Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

After feast on B.C. forest, pine beetles face famine

IAN BAILEY

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:43 AM EDT 28/03/08

Pests that consumed more than half of B.C.'s marketable pine forest have run out of trees ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. martha stewart from Canada writes: Strange. All the previous comments have been deleted. Wonder why?
  2. bob london from Canada writes: My wife told them 16 years ago to deal with it at Tweedsmuir park. Ironically a number of foresters were stating so but the environmentalists said no. Then Industry followed the environmentalists and hoped to cut the wood fast enought. Then the Government hired an idiot bug boss supported by the budgies and mills who ensured the bug would get away,. He is now in Alta.

    The environmentalists who allowed this to go wild now say's don't cut the trees now they are dead for another reason? Stay in Vancouver and stop smoking so much. You have destroyed the livelyhood of thousands of family's and have given the north the option of buying mercury halide lights for the next 50 years. Good Job budgies.
  3. A Chinaman from Canada writes: NRCan (or Forestry Canada) is trying to develop biologic controls agent to control Pine beetles. It would take more than 10 years (or another 100 years! Forestry Canada has bee talking to to viruses to control spruce budworms or the last 20 years, and still there is no such product).
    By that time, either mother nature would kill the pine beetles (by a long cold spell or forest fires), or we do not have forest anymore!).
  4. martha stewart from Canada writes: Yes, just went looking, and the G & M decided to delete all earlier comments about this story.

    I guess they didn't present the right attitude and information towards this former poster child for The Warming.

    Still, most unusual.
  5. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ... Censor...

    The cold weather killed the beetles.

    Everybody knows it.

    3 articles simultaneously ranting about global warming... who is the editor?

    Got an ax to grind?
  6. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: Martha..

    its ok... I copied them all.

    I always copy the expunged comments that refute global warming. The editors ALWAYS delete them.

    CNTRL INS...
  7. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: 0.02% of a 15% over sized Antarctic sheet crack and it Global Warming. Quebec is having roof collapses.... its 'climate Change' or not cooling.

    Oil prices are high....due to increased demand to heat homes....

    Beetles are dead....they ran out of wood??? what? They froze!.

    Like we froze er are freezing....
  8. mighty conan from Calgary, Canada writes: The missing postings either melted due to global warming or were eaten by pine beetles.
  9. martha stewart from Canada writes: Thanks Bib - I did go full tilt on that last round (and on previous stories about it) as this is one topic I do have expertise in...

    but now I'm so stunned by this obvious censorship that its hard to get back into it. I guess that was their plan. May get revved up again later.

    But one wonders who made the decision to just delete it... a card carrying member of something I'd guess.

    Anyways, so much for this much hyped but false poster child.

    Will see how long this post lasts...

    P.S. Feel free to post anything I said earlier again. Lesson learned.
  10. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Martha .... I remember hiking in Alberta Rockies years ago and a Ranger explained that fire was actually needed to produce the temperatures that would cause the pinecone to release its seeds. Furthermore, the ashbed left from the fire provided basic nutrients and unobstructed sunlight for the growth of the new trees, later to be sheltered by various shrubs.

    True?

    Is this the same tree in the B.C. interior.

    Note - The quick close is becoming a Globe feature. I prefer to think it occurs when obvious trolls take over a site except it seems certain political trolls can keep a site going for days. The Globe does have a vested interest in the climate change mythology, having produced special editions and Jeffrey Simpson wrote a book on climate change/social engineering.
  11. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: BoB ImamI from Canada writes:*
    *BaB OmimO from Canada writes:

    I keep posting data... like thermometer data, ice accumulation data,etc..

    It just wigs them out.

    Without a global catastrophe social engineering can't happen.

    I, at risk of censorship, will post your earlier comments... if they don't appear.....you can thank the .. you know who....
  12. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: Ed... you are so correct.

    How is your oil bill?

    ..//
  13. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: A bunch of comments were just wiped out in the Saskatchewan clean coal story.

    Enviro-sensitivity runs amok.
  14. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: test...

    That worked....
  15. martha stewart from Canada writes: BiB writes: 'The cold weather killed the beetles.'

    Just for the record, the real story is that this beetle only kills mature pines and its running out of them to kill. The real reason why this epidemic was so severe is that fire suppression allowed so much even-aged pine forest to mature to provide suitable habitat for them. The fact that some warm winters allowed them to survive definitely did not help but there never could have been such a widespread epidemic without this unnatural forest caused by Smokey the Bear - no matter how warm the winters were. The Warming was only a small part of this story. Contrary to all the hype.

    It has to be really cold in the fall and early winter to kill them. It wasn't out West. But in any case, this poster child is toast. I'm sure they'll find a new one to replace it, no matter how bogus it really is.

    P.S. My last post is still there! Tick, tock.
  16. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: I'm trying...

    Wow... you really got em worked up...

    I'm no expert on pine beatles but I doubt there is a poster that understands temperature data acquisition, averaging and error calculation more than me... maybe Glynn.

