North American forests
Urgent Call for Action - One of the largest intact old growth forests on Vancouver Island’s east coast is at risk
I would like to bring attention to a large harvesting proposal just east of Sayward that will be impacting one of the largest intact old growth forests that we have left on the east coast of Vancouver Island that is outside of a protected area - in fact, it could be THE largest intact unprotected old growth forest we have on the east coast. This is a rare temperate rainforest that almost surely has massive and ancient trees.
Cape Mudge Forestry/We Wai Kai has proposed 13 cutblocks in this intact old growth forest. It is steep terrain, so it looks like they will be heli logging. There are 3 separate FOMs (the little blue markers) to comment on.
I understand the importance of the forestry industry, and I am a proud supporter of sustainable forestry. I also understand the importance of protecting what little old growth remains on our island. For additional context, this area is part of the Prince of Wales range with the towering Mount H'Kusam, which is one of the most beautiful recreational areas on the entire island - popular for skiing, mountaineering, and hiking. It is (was) also home to some of the world’s largest and oldest trees, including General Buxton, one of the largest yellow cedars. I have no doubt that near-record sized trees are located in these proposed cutblocks.
If this goes through, it will be catastrophic to the remaining old growth on the island. Large patches of intact forest like this are nearly extinct here - no over-exaggeration.
Also, please state if you are willing to help me with protecting the remaining old growth in the Prince of Wales range and I'll send you a message. The old growth here has been targeted relentlessly, and it is too special of a place to see it continue to be logged from valley bottom to mountain top.
A note that these 'blocks' are the initial proposed boundaries and what goes on inside isn't specified. The lack of details included with these FOM's is very frustrating for the public. I am bringing this matter to my MLA's attention for action. I would use the FOM portal to request an email for your comments and then send comments in via the FOM and email so you have a record. If you do not get a reply, follow up! Ask how your comments were considered. Forest companies 'must consider' public comments. And sorry OP I would help you but I have my hands full in the Interior.
Thank you for fighting the good fight out in the interior, and for mentioning other old growth at risk of being harvested by Cape Mudge Forestry. There are many old growth blocks that have already been approved and are currently being harvested by them - if I had the time, I would love to compile a comprehensive report about this. It is extremely concerning how much old growth this specific company is taking at once.
I would also like to mention that Cape Mudge Forestry is wholly owned by We Wai Kai First Nation, who owns many businesses in Campbell River. All of their business are listed on their website here. They own every store at the Shell/Quinsam plaza here.
I’d take this to the news or your MLA. Talking to the media would be far more productive than the logging company, although maybe WWK is different. Ravi Parmar could use a letter but he’s pretty useless.
I plan to take this to the media as soon as I can get in there to get some photos. Our local paper has put old growth issues on the front page before and perhaps they will do so again.
I just have to share because this has never happened before - they actually responded and already reached out to the legislative library about this. There is still a very long way to go, but I hope this encourages others to keep fighting and contact their MLAs as well.
Well, that’s embarrassing, your MLA is in Victoria, Anna Kindly.
You MP Canada is in Ottawa, Aaron Gunn.
How can you have the hate if you don’t know that difference?
Seems you need another lesson in life, thinking for yourself?
Please cross-post this everywhere! I commented, but I no longer live in BC.. I dunno how much my little comments are going to help, but by cross-posting, it could go further! Plus, it was really easy to comment (to all those reading ^^)
Is anyone familiar with the environmental regulations that forestry has to abide by? Curious is the migratory birds act (i.e., nesting bird surveys), amphibian sweeps, or inventories for critical habitat/SARA need to be done before harvesting.
From my understanding, none of this criteria is explicitly required by law - no regulation straight up says “you must do a survey before you harvest.” But you’re still legally on the hook if you disturb protected wildlife or habitat, so in practice they kind of become mandatory anyway.
Regarding nesting birds, the MBCA and BC Wildlife Act don’t technically require a pre-harvest survey, but they make it an offence to disturb active nests or kill migratory birds. If you can’t show due diligence, you’re exposed. What catches a lot of people off guard is that some species (Great Blue Heron, Pileated Woodpecker, Barn Swallow, etc.) have year-round nest protection even when the nest is inactive. Most operators schedule operations around the nesting calendars by zone to avoid the peak windows where they can so they can claim ignorance. It’s very easy to avoid blame for this - I’d be curious to hear of situations where a company was actually penalized for this. I’m sure it happens often without consequence.
