The Hypocrisy of J.D Irving J D Irving is recognized by industry as an environmentally certified forestry company, which has set aside numerous acres for conservation along with other strong environmental practices. However, Irving is not an entirely environmentally friendly company as one might to led to believe. Evidence of negative environmental impact may be seen in their forestry management of cleared land. Their management raises a number of issues most importantly whether or not their reforestation is really planned forests or tree plantations, and the inadequate access to Irving sites. As a member of the Forestry Producers Association of Nova Scotia, FPANS, J D Irving has to comply with FPANS standards for environmental practices. Such practices regulated are; sustainability, wood supply biodiversity and land use. However, as an association whose members are solely forestry companies there is an obvious bias in how high the standards are set. After close examinations of those standards, I feel rather strongly that FPANS is trying to persuade the reader that practices such as clear cutting and especially tree plantations are not normal but free of reoccurring problems. Interspersed though at the FPANS literature are statements about clear cutting that are obviously made to put the practice in a better light and manipulate people into thinking of clear cutting as a practice that is not only acceptable but is needed. A statement such as; “after harvesting, it is easier and better to clear cut to provide a clear state to start a new forest,” is an industry bias based on self interest. An interesting statement found at the end of the literature states, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. This refers to why the larger members avoid cutting “scenic” area along roads. These areas are avoided so that tourists will not get the wrong message because as the say, “it is difficult to make a harvesting site look visually attractive.” Total clear cutting is the practice of totally harvesting a section of trees on a large scale. J D Irving has been known to clear cut an area where there was clearly a more environmentally friendly harvesting practice that could have been used. As the largest landowner in the state of Maine only two other landowners have the same/similar projected rates of clear cutting. On the whole, clear cutting is detrimental to the environment with no positive effects. Problems such as erosions, run off, soil desiccations and loss of habitat are some of the many problems associated with the practices of clear cutting. Unfortunately, clear cutting is not the only objectionable practice that Irving uses. If people were to take a closer look at Irving’s reforestation programs an argument could easily be made that Irving does in fact utilize the practice of tree plantations. Tree plantations are the practice of planting trees that fit the market situation (types of wood that sell easily) and take a relatively short time to mature. There has been a trend by Irving to plant an excessive amount a shorter time to mature. This has created an imbalance between softwood and hardwood on Irving sites. The Irving sites have been poorly managed. Bad harvesting practices coupled with reforestations which are clearly done only because of financial rewards does not deserve the praise that Irving has received. Granted their practices are more environmentally friendly than other similarly sized companies but just because they have higher standards does not mean that these standards are acceptable. The public needs to become more informed and hold these companies accountable for what they do or don’t do in their resource management. Harvesting methods that are environmentally friendly will do more in the long term to ensure a healthy forestry industry then short sighted practices which are negative to the environment and are used in order to achieve greater financial profit at the expense of a healthy forestry industry in the future. |