    I do want to understnd the Pine Beatle issue. The trouble is I automatically assume that the article is flawed and bent to adbance the global warming agenda... it is absolutely untrustworthy information.

    Pretty sad when you have to read comments to get the real story behind the story.
  17. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ed Long writes: 'Martha .... I remember hiking in Alberta Rockies years ago and a Ranger explained that fire was actually needed to produce the temperatures that would cause the pinecone to release its seeds.... the ashbed left from the fire provided basic nutrients and unobstructed sunlight for the growth of the new trees... True?'

    True Ed. I'm ticked that the earlier comments were deleted as I got into that.

    In brief... that's lodgepole pine, same species as in the Rockies. When a fire sweeps through popping all those cones open that simultaneously plants the trees that grow into even-aged stands (they can't start in shade). Then, if no fire sweeeps through again, they all grow up into even-aged mature stands. When they are large enough, they all become potential hosts for the beetle - which need a minimum thickness of cambium layer under their bark to live in. Then you get whole stands killed or, with Smokey the Bear's impacts, vast areas of mature even-aged forests killed.
  18. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: So you said that the Beetles only attack mature trees. With only mature trees due to fire prevention measures of the 50s 60s etc... we stimulated the variables essential to cause a beetle epidemic?

    I was speaking with a UBC solar PhD. He got an NRC grant to study... Solar radiance reductions....The G&M are nearly a full generation behind the data.
  19. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: BiB .... this site is meant as a mosh pit however many articles should carry the waiver ...'advertising supplied by ...'
  20. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: Ed... I collect posts from the extremes for talks I do on 'global Warming'

    I have a series of slides of G&M poll questions... headlines and comments...... I get gales of laughter... a real ice breaker.

    The best stuff is when posters claim increased ice is due to warming. Predictions of increased hurricanes... we've had reductions...
    Colder temps id due to warming..
    Now pine beetles...
    Notice the polar bear issue disappeared?
    psssst the ice is back.
  21. Globe Insider subscriber content
    diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Ed Long:-- I take issue with your comment that it is 'meant as a mosh pit'. It is what posters make of it. To quote a favourite phrase of the right, it's about personal responsibility ;-). It can happen here, too.
  22. martha stewart from Canada writes: BiB - Yes I've read plenty of your posts. My past career (I'm a retired old fart now) had me involved with this beetle story when the last big epidemic hit SE BC in the late 1970s-early 1980s. The whole ecological story is far more interesting than the simplistic scare story they're pumping out in the media.

    And some people are seriously misinformed. Seen dozens of comments about how all of BC's forests were going to die... even though this insect only attacks pines... usually only lodgepole pine but also ponderosa pine. When the beetles are this insanely abundant they also sometimes attack other species, like spruce growing in pines, but those other species cannot sustain them.

    BTW, this beetle is always there but usually in small enough numbers than any pine not stressed out can fight them off (with pitch). But when you get them on an entirely unnatural roll like this, and we do have a series of warmer than usual winters, its bad. Blame Smokey the Bear for feeding them.
  23. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: The global warming priests are like old women who have dropped a box of Royal Dalton figurines.

    The figurines are smashed.. and they are posing the broken shards in a desperate effort to make them unbroken.

    It is pretty pathetic.
  24. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: Martha,

    What about natural population cycles? Like the Cicadas. Do pine beetles normally cycle in numbers.. a homeostasis?
  25. martha stewart from Canada writes: BiB wrote 'So you said that the Beetles only attack mature trees. With only mature trees due to fire prevention measures of the 50s 60s etc... we stimulated the variables essential to cause a beetle epidemic?'

    Bingo. Except for the details. We got good at suppressing fires earlier than that. Most of the mature stands are at least 60 years old or older (lodgepole pine is not a long-living tree relatively speaking); the main thing is they need to grow large enough and that can take variable lengths of time depending on the site, soil and, yes, the climate.

    But what really got this going was the scale. As noted in the last post the beetles are always present in lower numbers. But BC got really good at fire suppression = growing prime beetle habitat.

    BTW, when these beetles get to hyper-epidemic numbers, they will also attack younger trees but they do not provide suitable habitat to sustain them - can't reproduce.

    Add a few warm winters and it really accelerates...
  26. martha stewart from Canada writes: BiB, there must be some local or regional underlying cycles related to climate - and how that effects pine growth and fire frequency - but that is masked by shorter term events, and we probably don't understand them. It is also masked by the impact of indigenous people who used fire as their primary management tool. Not a lot of mature lodgepole pine forests in early historic or prehistoric times - they are a biological desert. Much better to burn them off to create habitat where game can browse and more plant foods can grow. The only foods they regularly found in lodgepole pine stands were Shepherdia berries plus they also ate the cambium layer of these trees.

    If you look at early historical photos you will see how much forest cover has changed since we suppressed indigenous land use too.

    Of course, the lodgepole pine was ideal for lodgepoles.

    Did that answer your question? I'm running out of space.
  27. martha stewart from Canada writes: BiB - Thanks for the brain candy. Got to go watch Frontline now - 'Bush's War - part two'. After a quick stop at the collapsing glaciers!!!