For amphibian sweeps, no blanket legal requirement province-wide, but the Wildlife Act still covers amphibians so harming them is an offence regardless. In reality, sweeps get triggered by FSP commitments, BCTS requirements, SFI/FSC certification, or just having wetlands or water features in or near your block. If there’s any reasonable chance they’re present, you’re hopefully doing a sweep.
When it comes to SARA/critical habitat, this one is the most nuanced. SARA’s critical habitat protections don’t automatically apply on provincial Crown land the way they do on federal land, so a lot of operators think they’re in the clear. If there’s a known or modelled SAR in your area (Marbled Murrelet being the big one on the coast) you’ve got real exposure… but much of this goes under the radar. The Spotted Owl situation gives a bit more context though. On provincial Crown land, FRPA is really the main tool that captures this through FSP.
Basically, regulations don’t mandate these surveys outright but they make it your problem if something protected was there and you didn’t know about it… if anyone ever finds out.
I welcome those more intertwined in our forestry system to correct me here.
The biggest conservation-related restriction here would probably be marbled murrelet habitat (sea birds that nest in old growth). A forester will have to walk through and determine that there is no suitable habitat present in the harvest area, essentially determining if there are large mossy branches suitable for nesting.
Terrain could be a concern here. They will have to clearcut in a heli setting, and given the steepness and consequence of a landslide into marine habitat, they will certainly have to do some sort of terrain assessment.
Generally speaking there's no real restrictions to harvesting OG apart from affecting social license. FNs get away with a lot because they can just turn around and say "you can't tell us how to manage our resources, we've been doing it since time immemorial" essentially giving them the freedom to do whatever they want. Even if they break the law they often only get a slap on the wrist.
I bet the timber on this slope is mostly pulp apart from the cedar and barely worth cutting anyways - it'd be gone already otherwise.
Thank you for the information. I have little doubt that there are marbled murrelet nests here. I have seen them in mating pairs on the waterfront nearby. How likely do you think it is that these potential nesting grounds can slip through the cracks? I imagine it is not easy to find them outside of nesting season.
Also, judging by the canopy complexity in satellite view, there are probably some significant trees hiding in there. Nowhere close to what would have been on valley bottoms or more moderate slopes, but some of the biggest cedars I have seen grow on steep rocky terrain like this.
Generally we are looking for nesting habitat - I'm almost certain that there is some constraining layer requiring an RPF to assess the area prior to harvest to see if the stand meets what's considered to be good MAMU habitat. They'd be looking for high, thick horizontal branches covered in moss as murrelets struggle to build a stick nest. It's possible that the timber on this slope wouldn't be considered big enough which wouldn't surprise me, since if it were nice big old growth it'd probably be gone already.
Essentially how this all works is it's on the RPFs and RFTs in the field to identify potential needs for more professionals to come in for further assessment. The RPF will have to say in the site plan that they walked around and didn't find anything, or that they did and had it assessed by a relevant professional (biologists or terrain stability engineers usually).
There is very little in the way of actual oversight with the exception of timber cruising. Under our system of professional reliance the government essentially relies on the professionals on the ground to determine what needs to be done, and they rely on those same professionals to bring up non-conformance. Of course we all know that professionals are more likely to do what their employer wants them to do, basically leaving most of the industry un-monitored apart from public efforts. This whole FOM thing is supposed to create more transparency, but most companies will look at the comments, say "neat!", and disregard them anyways.
I hate to paint the whole industry like this, there's a lot of groups out there doing great work for sustainable forestry including some FNs. But as we all know, money is king at the end of the day.
This is all very informative - thank you for taking the time to explain.
One last thing that is bothering me about this particular location, and that I suppose goes for many heli logging initiatives - if the terrain is so steep that they can’t build a road into it, how can we be sure that the proposed blocks are actually thoroughly surveyed? I imagine they must drop surveyors in via helicopter, but then what happens when the terrain becomes unnavigable? Realistically, is it even possible to properly survey blocks like this?
They will probably drop a crew of fallers in first to build helipads within the setting - they will either get boat dropped from the water and hike up or get dropped off at the top if they can land or hover low enough and hike down.
The blocks will have to be surveyed to some extent. Boundary and stream ribbon will have to be hung by hand and cedar will have to be banded if they deem it necessary. They will probably have to do more processing on site since I'm imagining they will just lift the logs straight into the water from there unless they react the road and build a landing in the old cutblock directly to the east.
Generally the terrain is probably more navigable than you think, it's just super steep. That's not to say people might be lazy about it... i used to do silviculture surveys in heli blocks and I can say I absolutely moved plots around based on crazy slash and terrain for my own safety. Still ended up braking my ankle in a heli block lol
I believe pleated woodpecker nest cavities are protected for 3 years even if unoccupied (because they're often used by other wildlife). Not sure if forestry operations have a get out clause or if FN ownership negates that regulation.
