Old growth logging

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: tashi

Whelp, I applaud you all for putting the ecosystem over the people and being willing to say so. 

Many on your side like to try and have it both ways and it’s maddening to me.

I am not sure it is over the people though.  We have left these big decisions on our future together to the courts and leaders but I would bet the people are pretty united on this issue whether they are indigenous or not.

Well, to be clear, when I say the people I am referring to the Pacheedaht who are presumably being properly represented by their government, not the entire population of BC (or the world since this is a "global issue")

But we shall see, the next provincial election and Pacheedaht leadership change (do they do elections?) will be interesting.  

I don't doubt that much of BC is against losing these two hectares, but I'm also fairly certain that people on one side of the issue are FAR more vocal than those on the other.

If you're against losing these trees I recommend being very careful which groups you align yourselves with.  Divide and conquer works for the WCWC and Greenpease just as effectively as the CIA and they know it.  Indigenous division has repeatedly been exploited by outside groups to lend legitimacy to their cause.

On one hand resource extraction gives us all so much access to the forest and mtns.  On the other hand, modern practises have made large swaths of land and creatures uninhabitable and/or extinct. Also the old forests (100yrs+) whether 1st or 2nd growth(pre-modern industrialized logging) are the best areas to play in.  :/

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: tashi

I agree that it’s “wrong”.

I accept the things that I cannot control.

I respect the decisions made by other governments with regards to their lands. Accepting that this is not your land to make decisions about is part of adjusting to aboriginal self determination.

WRT the Japanese - it does matter where the criticism comes from. It’s one thing for a rich cracker like me to criticize the Japanese, it’s a different matter altogether for me to criticize fledgling aboriginal governments in Canada.

Agree to disagree.  I think a lot of people won't listen to a white dude with money these days, but our opinion is as valuable as anyone else's.  If we don't speak up now it can get much worse once it becomes the expectation, and in this case as Syncro pointed out you would have many allies within the First Nation communities, just not their governing body.  Some things are globally important.

All our shaming of the Japanese about whaling is precisely why they're still doing it. It doesn't make any money. It's purely a face thing at this point.

Some poking around yesterday led me to an organization I'd never heard of before called Resourceworks and an article they did on Fairy Creek. Reading through it much of the information looks factually correct and is presented in what seems to be a non-biased way. However there are a few things here and there that raise some suspicions WRT bias if one knows what to look for. In particular is the lack of attention paid to the old growth logging factor. The article seems more focused on refuting clear cutting within the watershed, which isn't really the issue that people are concerned about in regards to Fairy Creek. They also leave out significant info on the old growth issue. Looking at who they are, their board and advisory council seem filled with heavyweights of industry and politics, although the show is really run by one person. It looks like a slick and well put together operation - maybe too slick. While I felt the info presented was valuable, I also was left with the feeling that this is an industry sponsored operation that's looks to protect the interests of industry first. They  like to use data - which is good - but they use it in a way that the reader is left with the impression things are A-OK. It's easy to use factually correct data to support your preferred story when there is a lot of data available and it is presented in an ambiguous way - especially when the reader may not be knowledgeable enough to know the difference or the details. Your take may differ.

That said, I think their article is worth reading as it does provide a different perspective and helps to fill in some info that's being left out of other media sources. They also have a few other articles on logging and a report on foresty that was just released  which I might take the time to read, but a preliminary peruse leaves me with the same conclusion I stated above. A quick search on them shows a critique by the Narwahl (three-sheets will love that) and an organization called Corporate Mapping which I've never come across before. What I found most damming tho was an article by Rafe Mair, who exposed them as what he called "industry shills" when they put out material supporting the Woodfibre LNG porject in Squamish that Christy Clark and her government backed. Rafe Mair is well know for being a staunch advocate of environmental issues and is someone who's reporting and opinion I trust. 

Anyway, on to the links

https://www.resourceworks.com/fairycreek

https://thenarwhal.ca/resource-works-two-cheers-natural-resources/

https://www.corporatemapping.ca/profiles/resource-works/

https://commonsensecanadian.ca/lng-lobby-fakes-partnerships-with-prominent-organizations/

https://www.resourceworks.com/bigtree

Posted by: three-sheets

https://www.resourceworks.com/bigtree

Much of what's in that article was in the linked Tyee article in the opening post. I included the pic of that tree to give an idea of how big some old growth trees can be. It's definitely an attention grabbing pic, but as stated it's not related to Fairy Creek.