    If there's anything else you're wondering about, please post and I'll check back... after watching what's bound to be a depressing story of why electing the sons of previous politicians is a very, very bad idea.
  28. bob saunders from Belleville Ontario, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: BiB writes: 'The cold weather killed the beetles.'

    Just for the record, the real story is that this beetle only kills mature pines and its running out of them to kill------------------- They sure seem to eat a lot of small(tiny) mature trees. I believe that the start of this was during the NDP reign of terror a area of thesouth western corner of tweedmuir park was infessed but the government at the time elected not to burn/destroy the pine bettle and voila we have what we have. I'm a former member of the BC Forest service 1974-79 and my dad was a Forester in BC from 1964- 1980.
  29. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: Got it Martha.

    Its 1:00 am. Thanks... I copied all the posts. Pasting is a problem!!!

    Keep Warm.

    ..//
  30. liz bredberg from vancouver, Canada writes: For what it's worth, I've now seen pitch tubes on Douglas fir trees... In view of all the expertise that has been flaunting itself in this discussion, I guess I don't need to clarify the possible significance of that.

    The infestation will end when the damned bugs run out of food. It's that simple. Cold winters would have helped. Is global warming a factor? I think so.

    Why would anyone think the BC government would listen to environmentalists' concerns about spraying about the beetle infestation? They sure don't listen to anything else from the environmental quarter.

    They didn't intervene in time, despite many people in the forest industry up north yelling their lungs out, because they're little grey sons of whatsits who can only think corporate.

    They're still claiming that BC can have a tourist industry despite an area of dead trees four times the size of Vancouver Island.

    Dumb. Dumb, shameful, and very sad.
  31. M G from Canada writes: Don't harvest them and don't replant. It is a natural part of the ecological cycle, allowing for solar radiation to penetrate the canopy, thereby increasing the diversity and productivity of understorey species. The logs will also provide nutrients and habitat for a multitude of organisms. In response to warming, the infestations occur, allowing an increase in the number of species and making the ecosystem more like those further south. Leave nature alone and stick to harvesting where the ecosystem is already destroyed! The pine beetle doesn't destroy ecosystems - it just changes them.
  32. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: BiB AmomA, you're a pretty good bragger here.

    'I always copy the expunged comments that refute global warming. The editors ALWAYS delete them.'

    'I keep posting data... like thermometer data, ice accumulation data,etc... It just wigs them out.'

    'I'm no expert on pine beatles but I doubt there is a poster that understands temperature data acquisition, averaging and error calculation more than me... '

    'I collect posts from the extremes for talks I do on 'global Warming'

    I guess it's just too bad for me that the editors always seem to delete your intelligent posts, eh?
    Why not blame them for your illogical posts too?
    (yeah I'm saying that using snow levels in Quebec as proof global warming doesn't exist is illogical)
  33. L Harder from Canada writes: The long term issue is the fact that mountain pine beetles have crossed the rocky mountains which is unprecedented. Our northern pine forests across the country are exposed and this is the story that bears watching.
  34. Ronald Meister from 150 Mile House BC, Canada writes: Practiced professional forestry for 30 years left 3 years ago in frustration. Here is my take on this natural disaster. The Chilcotin mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic of the 70 and 80 collapsed in 1984 due an adverse climatic event (-30c Oct. 31) preceded by a nice fall. The mortality rate of MPB was 99% otherwise the MPB would have eaten itself out of habitat within BC 15 years ago. This climatic event occurs on average 1 in 30 years, however we did not manage our old growth pine forests accordantly. MPB is endemic and did not occur from one epicenter it was building populations throughout central B.C.. Reports of population increases were ignored and those of us urging action were marginalized. Thus we have todays situation.
  35. martha stewart from Canada writes: bob saunders from Belleville Ontario writes: 'martha stewart writes:
    Just for the record, the real story is that this beetle only kills mature pines and its running out of them to kill' -------------------

    'They sure seem to eat a lot of small(tiny) mature trees.'

    When they reach epidemic levels as they are/were, they do also attack smaller trees but again, they need a minimum thickness of their cambium layer to colonize and reproduce... so they cannot survive and reproduce in smaller trees; and BTW, its the 'blue stain fungi' they bring with them that actually kills the trees, with rare exceptions.

    'I'm a former member of the BC Forest service 1974-79 and my dad was a Forester in BC from 1964- 1980.'

    Then you must remember the pine beetle epidemic in the late 70s - early 80s in SE BC (Flathead) which also spread over the Rockies into Waterton. They let that one go in Waterton and (U.S.) Glacier parks and clearcut virtually the whole Flathead-Akamina region to 'fix' it.
  36. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Tom W from Vancouver, Taiwan writes: Ronald, Could you comment on the role that increased forest cover through planting and fire suppression has had on this epidemic?