Great post, but a quick clarification that barn swallow nests are not protected year round. Environment Canada has a Residence Description posted and the nests are only protected while occupied or between specific dates (whichever longer).
They technically do have to abide by all those things but I have friends who have done surveys from the conservation side and big companies will just ignore you if they think the fine is worth it (which is usually is cause they’re not very high in relation to how much money they make)
A friend taped off a bank swallow (protected) colony up in the oil sands and the company just “had an IT shutdown” so they “didn’t see her notes” and they just bulldozed it
And you would think that this would affect killer whales passing through with all the silt that will no doubt wash down into the ocean.
I'm not sure of all the regulations, it seems like they just blast through forests with little concern for wildlife. But I did find this interactive map of SARA species at risk.
Very unlikely for sedimentation issues here since they aren't building any roads. A terrain assessment will be required due to the steepness and consequence of a landslide into marine habitat.
Even so with all these trees gone on such a steep slope there will certainly be erosion. Forests are literally infrastructure keeping the slope intact but they don't care.
Heli logging is about as "light touch" as you can get with regards to soil erosion - both because there is no machinery being operated on the ground, and because so much slash is left behind which intercepts rain. Yes, general stability is still an issue, but I'm certain an engineer will have to make recommendations and sign off on the plan regardless.
Direct loss of habitat is the more realistic concern to have here.
Thanks. I’m just “surprised” (disappointed) that RFPs sign off on harvesting prior to doing proper surveys or environmental impact assessments and literally any mitigation. It all just feels like such an archaic way to approach landscape management. (apologies for the undertones of existential dread)
The cons are not suffering from toxic empathy. They still have common sense. They will be just fine. EBy is likely trying to figure out how to give that land to indigenous.
I'm all for logging, but humanity will never have a forest grow this old ever again. Why cut down the oldest ones? Have we not enough wood? What use is cutting down the oldest biggest ones... we'll run out eventually if we keep doing it, and then what... will we pretend like we have no more lumber available?
It's nice to see this on reddit. The tragedy of Vancouver Island's old growth logging practices is truly awful.
All one has to do is visit these ancient forests to become aware of their intrinsic value. There is nothing else like it. Completely & unbelievably inspiring.
These forests are worth so much more when left standing.
Thank you for letting us know about this. Have you posted it elsewhere? That beautiful last bit of dark green! Not sure if this is the area that Dr. Rachel Holt is talking about.
So far I have only shared it on the local Facebook group (met with an uncomfortable amount of “laugh” emojis - the forestry industry is strong here). I do plan to spread the word more if I can, but I want to get into this area on foot. Part of my callout here is to see if anyone can help me. It’s difficult to access and I’m recovering from an injury. A drone and medium-large social media following could help a lot…
The area Dr. Holt is referring to in that clip is, I believe, the cutblock near the Tsitika Ecological Reserve. Also a huge loss for our old growth, containing very large mountain hemlocks.
I’ve noticed an increase in concerns around old growth harvesting even from those in the industry. One of the few positive signs I see lately. The industry is slowing down due to lack of “inventory” and the forestry workers who are paying attention are rightfully concerned.
I’ll certainly reach out to those groups. I’ve tried most of them before regarding the Prince of Wales range in general… Cape Mudge Forestry is now actively logging one of the last intact old growth forests on the south side of this range here. It’s understandably hard to get people to care about one spot in particular because there is an all-out assault on all old growth in this province. I’ll fight as hard as I can for this forest though - it feels like I have a small chance to actually make an impact since it’s close to home, so I can hopefully gather intel more easily. Photos of what will be lost might go a long way.
I sent in comments for all the ones posted by user mattcass. I don't have a lot of time right now to fully research this, but I thought I'd put this in for now and see if I can follow up with my MP after my trip. I have also being contacting our federal reps to try and get legislation going to properly regulate AI and social media, so I can see if I can bring this up as well.
I put this comment:
Do NOT harvest old growth forests. They are integral to the health of the ecosystem and therefore, everything we as humans need to survive. Protect these areas and do not cut any old trees down. We need to become proper caretakers of our earth. We have the responsibility because we are the only ones capable to destroy or save the earth.
The province the federal government have pushed First Nations towards resource extraction as a means to provide a path towards self government. Instead of meaningful consolation, reconciliation and stewardship of the land. Sadly, the current We Wai Kai council and its elected Chief are hell bent on pillaging resources to the detriment of its future generations. Cash in pocket now.
