The Dufferin County Council is in the process of rewriting a tree cutting by-law which will: limit the sale of timber and firewood; require a permit every time one cuts a tree; treat sales differently than own use; and encourage neighbours to comment on your forest harvesting activities.

The drafting of tree cutting by-laws is very challenging because trees are covered by many provincial laws including: the Ontario Municipal Act, the Conservation Act, the Trees Act, the Environmental Bill of Rights Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement and the Places to Grow Act. Getting a by-law which is consistent with all these provincial Acts will require quite a lot of effort by legal counsel. The Trees Act for example states that any trees cut in accordance with good forestry practice are excluded, That looks like an excellent place to start.

The draft proposal on the County website, www.dufferincounty. on.ca/document_info.as px?id=2371 appears to be based on a number of questionable assumptions. First it assumes trees are a unique form of property which should be regulated by the County. Trees, on most farms and many non-farm properties are a perennial crop not unlike hay or pasture. No other crops on private property are regulated by the county. Why are trees regulated by permits as to whether one can or cannot sell them. Many woodlots are profit centres which are managed to provide income to the owners,

Money actually grows on trees but only if the owners are allowed to harvest and sell them. A deciduous hardwood woodlot increases in value in the order of $125 to $150 per acre per year. Given a managed harvest of timber every 10 to 12 years, a well managed woodlot creates an income of approximately $1,500 per acre each harvest. Given the attractive federal taxation regulations, the sale of timber is a profitable activity. Properly managed trees are a profitable crop and should be treated like other farm crops. Just because municipalities can control timber and firewood sales does not mean they need to.

The second questionable assumption implicit in the bylaw constraints on tree sales involves the naive idea that the volume of growth will be maximized by not allowing any tree cutting. The problem with this idea is that deciduous trees grow much slower as they age. Older trees form a canopy which retards the growth of younger, faster growing trees, thus reducing the total biomass. Refusing to allow the cutting of trees, in addition to being economically irrational also creates a less efficient forest in terms of biomass and oxygen creation. If woodlot owners cannot sell timber and firewood, they will not manage, care for or protect their woodlots.

Financial benefit does more to determine landowner's actions than any government regulation. Profits encourage good practices such as opening the canopy to encourage new growth, the removal of diseased and weed tree species such as ironwood and thorns and wind damaged trees. Man can and has in many situations improved the quality of woodlots by proper management. The proposed by-law limits annual harvest for own use to 6 bush cords per property.

The total quantity of trees which can be cut each year should be related to the size of the woodlot. A minimum of one bush cord per acre should be allowed without a permit so that proper silviculture practices can be undertaken. Clear cutting should be restricted to a very small area and be based on the total area of the woodlot. A maximum area of say, 5%, could be allowed without threatening the future of a woodlot.

The draft by-law requires notification of neighbours when clear cutting is anticipated and posting a sign when harvesting timber. This appears to be a way to get neighbours to object to harvesting or clear cutting of a woodlot. Frankly, it is none of a neighbour's business what one does with their property as long as it does not impact their property. No one is ever asked to inform others when they harvest other crops and furthermore, permits are not required. The issuing of permits looks like a money grab by the county. The issuing and checking on adherence to permits will require considerable effort and costs. In order to be fair, there will also need to be an appeal process. More bureaucracy is the inevitable result of regulating the growing and sale of timber and firewood.

All woodlot owners should be concerned with this revised by-law which will be discussed at the Dufferin council meeting in Orangeville at 7 00 pm on October 8.

Jim White

via email

- - o- -

The Dufferin County Council will host a public meeting at 7:00 pm 8 October to consider a tougher version of its tree-cutting bylaw.

Concerned citizens should be aware that the changes will apply a non-refundable $50 fee to the existing bylaw, limit "normal farm practice" to six bush cords of wood per year, stiffen the existing requirement to apply for a permit to harvest trees or thin a forest, etc.

The current bylaw exempts just about all tree destruction except harvest, and allows county agents to enter private land without a warrant to search for evidence on suspicion that trees are being harvested without permission. It also obliges the owner to seek neighbours' approval, post a sign at the farm entrance, pay a professional tree marker (list available on an Ontario government web site), have the harvesting contractor co-sign the permit application, etc.

It's unlikely that the county administrative officer will approve a permit, as she is on record as saying her job is to "preserve the forest cover of the county."

The bylaw is allowed to exist thanks to the Ontario Municipal Act, but it need not remain in effect if enough citizens express disapproval at the 8 October meeting. A similar bylaw in Muskoka was rejected when the community objected to it.

Charles Hooker

Orangeville