    Described from some ecologist professionals I know, we've transformed what was in many parts of the province a mixed forest/grassland ecosystem into a near mono-culture of solid pine, with nearly 100% fire suppression. Warmer climate or not, we have been setting ourself up for this calamity for decades.
  37. Former 2 Time CIBC Staffer from North Vancouver, Canada writes: It's not like the wood has any economical value beside being bug food and for heating wood stoves anyway...
  38. martha stewart from Canada writes: L Harder writes: 'The long term issue is the fact that mountain pine beetles have crossed the rocky mountains which is unprecedented. Our northern pine forests across the country are exposed and this is the story that bears watching.'

    They have crossed the Rockies before in southern AB as noted in my last post. The extension further north is more unprecedented historically but not necessarily unprecendented period - the pines and beetles have been through some earlier warm periods.

    In any case, it will be the same story in the range of the lodgepole pine in west-central AB unless we get the right cold snap to stop it before they run out of host trees. Alberta is being far more aggressive about logging forests before the beetles reach them, and in the national parks they're burning them. Needless to say, the enviros are in a tizzy about the former, especially because that's having negative impacts on the already threatened caribou population there. Good news for moose though.
  39. martha stewart from Canada writes: Tom W writes: 'Ronald, Could you comment on the role that increased forest cover through planting and fire suppression has had on this epidemic?... 100% fire suppression. Warmer climate or not, we have been setting ourself up for this calamity for decades.'

    Think Ronald is gone so I'll answer this for you. You heard right. Except that we didn't plant this monoculture, it planted itself... when these pine forests burn all the seeds pop out of the cones... even if they've been sitting there for a long time under spruces. Before Smokey there were fires often enough to keep some (drier) areas open as grasslands, and at least burn patches to create multi-aged patchwork of pines - not the vast areas of even-aged mature pines we have/had that set us up for this huge epidemic. Our warmer winters allowed this to really spread quickly but without this endless beetle food supply warmer winters would barely matter.

    To prevent this in the future we need multi-species, multi-aged forests.
  40. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ronald Meister from 150 Mile House - I hear you Ronald. There was a lot of 'let nature take its course' thinking going on - which is completely ludicrous since we've not been letting it take its course for a long time. That thinking was born in national parks - in U.S. national parks in particular - but even there they are coming around to realizing that is a false premise. Goes back to the 60's and the flower children, etc. Not that I have anything against the flower children. They were just too idealistic and ill informed.

    And for park managers it couldn't be easier - a 'do nothing' policy.
  41. Ronald Meister from 150 Mile House BC, Canada writes: Much of central B.C. is mono-culture pine made more so by settlement patterns, fire suppression, and forest management practices. Forest encroachment onto range lands is primary by Douglas-fir with pine a secondary species. However these encroachment trees are not the most vigorous as they are off site and are thus susceptible to pests and drought. If the climate is warming and drying then the rangelands should be expanding.
  42. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ronald Meister from 150 Mile House BC writes "If the climate is warming and drying then the rangelands should be expanding"

    But aren't you ignoring the role of fire - both from lightning and, more importantly, from indigenous people. With warmer and drier conditions fires start easier and burn more. The scenario you describe would happen only very slowly if tree growth was only limited by climatic factors. So fire suppression is negating those impacts. No?
  43. lotusland maritimer from Canada writes: Finally a couple of people have got it right.The issue is not global warming nor pine beetle not even forest fires the issue is monoculture and succession. Indeed climate change insect pests and forest fires are all part of the ecosystem and are beneficial. Which is why they didnt do anything and they would have been right but for the monoculture and uniform age both unnatural unecological and a disaster waiting to happen. Thirty years ago I was in some high rises in Toronto when a horrid cloud of moths made visit of balconies disgusting. They turned out to be spruce budworm blown by the wind from New Brunswick. Same story old unmanaged uniform dense growth monocultures bred their own destruction in the form of myriads of spruce budworm. Same later in Nova Scotia. Both places spraying of course made the problem worse. BCs pine beetle deja vue all over again. The only solution is of course multispecies multiaged forests everywhere with supression of all monoculture stands. These healthy natural forests are nearly indestructible short of Tunguska event as any natural infestation climate change whatnot would of course wipe out only the susceptible age and species trees only leaving all other species unaffected. Monoculture is the issue not beetles or climate change nor forset fire. Another point is that foresters silviculturalists must think in decade and centuries not quarterly dividends of four yearly election cycles. I have a 9O year old forester patient who can barely move yet will plant trees this spring. I'll have to ask him that he isnt encouraging monoculture. Probably plants them here and there and many different species not only one and not in neat rows. And also not just evergreen fetish trees for the industry but deciduous as well. Thereby mimicking succession. Neither spruce budworm nor mountain pine beetle will eat poplars birches oaks beech maples alder ash cherry. Pines spruces firs hemlocks cedars will just have to wait a century.
  44. martha stewart from Canada writes: lotusland maritimer - The tricky part with lodgepole pine forests is they are 'natural' monocultures due to the way they are adapted to fire regimes, and in some areas they're often the only species that will thrive. The best we can hope for in some areas is multi-aged patches of them unless other species are planted - and that's not always practical.