While the timber in these trees is definitely valuable, I think we've already taken more than enough old growth giants from the landscape. It's time to leave what's left alone. I think we can do better than to rid the landscape of the small amount of old growth that's left. I'm not against logging by any means and believe it's a sustainable industry that's important to this province, but I also feel that people who think we can continue to log these giant old growth trees can get stuffed. The good news is that the largest trees are protected against being cut and there's about 1500 trees around the province that are protected. The bad news is that there are only 1500 trees left that are protected.

I get the the industry is suffering, but they had a huge hand in their own pain. There's been a century of essentially unlimited cutting of the best trees from the most productive areas across this province - particularly on the South Coast and the Island. It's a limited resource that was treated like an unlimited resource and now they've fucked themselves because they logged the shit out of it. Too bad for the industry and too bad for the rest of us as well. All they need to do though is wait another 500 years and there'll be another bumper crop of trees ready to be pillaged from the landscape.

So how much is left compared to what we started with?

I've seen estimates of about 10% from back in 2012. I've spent a bit of time looking at more data from a few sources to put something together. Most of it came from this following report and I've edited the copied info a bit so that it's a bit easier to read on here. The info is from page 6 and 7 of the report, which turns out to be page 4 of the linked PDF.

https://veridianecological.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/bcs-old-growth-forest-report-web.pdf

Note: in the following info, site index refers to the height of dominant or codominant trees at age 50; it is used as a measure of site productivity and to estimate tree growth over time. For example, a site index class of 5 – 10 means tree seedlings will grow between 5 and 10m tall in 50 years across the range of sites included in the class; similarly, a site index of 20 – 25 means trees are expected to grow between 20 and 25m tall in 50 years.

Current old growth status

The old growth task force website shows a map of the old growth forest in BC — and says “Based on government’s working definition, old-growth forests comprise about 23% of forested areas, or about 13.2 million hectares”. We have written this report because old growth cannot be portrayed by a single number or map. Old forest comes in many forms.

Our analysis concludes the following:

1. The provincial total area of old forest (~13.2 million hectares) matches our total.

2. The vast majority of this forest (80%) consists of small trees:
- about 5.3 million hectares have site index 5 – 10m; another roughly 5.3 million hectares have a site index 10 – 15m
- small trees characterize many of BC’s natural old forest types, including black spruce bog forests in the northeast, subalpine forests at high elevation, and low productivity western redcedar forests on the outer coast.
- large areas of this old forest type remain because the trees are too small to be worth harvesting (under today’s prices).

3. In contrast, only a tiny proportion of BC’s remaining old forest (3%) supports large trees:
- about 380,000 hectares have a site index 20 – 25m, and only about 35,000 hectares of old forest have a site index greater than 25m.
- over 85% of productive forest sites have less than 30% of the amount of old expected naturally, and nearly half of these ecosystems have less than 1% of the old forest expected naturally. This current status puts biodiversity, ecological integrity and resilience at high risk today.
- Productive old forests are naturally rare in BC. Sites with the potential to grow very large trees cover less than 3% of the province. Old forests on these sites have dwindled considerably due to intense harvest so that only 2.7% of this 3% is currently old. These ecosystems are effectively the white rhino of old growth forests. They are almost extinguished and will not recover from logging.

So reading that, and taking in some other data, here's a summary.

94.5 million hectares is the size of BC
57.4 million hectares is the amount of forested land
13.2 million hectares is what's considered old growth area
2.8 million hectares supports large trees
0.415 million hectares support the largest trees
0.076 million hectares actually have old trees
0.035 million hectares have the really old large trees

So out of that 57.4 million hectares of total forested area, only about 35,000 or 0.06% currently have any large old growth trees. 35,000 hectares - that's all that's left. And in reality it's probably way less than that for the giants, maybe a few hundred hectares.

