The concerns surrounding the tree-cutting bylaw (“Forest Conservation By-law”) are complex, and are reflected in the almost year-long debate of the 2009 drafts.

Your editorial, “A simple exemption would work” (20 May), suggested that a simple additional phrase would satisfy County Councillor Walter Kolodziechuk - and so it would, as well as many of us managed foresters, but not, perhaps, the NDACT.

The Ontario Municipal Act encourages and authorizes counties to pass tree-cutting bylaws, subject to certain restrictions such as exempting developments, gravel pits, nursery trees, nut trees, fruit trees and Christmas trees. Few counties passed such bylaws because they greatly restrict the rights of landowners. The purpose of the Dufferin County bylaw was changed, after some cogitation, by adding the expression “And whereas this by-law is intended to encourage sustainable forest management practices and discourage overharvesting.” I support that aim, provided that it does not prevent the aims of woodlands owners; the key word is “encourage.”

One landowner was astonished that a forest he planted up to his boundary fence, and which adjoined a “woodlot” (less than one hectare), was suddenly opened to sunlight by the disappearance of the adjacent woodlot. At the time, there was no restriction to destroying a “woodlot” of less than a hectare adjoining a neighbouring woodland; so some of his trees, challenged to grow to stately height by the adjacent shade, will now become “wolf” trees unless he spends time pruning the new side branches, and wildlife will be deterred from dwelling in that smaller forest.

Should the adjacent landowner be prevented from harvesting or otherwise destroying his own trees because they adjoin a neighbour’s woodland? That is a typical question raised by this bylaw, and like the others is not easy to answer. Ideally, those who want to sustain a forest should pay the costs.

The Dufferin County treecutting bylaw grew over the past 60 or so years to the monster that was presented to County Council last fall. Its aim has wandered from encouraging forest growth to preventing any possible exploitation of trees planted and sustained by their owners. The real aim should perhaps be limited to encouraging sustainable forests. A reasonable addition might be to encourage rows of trees that prevent snowdrifts across county roads and highways.

Urban dwellers may be keen on environmental protection, but they do not have to carry out the manual labour and pay the expenses of maintaining a forest. Farmers are oriented to the cheapest and most effective approach that will create a profit to sustain their families. To a farmer, a woodland is part of his profession, not a hobby; he needs an income, just like city workers.

I have a great deal of respect for the county councillors who are obliged to strike a compromise among the many divergent points of view.

Charles Hooker

Orangeville