    Out west (in the BC interior) we don't have the tree species diversity of your eastern forests.
  45. Non-Partisan and Objective thinking Canadian from Kamloops, Canada writes: We could mimic the large forest fires in some areas with massive clearcuts of the lodgepole pine when it reaches a suitable age - don't know how that would go over socially.

    liz bredberg - there is a beetle that attacks fir as well, just cause it has pitch tubes (and not resonosis), doesn't mean it is MPB.

    Martha - there was a documented case this last year of a successful brood of MPB out of spruce in the Prince George region.
  46. martha stewart from Canada writes: Non-Partisan writes: "We could mimic the large forest fires in some areas with massive clearcuts of the lodgepole pine when it reaches a suitable age - don't know how that would go over socially."

    That's what they did in the Flathead in the late 70s-80s to 'fix' it. But hardly anyone went there, saw it, and things were a little less 'sensitive' back then. On the bright side, it grew back into fantastically productive grizzly bear habitat... til that forest growing back shades out the bazillion berry bushes.

    "Martha - there was a documented case this last year of a successful brood of MPB out of spruce in the Prince George region."

    Now that's very interesting! I had heard that spruces were being attacked in the midst of that up there but did not hear about that step. I sure hope that was some kind of fluke event. Enough evolution already ;-)
  47. Katherine R from Canada writes: Nice posting, people. Finally a discussion board not filled with emotionally-charged buttheads!
  48. James C from Shenzhen, China writes: finally a thread with some common sense comments. who would have thought that pine trees and beatles could bring out the intelligence in people....
  49. George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes:
    Lotus maritimer; these are on the menu of the asian long horn beetle and emerald ash borer. So the wait could be less then a century.

    Neither spruce budworm nor mountain pine beetle will eat poplars birches oaks beech maples alder ash cherry. Pines spruces firs hemlocks cedars will just have to wait a century.
  50. Genevieve Chick from London, Canada writes: I agree that this is an issue of monoculture and succession, however, the problem became elevated to such a degree that further action should have been taken. If we can use prescribed burning to combat problems such as needle disease on longleaf pine seedlings, then why didn't forest managers try this approach to combat the pine beetle problem. I think that this would have been the best solution to the problem, because the pine beetles would, for the most part, be completely removed from the ecosystem, and most importantly, the ecosystem would have the chance to renew itself over time. Although there is always the risk that the fire could spread to adjacent forests and other ecosystems, good management could solve this problem. I think that the pine beetle problem was not taken seriously enough, and that with the right management, prescribed burning could have helped to preserve the B.C. forests before they got to their present devastating state.
  51. Imperial K from Toronto, Canada writes: Well a good warning to us humans, who will run out of all sorts of goodies in the years to come...
  52. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: If Martha had driven as I have, through the infested areas, she (he, it) would have seen that only the larger trees with the heavy bark on them have been killed. There are a very few very young trees on the perimeters of the forest, ie. roads that have been unaffected. Like the rest of her, his its postings, totally unfounded rubbish.
  53. Dave the Decider from Gatineau, Canada writes: Well I guess Stephen Harper doesn't have to come through with the rest of the $500M he promissed to fight the infestation during the last election. Maybe the outstanding $300M can go towards harvesting the fallen lumber.
  54. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: Don't worry about the beetles - they will find something else to eat.
  55. censured . from Canada writes: If Gawd Knows from Canada had actually driven through BC and talked to locals s/he might know that the beetle is developing an appetite for younger pine and other species. This disaster is not unprecedented but is a pretty good poster child for climate change. The blame for this crisis is probably best shared by both environmentalists and conservative sycophants...the environmentalists opposed early intervention which might have helped...and the sycophants just keep on denying there is such a thing as climate change and stymie every opportunity to address it....this situation is almost as depressing as a drive through the clearcut known as BC.
  56. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Is there anything more pathetic than a cold, starving dead beetle?
  57. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: What is it that makes the deniers gravitate to this forum? They are in the minority according to the polls. Do we have to wait until people get off work to get intelligent comment?
  58. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc.

    The only thing worse than a rabid right-wing, Christian fundamentalist evangelical denier is an environmental evangelical fundamentalist believer.

    At least the evangelical Christian has some notion of piety.
  59. Globe Insider subscriber content
    John Melnick from High River AB, Canada writes: It amazes me how "learned, published scientists" like David Suzuki can spin a story like this into AGW and supposedly intelligent people lap it up without question? And if polls of what people believe is cited as conclusive evidence for the difference between scientific fact and fiction ("They are in the minority according to the polls"), we are in huge trouble.
  60. Scott Wagstaff from Burnaby, Canada writes: But then, do you think the beatles will ever get back together again?
  61. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: What a surprise.

    Numerous forestry biologists consistently stated that forest fire suppression was the largest contributing factor to the pine beetle explosion. In other words, because their food supply was not being limited by natural means (i.e. fire) the infestation was worsened.

    And now, a balance is being re-struck, due to, of all things, a restriction in their food supplies. Hmmm.

    Another proud day for Global Warming fanatics.

    No problem. As per the Globe today, we have another GW catastrophe to worry about, a Montreal sized chunk of Antarctic ice shelf that is "hanging by a thread".

