No edit summary |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
=== | ===References=== | ||
Gregersen, H. et.al. People and Trees. Washington: World Bank, 1989. | Gregersen, H. et.al. People and Trees. Washington: World Bank, 1989. | ||
http://www.calredwood.org/pdf/CalPoly+Explainer+Bro.pdf | http://www.calredwood.org/pdf/CalPoly+Explainer+Bro.pdf | ||
http://sotsnf.org/pdf/Cal_Poly-Forest_Practices-2003.pdf | http://sotsnf.org/pdf/Cal_Poly-Forest_Practices-2003.pdf |
Revision as of 07:03, 25 September 2010
Introductions
FSC
Reference the FSC page.
fsc.org/pc
California logging regulations
A little background and a lot of current.
Comparison
Justifications
This is a brief explanation of why there were differences in the two when comparing them side by side. Emphasis is put on the issues that were different.
Licensing & Training
California requires a licensed Registered Professional Forester to make all management plans as well as licensing for the loggers. This is stricter than the FSC because they only use the term “qualified”, or have adequate training or supervision.
Sustained Yield This one is unique because they are almost equivalent if in California the land is greater than 50,000 acres, but if the landowners own less than 50,000 then the requirements don’t necessarily address as strict as FSC. So California gets .5 to FSC’s 1.
Site Preparation FSC and California both have requirements in regards to site preparation but California’s is more thorough.
Harvesting Practices California’s harvesting practices are more clear cut than the more broad and general FSC standards.
Intermediate Treatments California regulations actually have standards for thinning treatments.
Air California regulations cover air quality issues while the FSC does not mention air quality at all. Chemicals FSC has strict guidelines against the use of many chemicals, and has more intense guidelines than the states regulations.
Conclusions
It appears side by side when comparing which one exceeds the other in more areas that the California logging laws are more stringent. But when the number one principle, COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS then they would have to be applied together if the FSC standards were actually met, and thus better overall if the FSC standards were in California. But this would not be true if it was FSC certified in another place with less strict guidelines than in California.
References
Gregersen, H. et.al. People and Trees. Washington: World Bank, 1989.
http://www.calredwood.org/pdf/CalPoly+Explainer+Bro.pdf
http://sotsnf.org/pdf/Cal_Poly-Forest_Practices-2003.pdf
www.fire.ca.gov/rsrc-mgt_forestpractice.php
www.fscus.org