Let's put that into some perspective - trusting my math is good. If we go on the assumption that before European settlers came here and started logging that most (say 80%) of that 3% potential to grow large trees was covered in old trees (and records would seem to support that), that would mean we started with about 2.3 million hectares of prime old growth trees. There is now only about 35,000 hectares left. So in about 150 years, we've managed to cut down over 97% of the forest that took about a millennium to develop. It's shocking to realize just how much of it is gone, and even worse that there are nitwits out there wanting to take the last of it.

I've added a nice little before and after graphic of the result of logging on the Island and South Coast as well. The little blue dot on the after pic is basically where the Fairy Creek area is.

https://www.forest-monitor.com/en/old-growth-forests-vancouver-island/

^^^Sickening. Need to take away their chainsaws and teach them how to grow hemp.^^^

Photo taken at the Acoustic Wood sawmill on May 28. A massive log taken there this week will be made into 3,000 guitar soundboards.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/05/29/The-Log-Mystery-Continues/

They make boats out of hemp now. Why not a fucking guitar?

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: three-sheets

https://www.resourceworks.com/bigtree

Much of what's in that article was in the linked Tyee article in the opening post. I included the pic of that tree to give an idea of how big some old growth trees can be. It's definitely an attention grabbing pic, but as stated it's not related to Fairy Creek.

While the timber in these trees is definitely valuable, I think we've already taken more than enough old growth giants from the landscape. It's time to leave what's left alone. I think we can do better than to rid the landscape of the small amount of old growth that's left. I'm not against logging by any means and believe it's a sustainable industry that's important to this province, but I also feel that people who think we can continue to log these giant old growth trees can get stuffed. The good news is that the largest trees are protected against being cut and there's about 1500 trees around the province that are protected. The bad news is that there are only 1500 trees left that are protected.

I get the the industry is suffering, but they had a huge hand in their own pain. There's been a century of essentially unlimited cutting of the best trees from the most productive areas across this province - particularly on the South Coast and the Island. It's a limited resource that was treated like an unlimited resource and now they've fucked themselves because they logged the shit out of it. Too bad for the industry and too bad for the rest of us as well. All they need to do though is wait another 500 years and there'll be another bumper crop of trees ready to be pillaged from the landscape.

I have been pretty silent in both the threads on Canada's FN and this one, for reasons that for one I do not think that I am sort of "entitled" to an opinion. I have had my fair share of experiences, though - and your post makes me want to add my 2 cents, syncro.

At the end of the 90s I was a regular visitor to the no longer existing Fiddlehead Farm hostel in Powell River, the then two owners wanted to save the forest in their vincinity from logging and interested guests could participate in a meeting with the person from the Macmillan Bloedel mill responsible for that area, if I remember correctly. He was flewn in by heli, an assistant helped him get dressed for the weather.

In this moment I realised two things: One, that the two owners would not save the forest from clear cutting; and that a person with so much influence and power simply does not care about the opinion of a few weirdos, or even science - ecology, the detrimental and catastrophic effect of rain on unprotected soil, all the details were more or less known in the 90s, similar to Exxon and other companies knowing about the effect of CO2 emissions in the 70s. Same issue, different context.

So, the issue that has to change is the perspective, as we all know - the question is, how can the citizens of an area change the perspective of economics, or of an industrial branch? Similar things happen here in Germany, a forest ecology that has been screwed over for centuries is dying, with climate change (drier weather) adding its fair share.

Selective logging might be the answer, but what would be the effect of that? On a local, a provincial and a global scale?

And considering Fairy Creek and similar issues (think: pipelines) - would it be fair to say that FN who support such destructive models of economy and economics have literally lost a connection to their roots, in a quite literal sense of the word? Clear cutting and pipelines and raw materials extraction on a giant scale (think: tar sands) are linear, they are not sustainable nor cyclical, same goes for the farming of salmon. The perspective behind this modus operandi is not life supporting in the long run. 

I remember talking with quite a few FN and other indigenous groups throughout the years, and the divide between what can be called "moderate" and "traditional" is everywhere, even in northern Sweden with the Sami people and how raising caribou and extracting ressources causes rifts and issues in the communities. Is this a policially motivated thing? 

My Inner Devil's Advocate might even go as far as saying that the colonization, the exploitation of natural resources and the mistreatment of FN by the crown and its affiliates has not really stopped, it has just shifted and changed in the last century and decades.