    But don't read too far into that article: in the originally posted version (which will probably be sanitized out), the article states that some parts of Antarctica are warming, while others are actually cooling .... This is of course unacceptable global warming journalism - never allow contracdictory evidence to be introduced into a sermon.

    Meanwhile for those of you who absolutely must have something to worry about, read today's GAM article (comments closed natch), about the radical Muslim "boy scouts" on trail for terrorism training. Now that is something to worry about!
  62. foo bar from Canada writes: The presence of lodgepole pine is an indicator of a "young" forest - it's usually the first tree to dominate, and the first to get culled. Spruces then take over for hundreds of years in the northern arboreal forest - until their density is so high that enough of the trees turn to kindling. Then boom, lightning strikes, the forest goes up in flames and the lodgepole pine takes over.

    Controlled burns of lodgepole pine is useless. That's because it simply starts new stands of lodgepole pines...
  63. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: Interesting comments here about the monocultures and such. Appreciate people taking the time to expand beyond the original article.
  64. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Sylvia Wilson from Canada writes: I live in the Carolinian forestry area of Ontario. Pines crowd out Oaks trees and believe there was a sustained attempt to limit the number of pines. Since Oaks do not seem susceptible to the Pine Beetle, might the Caolinian forest of Southwestern Ontario escape the destruction caused by the Pine Beetle?

  65. liz bredberg from vancouver, Canada writes: Thanks for your clarification, Non-Partisan and Objective thinking Canadian from Kamloops. I'm somewhat reassured, only I found these particular firs at the top of the ridge above Skihist Provincial Park, which you may know. They were therefore on the fringes of a completely dead stand of mixed lodgepole and ponderosa, so I assumed that this was just the bugs moving into the next available food. I know some people are saying that the lodgepole forest is just weeds, but the extent of deforestation is going to have other impacts than on the timber industry.

    Then again, does anything matter other than the bottom line dollar?

    Mr. Sharp from Victoria,

    I'd suggest the rabid right-wing, Christian fundamentalist evangelical denier makes a blasphemous sham of any real piety.

    Liz
  66. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Dave Kar from Vancouver, Canada writes: There was another article in the GM about a month ago that stated another reason similar to the one in this article as to why the populations would begin to decline. I believe that this article's explanations run together with the people who previously have written here regarding the 'eating of younger pine' and that the 'forest fire prevention' program likely had a role to play.

    The article's gist was essentially that because there were so many old pine trees around, it didn't matter how cold the temperature got during the winter because the bark on the trees is so thick that the beetles will likely survive (the cold just doesn't infiltrate the tree to affect the beetles). However, now that there will only be young pine left, these trees are both more resistant to the beetles (a little heartier) but their bark is so thin, that any remaining beetles hoping to survive winters under this bark will have a much more difficult time.

    Because forests have become 'managed', natural cycles like this pine beetle infestation become a little more exagerated, but in the end, nature does what it always has (and likely will continue to do even if there is Global Warming); it will find a balance.
  67. Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada asks: "Is there anything more pathetic than a cold, starving dead beetle?"

    If I were a judgemental sort, I could offer many suggestions as to what is more pathetic: things such as the public displays of narcissistic tendencies by certain posters, their saddening "need" for validation, dismissive attitudes...
  68. martha stewart from Canada writes: Sylvia Wilson writes: "I live in the Carolinian forestry area of Ontario. Pines crowd out Oaks trees and believe there was a sustained attempt to limit the number of pines. Since Oaks do not seem susceptible to the Pine Beetle, might the Caolinian forest of Southwestern Ontario escape the destruction caused by the Pine Beetle?"

    Completely. This pine beetle is adapted to western pine species. There are other insect species adapted to oaks. Apples and oranges.
  69. martha stewart from Canada writes: Gawd Knows writes: "If Martha had driven as I have, through the infested areas, she (he, it) would have seen that only the larger trees with the heavy bark on them have been killed. There are a very few very young trees on the perimeters of the forest, ie. roads that have been unaffected. Like the rest of her, his its postings, totally unfounded rubbish. (9:26 AM)

    Somebody did not read the posts they call "unfounded rubbish." If they had, they would have seen the explanation why beetles also attack younger/smaller trees when they reach these hyper-epidemic levels. And if they knew something about mountain pine beetle biology and ecology it would all make sense to them. But instead we just have ignorant insults.