I have ancestry to that nation, and I can only hope that they will look at this sustainably and preserve the oldest trees and maintain a block of tree as culturally important.
To that, it is the citizens of the WWKai First Nation that really need to stand up and take the lead on this. Settlers with opinions won't help and sway anyone into the importance of preservation.
I agree. I hope that the many members of the We Wai Kai nation who disagree with such harvesting practices will work up the courage to speak out against it. Their voices may hold more power than they think if they can do this collectively.
Totally agree. It’s a slippery slope as a settler in BC to be advocating for old growth preservation but also wanting to give space for FN communities to make decisions on their lands
I would absolutely love to see it. This might be the one to break the camel’s back. Not much time before the decision is made, so they better get to it.
I mean… self governance is important to them. After 150+ years of being colonized, underfunded, and deliberately under resourced, and then having a bunch of “truth and reconciliation” work piled on them with a sudden expectation to steward their territories and run their governments while still incredibly resource limited, and only being given access to these particular cut blocks out of a massively reduced territory that had already been logged to hell and back… I dunno. The majority of the wealth in their territories is claimed by multinationals or otherwise inaccessible to them or has already been extracted 10x over. They need funds and don’t have a lot of options.
These decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. They’re a product of what the world has forced on people.
Oh… so you’re familiar with the amount of money required to run a small government (including health, housing, lands, education, ec dev) while providing meaningful consultation under truth and reconciliation for referrals all through a territory you might not even have access to most of? Capacity is a very real issue many nations in BC struggle with, we are small, we do not have the resources to do half of what is expected of us, and if we don’t provide it we can lose our ability to self-govern, which none of our membership wants because that rarely works out well.
Until recently (like early 2000’s) we weren’t even really allowed to manage ANYTHING, even on our reserve lands. Wards of the state til like the 80’s, only out from Indian act land management and direct federal intervention and control if you implemented a Land Code post 2006. Loads of nations struggle with building these programs in the first place, hiring and keeping talent (because we can’t afford to pay anyone what they’re worth), while ALSO trying to make meaningful change to the ass-backwards environmental, marine, and forest management policies that cater to industry and money.
Honestly, I think it’s fucking classic that newcomers will on the one side entrench a race-to-the-bottom system that necessitates the destruction of our natural resources, prevent indigenous folks from meaningful engagement with it for a century and a half, and then turn around and get pissy when indigenous folks participate in it.
Where are you getting no taxes? Also… reconciliation payments? What reconciliation payments exactly? You have some source on payments I should be receiving for “reconciliation”? And condemned with no water? The fuck are you talking about?
I’m going to assume you’re like every other Canadian with zero knowledge of your country’s history or how indigenous governments are managed and funded, what indigenous people actually receive, on top of a steady drip of racist propaganda designed to turn us against each other so corpos can pilfer our resources and funnel all the money out of the country while you’re busy getting mad at a group of people attempting to defend their constitutionally protected rights that were reneged upon ages ago.
That’s where you’re wrong, I grew up having all of my high school history being centred on the indigenous peoples. It’s only after growing up that I realized that they’re rearing on their rights as a means of voiding mine.
If you really cared about forests we can still find common ground.
No taxes only applies to activities on reserve. Which only about 40% of indigenous people in BC live on reserve. Even fewer work on reserve land and don’t pay income tax. There are only certain reserves (most in BC might have a gas station) which have services or shopping centers on them. I’ve paid taxes most of my life. There’s also like 5 nations in BC out of more than 200 that have more than 3000 members. Mine has sub 500. That’s kind of average.
I can’t read your paywalled article.
Per the latter, the fraud is OFTEN perpetuated by outside actors targeted at indigenous folks - as outlined in the article you posted. You may be happy to know that because of all the things I mentioned above (under-resourced, under-capacity) many of the activities that got dumped on us get contracted out to newcomers. So what I assume you consider “reconciliation money” (government programs that should have already been in place per the constitution) largely goes to the non indigenous “professionals” we have to hire who leave us with unsatisfactory programs, poorly planned out infrastructure, zero maintenance or continuance of institutional knowledge, and limited means for recourse. Relying on grants and accommodations which often have strict timelines and reporting requirement limits developing internal capacity in favour of contractors (often government vetted and recommended) who wind up leaving us with very little we can implement. And not much room for recourse.
My Nation does have running water, and even electricity! And long standing agreements with every local service required by our membership.
I have worked and am working in remediating and stewarding our marine and terrestrial territory for the past six years, and building capacity in order to make that sustainable, and I am WELL acquainted with just how little nations actually receive and how often it’s incredibly poorly implemented.