Edit:

The difference is that a lot of people today understand the mechanics and effects of it all, in contrast to, say, 20 or 30 years ago. And similar to what the community of mtb riders has achieved in BC since the early days, I think that change can only be accomplished by relentlessly working on it on a global scale.

Public awareness, public pressure, education and knowledge along with work in the communities might be the only way forward since professional politicians have shown their inadequacy when it comes to working solutions, to put it bluntly.

And yes, quite a few out there just do not care. Which brings me back to the question whether it is possible to explain to a blind person what exactly the colour red is. Ignorance, among other attitudes, is learned behaviour.

Posted by: Mic

My Inner Devil's Advocate might even go as far as saying that the colonization, the exploitation of natural resources and the mistreatment of FN by the crown and its affiliates has not really stopped, it has just shifted and changed in the last century and decades.

It hasn't stopped but I think colonization is a symptom not the cause. Corporations taking the resources free of charge that rightfully belong to the people is now and always has been a problem literally everywhere on Earth. Even among the FN themselves there are entities with their own agenda willing to sacrifice the environment for either personal gain or short term gains for their community. The decision making process and the incentives are the same for the tribal leaders as they were for the Hudson Bay Company. Until we truly add the cost of externalities into the formula of capitalism the regular people will be ignored and their resources taken from them in the name of jobs when the real reason is obscene profits.

So the battle lines are really between the global corporate world and the billions of us on the outside of that sphere of plutocrats .

Really good.... 

There is one person who holds the key to this machine; one person who can turn it to a different purpose. That is the B.C. Premier John Horgan whose riding happens to include Fairy Creek.

Teal-Jones claims the trees it wants to log in Fairy Creek are worth $20 million. Buying them out, and compensating the Pacheedaht Nation for the revenue it will forego by leaving the old growth where it is, so that everyone can gather round the table and work this out without the sound of chainsaws in the background — this is such an obviously right first step, so easily affordable, that it should go without saying. Twenty-million dollars is the equivalent of five decent houses in Vancouver. The federal government’s latest budget earmarked $3.3 billion to preserve 25 per cent of Canada’s land base by 2025. B.C.’s share of that works out to at least $200 million. I am not the first to point this out*. Nor is this the only potential source of funding.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/06/01/Three-Days-Fairy-Creek-Theatre/

* https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/05/27/news/ottawa-dollars-bc-old-growth-forests-conservationists-blockades-Fairy-Creek

Posted by: chupacabra

Even among the FN themselves there are entities with their own agenda willing to sacrifice the environment for either personal gain or short term gains for their community. The decision making process and the incentives are the same for the tribal leaders as they were for the Hudson Bay Company. 

While I agree with most of your post, let's recognize where this behaviour you mention comes from. Before colonization, Indigenous people and their cultures were not capitalistic and what you describe is borne from the effects of the  colonization and genocide of Indigenous people. I know it's not your intent, but let's not let the examples that do exist tar an entire people or serve as some sort of rationale/excuse to dismiss the concerns they face.

Posted by: Mic

And considering Fairy Creek and similar issues (think: pipelines) - would it be fair to say that FN who support such destructive models of economy and economics have literally lost a connection to their roots, in a quite literal sense of the word? 

Yes, the loss of culture plays a huge factor in this and it is something that does not get a lot of attention.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

Even among the FN themselves there are entities with their own agenda willing to sacrifice the environment for either personal gain or short term gains for their community. The decision making process and the incentives are the same for the tribal leaders as they were for the Hudson Bay Company. 

While I agree with most of your post, let's recognize where this behaviour you mention comes from. Before colonization, Indigenous people and their cultures were not capitalistic and what you describe is borne from the effects of the  colonization and genocide of Indigenous people. I know it's not your intent, but let's not let the examples that do exist tar an entire people or serve as some sort of rationale/excuse to dismiss the concerns they face.

Taking scalps being a pretty obvious example, the residential school system being another.  Using a system of favoritism and elitism, along with violently and forcefully eradicating personal bonds and an understanding of a person's culture eventually leads to assimilation and cultural loss on a magnitude that for most non-indigenous people is hard to fathom, I think.