    All I can say is that you can take the content of my posts to any professional forester, forest ecologist, entymologist, or even just go googling and compare them to what they and science knows about this. Facts are more interesting than fiction.
  70. Non-Partisan and Objective thinking Canadian from Kamloops, Canada writes: Gawd knows - you really haven't been outside of your vehicle if you have not seen MPB hit the smaller pine. I work all over the province in forestry with much of the work because of the MPB. I have seen pine hit that weren't even 2 meters tall. Martha actually has some knowledge on the subject and isn't a know it all from the car seat as you seem to be. In times where there isn't a severe outbreak like now, MPB tends to target mature pine with a breast height diameter of 25 cm or greater. With the MPB population at these current levels and theoretically the beetles flight distance of 5 km (although we have run into swarms at 5000 feet in a helicopter), these mass populations need to find food. When the larger trees are filled up and the beetles of that tree give off a pheromone that that tree is full, the remaining beetles move on to the next available food source, which is the smaller pine, and sometimes spruce. I've see it nearly every day at work. Gawd knows, before you call rubbish on another persons comment, please have an idea of what you are talking about.
  71. Non-Partisan and Objective thinking Canadian from Kamloops, Canada writes: foo bar - controlled burns aren't useless. There are regions where historically a succession of pine to spruce didn't occur because of the frequency of large forest fires. In these regions, it is human intervention that is causing the succession of pine to spruce, so prescribed burns would actually be a good management tool for these stands. But this leads me to think how this would effect any sort of carbon credit deal, tax, kyoto, or whatever comes about?
  72. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Jasper the Black Lab from Vancouver, I only like you because you're a Canucks fan.

    Other than that your vacuous, meaningless, tangential, disconnected, low-brow posts leave me as cold as a pine beetle nibbling his last.

    I like black labs, too.
    That helps.
  73. No Name from Vancouver, Canada writes: No matter what we do, Nature will take care of itself. We could nuke the planet and on an evolutionary scale it would be little more than a really bad cold. (Yes, species would be lost and that IS sad, but everything dies or changes in it's time...) This story goes to show that human notions of what's worth preserving (do we ever consider a "Best Before" date for Utopia?) often make us poor custodians, and we need to consider why we always choose to limit the potentially harmful impact humans have on the environment by imposing wider dominion over exotic ecologies we know little about: clearly, the wilderness only works if it's wild. What's there now is quickly becoming nothing more than a theme park of a wilderness. Yeah, the bears still maul, and the wolves still pack, and the cougars still freeze souls with that ungodly scream of theirs (the employees at Disneyland never come out of character as long as they wear their costumes too) but we shuffle them about in accordance with mortal sensibilities, calling in helicopters and men wielding high-powered rifles whenever Nature's image falters to one side or another, or flitting off to its furthest corners to rain the land with poisonous and fire-retardant materials as economically-driven policies from thousands of miles away have presciently dictated. Comforted by the scope of such powers (not, tellingly, by understanding their limitations) and the rugged, green terrain viewed from our climate-controlled people-movers, we allow the rest to be gang-raped off behind mountainous or subterranean partitions. Until we suspect that future generations won't get their turn in too (most of the time), we simply keep passing out permits and awarding contracts to amputate the vestigial and cull the vital -- it is THOSE artificial processes which we seek to conserve, not Nature itself. But in light of this story, what's certain? Only the natural order ever is, so what compels us Frankensteins to pervert it?
  74. Globe Insider subscriber content
    John Kitchen from Vancouver, Canada writes: It's great to see so many people talking about this important topic, and unfortunate that it's such a complex issue. There's three useful things I'd like to mention. Beetles do attack young trees and other species - THANKFULLY, it's not a very successful breeding strategy, because the bark is too thin, or the species not suited, for overwintering of larvae - damage yes, epidemic no. This helps the population to crash after the mature pine is all dead. The dominance of monoculture pine is largely natural. Pine comes back like hair on a dog's back after fire in much of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The best pines for MPB overwintering are 80 years and little operational tree-planting occurred in the Chilcotin until the 70s. The epidemic did not start in 1999. It started in the late 70s and was slowed by cold weather in Oct '84 and Nov '85 (hasn't happened since). BCMoF used to have an animated GIF on their website that showed it really well. To be fair, there was little scientific, environmental, silvicultural, or other concensus on what to do. What was needed then, and what is needed now, is some diversity in our approaches, to lessen the risk to our natural capital. Some left to natural. Some salvage logged for lumber. Some salvage logged for energy. Some left to regenerate on its own. Some replanted with a wider variety of species. Some planted with seedlots from further north or higher up the hill so they have a chance of adapting to future warmer temperatures. Some felled and piled to be sold over coming decades for future energy use. Leaving it all to natural leaves standing dead trees, which aren't too big a fire risk now, but eventually the wind will knock them down. Then we'll have the biggest bed of kindling that ever was. The result will be one of the biggest forest fires the planet has ever seen and a massive release of carbon dioxide. The public does not want that to happen.
  75. Sylvia Wood from Canada writes: Martha Stewart, I agree with 95% of your comments about why the pine beetle has taken off. But your comments about the Flathead and grizzly bears selecting cutblocks for berries from Pine-dominated stands is totally wrong. Two of your Forest Service colleagues published the (peer reviewed) bear habitat selection study in the Flathead, and cutblocks were avoided, whereas berry fields originating from fires 50-70 years ago were strongly selected. Check it out on google scholar: Habitats Selected by Grizzly Bears in a Multiple Use Landscape
    At least you can read the abstract if you can't get the full article from your library.
  76. martha stewart from Canada writes: Sylvia Wood - Sorry I oversimplified to make that brief comment. Those cutblocks will be (are now) used more as they grow up to provide better cover. (If you check the date on that paper and when the research was done that would clarify matters.) But some were so huge that they were not secure enough for them to use in the early stages. As it sounds like you know, grizzly bears like to stay near cover.