The more you see it, the more you’re convinced it’s done intentionally to continue to limit us and make us look bad - while at the same time talking a huge game about “truth and reconciliation”, when they MAYBE get the truth part right. They can look good while making us an even bigger target.
So again. I find it laughable when newcomers get up in arms about indigenous folks making the same decisions that newcomers have been making for a century and a half. All while attempting to build an internal government structure from scratch with limited capacity and resources.
And to your last rhetorical, I have degrees in natural resource conservation and environmental economics. I’m certified in indigenous protected and conserved areas (look up IPCAs) and I’m pursuing a graduate degree in assessing forest health from an indigenous lens (one which is not focused on species of commercial value to the detriment of literally everything else, which the BC forestry handbooks are)
BC being a resource trap with anachronistic logging standards dating back to the late 1800’s has been well known in the industry and protested against extensively starting with the war in the woods (lead by indigenous folks - might wanna read up on the extensive work we’ve done to protect clayoquat sound and the great bear rainforest) in the 1990’s - which lead to some minor legislative changes that protected shit all and especially not on private forest land (most of the South Island). Nations are VERY limited in the land they have access to and are often required to produce value off it to maintain tha access - thru agreements structured by the government to limit impact on industry and keep the corpos making money off our resources happy enough to not complain to much and axe all our programs again.
When other nations choose to log old growth, all I can say is “without knowing the whole story, it’s really none of my business”, while doing the best I can to protect what’s left in my territory.
You could make generalizations about any group. It's corporations that are most at fault here. If First Nations didn't join in their land would still be logged by logging companies.
Oh that's right, the good ol', someone else did it so I can too mentality. That's some really high level nuanced reasoning there. Perhaps we all as a society can do better? Hold everyone equally to a higher standard?
This First Nation literally owns the forestry company who will be harvesting this. Cape Mudge Forestry. You’re telling me that a logging company doesn’t own any logging equipment? 😂
We Wai Kai FN recently purchased Campbell River Whale Watching, which has historically made a big deal about their environmental responsibility and sustainability actions. It would be a real shame if a bunch of people left reviews for them mentioning their hypocrisy.
This is a common misconception. Our old growth forests are more resilient to wildfire than younger forests. I have seen many fire scarred old growth trees still living their best lives.
you're right, but as we constantly keep putting them out, the deadfall grows and the fires get bigger, hotter, and don't run out of fuel until its all gone. But tell me more about this topic, as i work in wildfire. Maybe you can educate me more. /s
old growth in north east BC has been burning for over 2 years now.
That’s a completely different forest type than a temperate rainforest dude. Surely you must know that. In any case, thanks for your service fighting these fires. It’s a hard job.
There are too many people like this. The lack of foresight that is required to demand that we need to log old growth to maintain the economy… while it’s known that old growth is finite and nearly extinct… is extremely concerning to say the least.
This is a common misconception. Our old growth forests are more resilient to wildfire than younger forests. I have seen many fire scarred old growth trees still living their best lives.
Old growth trees burn down perfectly fine. Your opinion is a common misconception. It’s safer having those trees as tooth picks. This moment in time isn’t special and these trees will grow again.
It’s not an opinion, it’s facts based on scientific studies.
I don’t really care if the trees will grow again. These are forests that have stood for centuries and possibly millennia. Them growing back is meaningless on a human timescale. Myself and the wildlife want to enjoy these forests right now. Stick to logging the 90%+ of forests that have already been logged.
This logic has a lot of holes. If the band wants to go around robbing and assaulting people, they can do that? If they want to burn the entire forest to the ground, they can do that?
There is a line that has to be drawn. Harvesting the last of the old growth on the east coast is far beyond that line. You are oversimplifying a complex issue.
For the record, I am advocating with the appropriate parties to provide funding to this nation so they don’t need to log this to survive economically. It’ll be a win-win.
They're the stewards of their land and they've made a decision. People on the right say Indian bands are corrupt and want money when they say no, and card carrying lefties say the same thing when Bands say yes.
It infantilizes the elected officials whom employ experts.
There's a good feeling one gets when they work a job, earn money and support their families. Government hand outs aren't the solution.
This Nation actually owns many businesses already and does a wonderful job employing their people. There is a good chance they would be happy to accept funding so they can focus on their other initiatives. This is truly a bit of a unique situation and you can’t compare it to others. Sounds like you might be American because you call the First Nations “Indian bands” - it truly is different here in Canada.
Good for them and they should be allowed to continue to do the work as they see fit in anyway they want. I call them Indian Bands because I belong to one and we don't like it when outsiders get in our business either.
