Management of White Pine Ecosystems in Ontario:
From Exploitative to Adaptive
by F. Wayne Bell

Within the past century, resource management in Ontario has evolved from focusing solely on timber, to featured species management, to sustainable ecosystem management, resulting in the need for new knowledge and management approaches. 

Adaptive management, or “learning by doing”, is considered a recent paradigm, initiated in the late 1970s. However, an evaluation of the history of eastern white pine and its management in Ontario illustrates that adaptive management has been evolving since at least 1878 when Algonquin Provincial Park was first proposed. This assertion is based largely on information gleaned from Ken Armson’s book, Ontario Forests: A Historical Perspective (2001), and other provincial historical documents, as summarized briefly below (with timeframes modified to reflect the development of Crown policies).

1000 BC-1650 AD: 
Palisades, longhouses, and rotational agriculture
Although fire played a significant role in the sustainability of white pine ecosystems throughout most of Ontario, the role of land clearing for agriculture cannot be overlooked. Sometime between 1000 BC and 500 AD, the practice of agriculture was introduced into southern Ontario, first with corn, followed by squash, beans, sunflowers, and tobacco. By 1200 AD agriculture was widespread.
By the time Champlain visited, Huronia (present area of north Simcoe County) was described as “well cleared”. Population estimates for Huronia ranged from 21,000-30,000 people and a village of 1,000 people required about 145 ha in crops to subsist. Villages established on well-drained soil were forced to move every 8-12 years by decreasing crop yields. Clearing new cropland involved cutting smaller trees for use in longhouses or palisades and girdling larger trees. Abandoned cultivated lands reverted to scrub vegetation and forests eventually reestablished. Since primarily coarser-textured, well-drained soils were used for crops, pine regeneration dominated.
During the mid-1600s, aboriginal populations were decimated by war and disease, and much of the former cultivated lands in southern Ontario reverted to forests. Evidence such as pollen analyses suggests that many of the “pristine” (as perceived by the early European settlers) pine forests were actually mature and over-mature forests that established on abandoned aboriginal agricultural lands.

1650 AD-1848 AD: 
Early European settlement and the square timber era
Deforestation by European settlers for agriculture and small sawmills was initiated post-1650. By 1824, approximately 20,235 ha were under cultivation. Settlers paid little attention to soil fertility and were forced to clear more land every 8-10 years - a pattern similar to that of aboriginal agriculture; however, “farmed-out” land would become rough pasture at best.
Land clearing activities were overshadowed by the exploitation of white pine to meet Britain’s demand for timber. In 1806, Napolean cut off Britain’s supply of timber from the Baltic countries and Britain turned to its colonies for wood. Ontario’s white pine were harvested, squared, and shipped to Britain to be used for shipbuilding. By 1830, timber trade from the Ottawa Valley dominated the Canadian economy. After 1850, British demand for square timber decreased, but the white pine resource had been greatly diminished.
During this period, legislation was passed that reserved all pine on both Crown and granted lands for the Crown. Unfortunately, no effective means of enforcing regulations about cutting pine or receiving payment were established nor were efforts made to protect or regenerate white pine. Even worse, in 1826 dues for white pine logs that could be squared were half those for logs that could not be squared, resulting in partial harvesting of the largest, straightest trees in pine stands.