    But I'm not "totally wrong." The bears used the edges of the cutblocks near the forest cover. And that study, like all bear studies, and all bears, is not black-and-white.

    One thing that does cause problems is that radio-telemetry locations are not nearly accurate enough to determine locations quite so precisely. In fact the ones taken from aircraft are far more prone to significant error than researchers would like to admit.

    But quite the healthy grizzly population down there eh? They determined annual pop growth rates up to 8% at one point!
  77. martha stewart from Canada writes: Sylvia - One other point of clarification. When they went in there to cut the lodgepole pole, they cut a lot more than that - as was the way back then (and likely still now?). Sites where those pines grow are not always the best sites for berries, especially Vaccinium (huckleberries - the biggest best ones) though they're usually great for Shepherdia (the poorer staple of east slope/AB Rockies bears). The net result now is a vast area of diverse habitats and thus prime grizzly bear habitat.
  78. Scott Wagstaff from Burnaby, Canada writes: Send all the dead beatles to Heather Mills.
  79. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    If half the Beatles are dead, can there ever be a reunion?
  80. L Harder from Canada writes: Had a long post that didn't make it probably due to the time it took to type it and am quite annoyed. I'll try to summarize.

    1. The northern transrocky migration would be more difficult than a southern route. That combined with possible suitable habitat (forests), make this a significant event (possible geographic expansion of range with correlative support for global warming). Scientists are modeling risk to boreal forests in light of global warming. Hopefully there is some incompatibility between mpb and boreal pines.

    2. Time will tell about long term range expansion.

    3. Question 1a. Are pines in Canada's boreal forest at risk?

    4. Question 1b. What are implications for species selection (planting trees) in an environment of climatic uncertainty over the next 100 years?

    5. Managers tend to overestimate their effects in controlling bark beetle populations. Scientists are much more cynical and attribute nature much more in case of large scale infestation control. The literature probably supports the scientists.

    6. Doubt that "management" would have stopped this considering the size of bc and the large amount of old pine (for those enviro bashers). Statistically speaking any undetected starting point would have overwhelmed management efforts.

    7. Probably more that I've forgotten
  81. martha stewart from Canada writes: L Harder - The 'boreal pines' are jack pines, a close relative to the lodgepole pine. Anything's possible but some things are more likely than others. There have been similar or warmer periods in the past, and the MPB didn't jump to jack pine then as far as we know, so let's hope that never happens. There's more involved than just warm winters, like their stand characteristics, fire regime - and our fire suppression capabilities. Lots of big fires in the boreal and each one is 'beetle prevention.' Creates more of a multi-aged patchwork.

    Just considering the 'warmer winters' factor, that potential problem is more of a concern due north of BC in Yukon and into AK where the lodgepole pine's range extends.

    I think the real lesson here is biodiversity. Not all tree species or forest types are the same. Each insect species is adapted to a particular tree species or species group, and all forests are uniquely adapted to their particular environment. Extrapolation is usually wrong.
  82. martha stewart from Canada writes: L Harder - About 'management'... management effectively caused this epidemic - fire suppression. BC and west-central AB were/are really good at that. But that was the only acceptable thing to do for harvesting plans and public safety.

    And the only management that could have stopped it, or should I say reduced it, would have been to either log or burn those mature pine stands before the beetle got them. Not a lot of great options.

    Pardon me for going on but I find this to be a very fascinating story. Lots of information on the net these days. The process by which this beetle finds, 'attacks' and kills trees is a fascinating story in itself.
  83. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes: L Harder from Canada lists seven points.

    "7. Probably more that I've forgotten."
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm with him here.
  84. martha stewart from Canada writes: Michael Sharp - I thought this was one of your best lines yet. Got a real laugh.

    "Is there anything more pathetic than a cold, starving dead beetle?"
  85. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I have decided to withdraw from making comments to G&M stories, for several reasons.

    First is that they rarely enforce their guidelines concerning postings, letting libelous statements, obscenities, unsubstantiated allegations and offensive comments stay in spite of having been reported to an editor. The commentaries are a haven for foul-mouthed, slanderous, stupid and wilfully ignorant people, especially when it comes to discussions about science.

    Second is the technical problems. These have several flavours, many of which I reported months ago with no apparent solution in sight, in spite of a few telephone calls from G&M technical staff for more information. Most recently, well over 300 comments disappeared into the ether, evaporating hours of thought and composition by us. In addition, individual postings disappear mysteriously, without notice to the poster or they appear out of time sequence.

    This mechanism for commentary has not only amnesia but also dementia and symptoms of Alzheimers.

    I have contributed for months trying to stay objective in response to the idiocy frequently shown in G&M stories and people commenting here. No more. I'm gone.

    Please visit my website soon because I plan to provide a forum for rational discussion there. It will be fully moderated and I'll try to find moderators for differing points of view but no impersonation, slander or unsubstantiated allegations will be allowed. You will have to provide a valid email add