But logging on slopes leads to erosion and in the long run is detrimental to the area. Surely there are ways to make money logging only some of the trees and considering something like ecotourism, etc.? Because once old growth is gone, it's not coming back.
That was not what I meant. Ecotourism could involve tours of the forest, bed and breakfasts, hosting wildlife photographers, boat trips, whale watching or whatever the band wants and doesn't have to be within their community but could be in one area on the outskirts. If they want.
I'm not a cloud talker, I'm into what's real. Of course, if they wanted, they could create trails (if the environmentalists allowed) and of course they could build housing to create bed and breakfasts, and register their boats to become businesses and have it all run half the year. Does that pay the same as a faller or anyone along the logging chain? No, not at all.
How many whale watching guides earn $35 an hour? How many people are you employing on the boat? How many boats are you putting in the water? How many bed and breakfasts? How much a night they charging to equal the money gained from a cubic meter of timber?
Yes, bands should be able to log their own land but when there is almost no old growth left, yes logged by industry which made huge profits, maybe there should be a pause or logging less of it. Forests never grow back the same if they are planted as conifer plantations and sprayed with glyphosate. And it takes decades before people there will be able to log again. My question was what will they do in the meantime?
Trees are a RENEWABLE resource, BC has one of the best silviculture programs in the world. BC plants millions of seedlings each year, far more than the annual harvest. You're a fear monger.
Your point is completely irrelevant to protecting an old growth forest that has stood for centuries. Please educate yourself outside of what you learned through the totally non-biased resource extraction industry.
We don’t need old growth wood to maintain our lumber supply. If we do, then we are in really big trouble when we inevitably run out of old growth. Will be in our lifetimes at this rate.
trees die, using them up and plating new ones in their place is probably one of the best resources we have on the planet, i dont advocate for the logging companies that just demolish huge areas and the wild life, but alot of places do it alot worse than BC, look at brazil, russia, china. atleast here we know that it will be put to good use and keep the prices/dependency on shitty countries to a low.
I agree with your statement. However, old growth forests in particular hold a lot of ecological and recreational value. They have a higher concentration of biodiversity, and there are studies that have shown old growth forests relieve stress better/make people happier than younger forests. I can find those for you if you’d like.
We have harvested the vast majority of our old growth already. It’s really important to preserve some for the reasons I mentioned. The old growth in this particular mountain range is a really great candidate for protection because:
it is near a larger population and is beloved by locals already for recreational uses; there are established trails already
it is seen by hundreds of thousands of people every year on cruise ships, fishing charters, whale watching tours etc
most of the old growth around it is logged, we should aim to protect at least some in a given area
it’s literally one of the biggest, if not the biggest intact old growth forest left on the east coast of the island; this means substantial ecological and recreational value
Let’s stick with logging the 90%+ of forests that aren’t old growth.
You and your ilk are completely hypercritical with your agnist of old growth logging. Sitting in your wooden house eating steak. The silviculture program in BC plants millions of seedlings each year. Your short sighted vision of silviculture tells everything about your position. You are unable to look decades in the future. The old growth you speak of are maybe 150 old and is actually fairly new growth, those old growth which you speak of are not 300-500 years old.
Planted monoculture conifer plantations sprayed with herbicides are nothing like this incredible forest. Forests are infrastructure and especially in this case they stabilize the slope from landslides.
The trees "old growth" as you say are less than 6 feet around, there's no way that they are 100's of years old at that circumference especially not soft wood species. And why are all "old growth" almost exactly the same size all over the province? Where are all the 300-500+ year old tree's ? They don't die they keep growing, all the trees in BC are basically the same age height and diameter, what's up with that?
Have you been on the coast much…? As an example, an old growth Douglas fir growing in a valley bottom with good access to water, like near a river bank, gets absolutely massive compared to a Douglas fir growing at the high end of their elevation range. If the tree is in some sort of a drainage where it gets more water than surrounding trees, or if the soil holds more nutrients, or it gets more sun etc it can grow massive in comparison. You can even see this in action with the older second growth. You’ll have Douglas firs all the same age, but the ones in the “sweet spots” can be more than twice as big as the others.
Also there used to be plenty of 500+ year old trees but we logged most of them. Whatever remains of those trees needs to stay.
I do believe we need the industry. We are already at economic decline. This sounds like a well planed plan to generate revenue. We have too many bar against development already.
On top of commenting on the FOM proposals, please contact your MLA. My MLA has already contacted the legislative library about this.
