFA claiming that logging under CSA SFM certification maintains biological diversity and ecosystem condition. The reason for the conflict could be that the certification process is primarily forest industry driven and it mainly reflects the interests of the industry.

Hi Rick

"Certification for "sustainable" forest management by the CSA SFM standard defines "sustainable" in terms of the forest industry's interests and not necessarily the best interests of a protected park."

Algonquin Park is currently a "multi-use" park, with logging being one of its "protected" uses. That "status" is viewed by many as ironic. On the other hand, if logging is ever officially removed from the park, then the park will obviously be "protected from logging".

In my opinion, Algonquin Park's managed (logged) forest areas are nominally better off from a recreational standpoint because of the CSA certification requirements. Also, I believe the recreational components which wind throughout those areas would be very well served if the Ontario Parks Board's recommendations to 'lighten the footprint of logging' were officially adopted.

Any measures that improve the recreation experience in the multi-use areas of the park, are that .. "improvements". Obviously, an Algonquin without logging would be a more "remote and wild" recreational experience. But logging has always been a part of Algonquin Park and will probably remain so for a long time. For the present time, I believe that CSA certification is better than no such certification and that the OPB recommendations would be an even greater improvement.

It's to the advantage of trip-planning recreationalists to know where logging and haulage operations are happening, so that the operations' negative sight and sound characteristics can be avoided during canoe and hiking trips. To encourage avoidance of logging noise isn't to promote logging. It's simply an effort to help improve trippers' wilderness-like experience in the Algonquin backcountry.

The reality is that Algonquin is not a wilderness park. However, most recreationalists trip through its backcountry wanting a "wilderness-like" break from "noise", be it highway trucks, tree cutting or logging trucks.

On the other hand, if active anti-logging environmentalists want to take others into the backcountry to witness logging, they can use the same AFA work schedule maps to ensure they can witness the logging operations.

Some people may be disappointed that an intermediate-term "recreationalist" group isn't actively embracing an active long-term anti-logging "environmentalist" position. Well, there's no reason that people can't belong to both an environmental and recreational group, and respect each to pursue its different objectives.

Barry Bridgeford
Executive Committee
Algonquin Backcountry Recreationalists
http://www.ABRweb.ca