1849-1994: 
Crown Timber Act
Passed in 1849, the Crown Timber Act set the framework for disposition of timber on Crown lands. This was followed by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, which provided free access for Canadian lumber to enter the US market. At the time, both federal and provincial governments wanted timber revenues and both issued cutting licenses, sometimes for overlapping areas. The Canadian Constitutional Act of 1867, which granted jurisdiction over natural resources to the provinces, ended the period of both federal and provincial governments granting harvest licenses.
In 1871, sustainability of the forest resource was questioned by the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. MacDonald. In a letter to the premier of Ontario he wrote, “We are recklessly destroying the timber of Canada and there is scarcely the possibility of replacing it.” This marked the beginning of public concern about resource management and possibly encouraged the establishment of parks and protected areas.
Proposed in 1878, the objectives of Algonquin Provincial Park were very forward looking, and could be considered the beginning of adaptive management in Ontario. It was obvious that Ontario’s natural resources could not be sustained under current practice and an alternative approach was required. The proposed objectives were quite radical for that time period:
• preserve the headwaters of the watersheds 
• preserve the native forest
• protect game and fur-bearing animals, fish, and birds
• provide an area for forestry experimentation
• serve as a health resort and pleasure ground for the benefit, advantage, and enjoyment of the people of the province
Pine harvesting peaked at approximately 4 M m3 in 1896, the year before the passing of the U.S. Dingley tariff, which placed prohibitive duties on manufactured products but not round wood. In 1898, Ontario retaliated with legislation requiring all pine logs cut from Crown lands to be manufactured in Canada, resulting in new sawmills and greater economic stability for Ontario’s northern communities.
By 1900, the need for forestry professionals was recognized and the Canadian Forestry Association (CFA) was founded. At a CFA meeting in 1906, Dr. J.F. Clark noted that Canadian foresters could learn much from European and American foresters, but “… in the end they must work out their own salvation by development of a system of Canadian forest conditions.” Dr. Clark also advocated a systematic means of inventorying the forest and a need for trained, practical foresters.
In the early years, reforestation was considered the foundation of forest management and Ontario opened a tree nursery in 1908 at St. Williams and two more in 1922 at Orono and Midhurst, but these initiatives came too late. Planting stock had been imported from the US and Europe. From 1904-1909 over a million white pine of German origin were imported, and with them came white pine blister rust. The disease, first documented in 1914, spread quickly throughout Ontario’s white pine. Various approaches were used to address the issue but effective control measures were not found. Exploiting natural resistance, long-term breeding programs with other pine species were initiated with some success.
By 1907, research efforts were deemed necessary and the first Canadian Faculty of Forestry was started at the University of Toronto. In 1918, Canada’s first forestry research station was established at Petawawa, Ontario, (now Petawawa Research Forest) to study the effects of logging, disease, and fire on forests. Also in 1918, Ontario’s first growth and yield plot was assessed, marking the beginning of the monitoring phase of adaptive management.
In 1917, the need to suppress forest fires to save lives, property, and timber was recognized and the Forest Fires Prevention Act was passed. Unfortunately, wildfires that had promoted natural white pine regenerations were extinguished and further complicated efforts to manage white pine.
Silviculture effectiveness monitoring (SEM) was initiated in the early 1900s. In 1927, under a new Forestry Act, the province established a Forestry Board for “the purpose of studying all questions dealing with the problems of making the forest industries of this province permanent by securing of continuous forest crops.” By 1939, reports of blister rust and weevil damage led to a recommendation that white pine not be planted in pure stands in eastern Ontario. In 1953, Dr. Hosie reviewed 58 regeneration studies that had been conducted from 1918 to 1951 and concluded that the methods used were not scientifically sound and that regeneration was not satisfactory. This led to more research and monitoring of regeneration efforts to determine why some plantations failed and others succeeded.
In 1954, the Crown Timber Act was amended to include measures to ensure regeneration and maintenance of cutover areas, following debates about natural regeneration and failure to enforce standards. During ensuing years, the act was further amended to include promoting and maintaining productivity, clarifying area charges, adjusting dues based on timber sale prices, and initiating agreements with licensees. All of these amendments were the result of learning by doing - expectations were not being met so the approaches were adjusted.
By 1960, sufficient information had been acquired to warrant publishing the first provincial guide to white and red pine ecology, silviculture, and management. Since then, several subsequent comprehensive silvicultural guides for the white and red pine working group have been published. These guides synthesized information from multiple sources and substantially reduced the need for trial-and-error silviculture.
In 1979, Forest Management Agreements (FMAs) were initiated and the forest industry in Ontario was given the task of integrating logging and silviculture. This ended a long debate between the province and forest industries about who was responsible for reforestation efforts. Timber management also included management of habitat of featured wildlife species.
The latter part of the 19th century was marked by the passing of forest tenure and licensing policies and the introduction of stumpage and ground rents. By the end of the 20th century, forest practices and the importance of forests were recognized and management plans were required by law. Learning by doing was standard practice.

1994 -2006: 
Crown Forest Sustainability Act
In 1987, international concerns about sustainability of global resources were being voiced. The Brundtland commission published its report Our Common Future and formally introduced the term “sustainable development”. In Ontario, management philosophy began to formally embrace an ecosystem approach. In 1994, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act (CFSA) replaced the Crown Timber Act following recommendations of the Class Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (EA).
By 1997, adaptive management was officially recognized in Ontario following the publication of numerous forest management guides related to topics ranging from wildlife to recreation. This marked the beginning of a period of more formal learning and policies could be treated as hypothesis in a passive manner. Active adaptive management has not been used to manage forest ecosystems in Ontario.
In 1998, a new silviculture guide was released for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence conifer forest in Ontario that reflects the principles outlined in the CFSA. Still in use today, it includes chapters on the importance of conifer forests to people, species ecology, tree quality, stand growth and yield, genetics, ecological foundations for silviculture, integrating timber and wildlife habitat, harvesting considerations, and management standards.
Not all of Ontario’s white pine is managed using the silviculture guide. Several other management approaches are applied throughout the range of white pine, which provides opportunities for learning and for which results can be contrasted in future years. For example, Algonguin Provincial Park continues to be managed as a multi-use area. The Petawawa Research Forest is managed exclusively for research purposes. Other parks and protected areas exclude harvesting and wildfires; however, some have begun to prescribe fire to renew pine stands. Private lands are managed diversely and are not subject to Crown rules, offering even more opportunities for learning but, after many decades, the Crown still reserves the right to white pine, providing this species a degree of protection not afforded other trees. Quebec’s zoning approach and recent ban of pesticides on Crown lands will provide additional, perhaps contrasting information to apply to Ontario’s pine management. In addition, resource managers in Ontario often look to the US and overseas for new information. 
In summary, evidence strongly suggests that adaptive management, or learning by doing, has been used in Ontario for the better part of the past century. To meet the intent of international agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Montreal Process, the Santiago Declaration, and the Kyoto Protocol, and to adjust to climate change, an active adaptive management approach will need to be used.

F. Wayne Bell is Forest Ecology Research Scientist, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. He can be reached at 705-946-7401 or wayne.bell@mnr.gov.on.ca.