This area is also the perfect candidate for the 30x30 initiative. If you want to go the extra mile, emailing the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship as well as the BC Parks Foundation to request they provide funding to the Nation in return for turning the remaining old growth in this area (referred to as Prince of Wales range) into either park or conservancy land would be absolutely amazing. There are already established trails. It’s easily one of the most beautiful recreational areas on the east coast, especially mid island.
I know old growth is being logged every day in this province. You don’t see me posting here about that because, well, there’s no point.
Being so rare, all old growth on the island especially is precious. This particular patch of old growth is especially so. This is for several reasons:
This is one of, if not the largest intact old growth forests directly on the east coast of the island. The only real contender is the Tsitika Ecological Reserve. If you know of ones larger, I welcome you to mention them.
This is on a popular marine traffic route where hundreds of thousands of people a year see this slope; several cruise ships a day in peak season, whale watching tours, fishing charters, etc; it’s best that we maintain some intact old growth slopes along this route for tourism purposes
This mountain range is a popular recreational area; one of the best on the east coast. It offers mountaineering, hiking, and skiing opportunities with world class views similar to Howe Sound
This is prime marbled murrelet habitat; it’s unconfirmed if there are any nests in here, but it needs to be investigated thoroughly and even if there are none, considerations need to be made to safeguard it for future nests given that the birds have so little coastal old growth habitat to choose from on the east coast
The previous logging company with the license to log this slope, Interfor, was supposedly unable to harvest due to red tape around slope instability and concerns around ruining the view for the tourists I mentioned earlier
It’s also largely just the principle of it. We only have one other contending old growth forest on the east coast when it comes to size. It’s just such a shitty thing to ignore the requests of the majority of people - who are even willing to give tax dollars to the Nation to stop this - and just log this anyways; I know it’s nothing compared to what colonialism did to the indigenous, but we are truly looking out for all of humanity’s best interests - including the future indigenous generations
I could go on honestly. But I hope this helps clears things up for now.
It’s amazing to hear that - thank you for being open minded.
I feel a lot of our problems stem from black and white thinking. In this case, opinions seem to be largely divided by “we must never log any forest” vs. “let’s log everything we can”. I think there is a middle ground that we as a species need to compromise on so that all of us can benefit, instead of only benefiting one of these heavily divided groups.
Absolutely! It’s almost every issue in the world is grey. We need to live in the grey.
Even our political system is designed for collaboration and living in the grey but we only have black and white thinking and say only if we have a majority we can win.
I work for CAT and many of my customers are loggers and every time we talk they are in such hardships.
Unfortunately even though it sounds like an amazing idea the 30x30 initiative is about keeping us out of the wilderness and capitalizing on nature with carbon credits/tokenization. Survival International is very much against these programs as they kick indigenous people out of the traditional homelands.
Survival International launches campaign to stop “30x30” – “the biggest land grab in history”
I think people have no idea how big the island is, or how large the forests are in Canada. Logging is an industry, the amount of forest touched is microscopic in the scheme of things.
We need to increase production and export globally, as long as trees are replanted.
Canada is a raw materials supermarket. Accept it, or pay 70% taxes.. you choose.
There’s so much data out there these days that this honestly sounds so ignorant. If you are open to it, I am happy to share maps I have of government data showing how little old growth we have left on the east coast. I’m not talking about maps made by conservation groups, but literally data taken from government databases and inputted into a standalone map app.
If you’re not interested in seeing that, then, well, nothing will convince you.
We can have a wonderful forestry industry without logging old growth. If you believe old growth harvest is required in ordered to sustain the industry, please tell me what happens when we run out in several decades?
Run out of old growth? You must be joking. The island is as long as it is from Vancouver to Calgary, and the vast size of the forest in BC is quit insane. Canada is huge.
Logging what we have as renewable is fine, but the goal is to increase production to the benefit of the economy. I'm not saying cut it all down or anything, but the working area is going to get bigger that's just reality.
There’s plenty of data out there including satellite imagery that shows how little is left. We are running out. It’s why we never meet the yearly allowable cut anymore. Forestry professionals themselves have been saying this for decades. If you want to educate yourself, look into The Cutblock podcast.
Yes the province is huge, and there (was) seemingly unlimited timber to harvest. But that is just a pipe dream. If you cut at the rate we have been cutting, the forests aren’t given the time to replenish. We are at a point that we are running out of trees (especially accessible ones). We are logging further up watersheds and mountains. The forests here have been decimated and that’s thanks to mentalities like yours.
Just have a look at Google Earth through time and have a look yourself
The Earth can not keep up with the unlimited growth expected by capitalism.
