>even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habit

>even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat. This comment is not accurate with current industry practices, or frankly practices in the BC forest industry over last 30 years. The comment suggests that cut blocks are not re-planted? While this was the practice in up to the late '60s, things have changed. There was a massive investment (and resultant industry) focused on silviculture. Historic cut blocks were planted, and subsequently managed (brushed, thinned, fill planted) up to the the mid 90s. I would suggest that the historic backlog was significantly reduced by 1990. Today, it is at an equilibrium, with periodic deficits resulting from fire or the massive pine beetle infestation in the province. Cut blocks are not planted with a single species, but with a mix of species. Trees are grown from seeds taken from the same area and elevation as the areas harvested. I am not in the forest industry, however I paid for school and my student loans by planting trees (1988-1993). I am an engineer and earlier in my career I was heavily involved in habitat (aquatic and riparian) rehabilitation resulting from past forestry practices. They were horrific. The industry has adapted and continues to adapt. It ain't perfect, but to base an opinion on one side of a long standing heated debate -- as presented in the article -- is uninformed. As with most thing, the truth lies somewhere in between.