Letter: There’s a reason for no roadside buffer

Trees alongside roads can be a hazard and an expense, writes Doug Noren.

In his July 15 letter to the editor, Don Colclough asks whether there could not have been a buffer between the road and the logging which took place a kilometre or two below the Phoenix Ski Hill.

Although I did not personally have anything to do with this particular logging operation, I have had some experience planning cutblocks and I thought I would add my two cents to the conversation.

First, a treed buffer alongside a road prevents the use of that road for the decking of logs which means another road or landing will have to be built for the purpose.

This adds to the overall soil disturbance, increases the cost of logging, and reduces the stumpage paid to the province.

Second, trees alongside roads can be a hazard and an expense, especially when insects and disease keep killing them off. When these trees become danger trees, they must be felled at public expense.

If these same roadside areas were to be logged, they would provide a net economic benefit. Meanwhile, in a few years the new forest will grow back and make a new buffer.

I agree that the ski hill community should go have a look at the logging to see what they think, but also to consider the irony when comparing it with the ski hill itself where no reforestation is allowed.

– Doug Noren, Grand Forks