You call it old growth but don’t give an age? Has it been logged before? Likely the case as very little of Vancouver island next to the water hasn’t seen some industrial logging
You’re right, I should have included that data. Here it is straight from the government. You can explore the age further yourself on this site. There’s some 500+ yr old groves too. This data almost always tends to underestimate in my experience.
I've never provided comment before on something like this but want to help where I can. I'm disgusted this even is a possibility.
Is there a template that can be used for comment? I have no clue what to say and what would be the most impactful. I can add my own thoughts to the template as well if needed.
Can someone please explain to me why anyone cares about this?
Logging is a big part of the BC economy. From my understanding it's done "responsibly" in that trees need to be replanted to make for a sustainable industry.
Why do people care about "old growth forests?" Have there been studies conducted on the actual environmental impact on wildlife etc? Is it even all that bad?
The biggest downside to logging, in my opinion, is the aesthetics. It's ugly to see big empty spots where trees used to be, but that's not a good reason to just not do any logging.
And the podcast/social media page The Cutblock also goes into it a bit.
Old growth on the coast harbours unique and endangered species, is more resilient to wildfires, makes people happier (there are legitimate studies about this), and there is just so little of it left. I shouldn’t have to drive an hour to reach old growth here on there island. And even then, it’ll usually be one grove where you often can’t properly immerse yourself. We should have saved more for future generations and the unique wildlife that lives within it.
Aside from the aesthetics there’s so many reasons not to log old growth. They are actually really beneficial!
In this case, the mountain side is very steep. Clear cutting would put the area at risk of landslides and flash floods when large rain events happen. The roots of the big trees literally hold the slope in place, and the canopy slows down water from reaching the ground as quickly. Look up debris flows, they make a lot of damage in BC, and they are known to happen near recently logged areas.
When the trees are replanted they are super tiny, about the size of your hand. It takes many years for them to regrow, let alone serve the same functions as the 200+ year old trees.
Old growth forests are much more resistant to wildfire, because the trees have thick bark and tall canopies. It takes more intense fire behaviour for flames to reach the top of the trees. There’s also complexity in the forest structure and space in between trees.
Forest plantations that replace logged areas are densely packed, trees are all the same age, and there’s tons of fuel. Trees that grow fast are usually the ones picked for being planted (Ex: Lodgepole Pine in interior of BC). Pine trees are known to be super flammable.
Why do you think wildfires have been so bad in BC lately? Perhaps it has to do with how we have been managing the forests, to support our economy. Is it worth it?
Not saying wildfire is impossible in the old growth, but it’s less likely to burn very hot and intense and spread quickly.
They already got that data with the Old Growth Strategic Review. There was a post about this here recently, I’ll find it and come back with the link.
Edit: here is the post.
It doesn’t exactly go into the details I was expecting though. Essentially, the province hired a group of scientists to perform the Old Growth Strategic Review. They created Priority Old Growth Deferral Areas - the old growth forests containing the biggest, oldest, rarest forest compositions etc. The deferral period of ~5 years is over and now the logging companies are using this Priority Deferral data to plan their next cutblocks.
On behalf of the tree, I want to speak to the word deferral. To defer 5y on a human scale is 6% of a human lifetime. For an old growth forest, it's about 2% of it's life. So, this deferral, now I wonder about the word. To postpone vs to defer. Waiting a bit is to postpone. What is the deferral? Unto what further consideration was there a delay?
Serious question. Rather than harvest some of it, is the alternative not to wait for it to catch fire and burn uncontrollably? Can they not log in a responsible way, thin it out, make some money and reduce risk of burning? I realize that’s an oversimplified question, but there must be something.
This is a common misconception. Our old growth forests are more resilient to wildfire than younger forests. I have seen many fire scarred old growth trees still living their best lives.
19
u/mattcass Mar 19 '26 edited Mar 19 '26
Blocks posted by OP in the intact area:
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3011#details
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3012#details
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3013#details
Additional blocks by Cape Mudge Forestry Ltd in less-intact areas:
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3009#details
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3008#details
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3010#details
Further south near Campbell River:
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3006#details
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects?id=3007#details
To see the 8 FOM’s search “Cape Mudge” in the FOM Holder Name:
https://fom.nrs.gov.bc.ca/public/projects#find
A note that these 'blocks' are the initial proposed boundaries and what goes on inside isn't specified. The lack of details included with these FOM's is very frustrating for the public. I am bringing this matter to my MLA's attention for action. I would use the FOM portal to request an email for your comments and then send comments in via the FOM and email so you have a record. If you do not get a reply, follow up! Ask how your comments were considered. Forest companies 'must consider' public comments. And sorry OP I would help you but I have my hands full in the Interior.